Posts Tagged ‘woke’

Why are ‘Celebrities’ so Prone to Social Contagion and Virtue Display?

March 9, 2021 9 comments

In the past, I have written about unusually high rates of female celebrities reporting sexual abuse and the high levels of narcissism, attention Whoring and extra-woke SJW-ism among ‘celebrities’ in general. It is no secret that ‘celebrities’ (especially those in the entertainment sector) of western countries exhibit a lot of behaviors that are.. well.. uncommon among the general population of those countries. While I have my own theories about the reasons behind the apparent clustering of odd behavior patterns and life-experiences among those who are ‘celebrities’ or aspiring to be one, that is a topic best discussed in a future post. Maybe we can also discuss why western societies require ‘celebrities’ to an extent not necessary for other cultures and countries. Hint.. it has something to do with social atomization.

Now let us talk about another annoying pattern behavior of ‘celebrities’- namely their high susceptibility to social contagion and virtue display. What makes this behavior even more peculiar is that anybody with more than half-a-brain can see the hilarious fakeness of their behavior. Some of you might remember hearing all those jokes about Hollywood celebrities adopting black children from Africa about 10-15 years ago. Or how the children of actors, musicians and models started coming out gay, lesbian, queer etc at record numbers in past decade. While the rates of alternative sexual orientations do vary across different populations, it is a bit suspicious when those rates are 5-10 times those for rest of population.

With that in mind, let us talk about the latest social contagion spreading among ‘celebrities’. Have a look at the picture below to understand what I am talking about. FYI: I cam across this image on Twatter. While I was initially skeptical about the photo-montage, a little background research shows that it is factually accurate. Here is the one about Megan Fox and her son, Gwen Stefani and her son, Adele and her son and there are many more. So what are your theories about why so many ‘celebrities’ are enthusiastic about screwing over the developing identities of their children? Isn’t it also a bit odd that we almost never saw this sort of stuff before 2015-2016. If this isn’t an example of social contagion, I don’t know what is..

What do you think? Comments?

Two Funny and Very Topical YouTube Comedy Skits from Ryan Long

January 21, 2021 2 comments

A few months ago, I posted a link to a funny YouTube clip about all the similarities between ‘woke’ losers and plain old racists. Here are a couple more clips from the same channel.

The first clip, from about 5 months ago, is about how liberal internet personalities (such as pro-establishment bloggers, podcasters, influencers etc) will struggle to make content about anything else once in the aftermath of a Trump defeat. This one proved to be prophetic.

The second one is about how most corporations, but especially in Silicon Valley, promote superficial and meaninglessness “diversity” which is actually a form of conformism. Says a lot about the current state of corporations involved in producing entertainment that they cannot even match output quality of moderately well-known YouTube channels.

Enjoy! Comments?

Non-Woke Left Leaders are as Delusional as their ‘Woke’ Counterparts

July 12, 2020 10 comments

As regular readers know, I have a strong distaste and contempt for all ideologies- both traditional and secular. It is my opinion that every ideology, at its core, is a simplistic incomplete worldview which only serves to enrich its own priestly classes and maintain the status quo. Having said that, some ideologies are worse and more dangerous than others. For example, every single religious ideology which pretends to worship the “one true god” has caused far more unnecessary death and suffering than others which don’t pretend to care about such bullshit. Similarly, innocuous sounding ideologies such as LIEbralism are behind an incredible amount of evil- from genocide, race based slavery, colonialism, eugenics etc. And yes.. I can show that LIEbralism has caused many times more deaths than all forms of communism combined.

I have also made it quite clear that I detest all forms of CONservatism and LIEbralism, especially as they exist in western countries. With than in mind, let us talk about the contemporary “left”, specifically its two main branches- the “woke” left and non-woke left. It is, again, no secret that I have never had a great opinion about the “left”- for a number of reasons, ranging from their true motivations and biases, their political impotence, their addiction to virtue display and tendency to repeatedly adopt policies without carefully thinking through their consequences. It is therefore not surprising that center-left parties have lost power and their share of votes in many countries during past 20 years even though the population of those countries detest the right-wing parties currently in power. That is why, for example, Republicans are dominant political party in USA even though most people don’t care their ideology. But try telling that to MikeCA.

Anyway, for a long-time it was possible to believe that a significant part of the left’s failure in this and other western countries was due to contemporary LIEbralism aka “woke” left. And yes, again, there is no real difference between modern LIEbralism and “woke” left. It has however become apparent over the past few years that the non-woke left is as delusional, impotent and protective of status quo as the “woke” left. If this division of the left into “woke” and “non-woke” confuses you, here is a quick explanation. The “woke” left is almost entirely made up of people who pay lip service to a few leftist ideas such as reduction of inequality, worker rights, anti-racism etc but have no interest in changing the status quo. For them, racial equality is achieved when a black transgender “woman” murders a child in Afghanistan instead of some white “cis” man. Similarly sexual equality is reached when a woman CEO screws her employees as badly as her male version. You get what I am saying.. right?

For these scammers, it is all about identity politics on steroids combined with throwing some crumbs to collaborating oppressed minorities and organizing useless symbolic protests such as “pussy hat” marches- along with supporting causes such as “gun control, “environmentalism” etc. They have zero interest in changing the system and would be very unhappy if the problems they rail about (racism, inequality, poverty etc) were actually solved. If you think that this describes the democratic party in this country and center-left in most other western countries- you would be correct. But, some of you might ask.. why do these people persist at playing such a sad and pathetic game if they are not winning power? Well, there are two reasons. Firstly, people in this group are almost exclusively the product of social bubbles and a few educational institutions which demand ideological conformity for its own sake.

The second reason is more interesting and goes something like this.. in most western countries, members of a losing but main-stream party still retain most of the goodies of being in power. Therefore, most of them do not have to worry about trivial stuff as winning or losing elections. Let me remind me you that people like Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer or Darrell Issa, Kelly Loeffler, Greg Gianforte will always keep becoming richer (in the current status quo) irrespective of whether they win or lose future elections. And ya.. people such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren are duplicitous grifters just like their established counterparts. With that out of the way, let us talk about the non-woke left. Who are these people and are they even a thing? And where can you find members of this mythical tribe?

The non-woke left is best defined by what they allegedly focus on. For example, the non-woke left cares far more about issues such as reducing income and wealth inequality, universal healthcare, inexpensive higher education, worker’s rights, corporate monopolies and oligopolies rather than stuff like “trans” rights, “cultural appropriation” and “cancellation”. While they may pay lip-service to fashionable “progressive” causes such “tans” rights etc, it is very superficial. A good way to separate the non-woke left from the woke left is to ask whether racial inequality in this country is a race issue or a class issue. Those who say it almost all racism are of the “woke” variety while those who claim it is a class + race issue are of the non-woke left persuasion.

Another favorite question to separate them is as follows: does Immigration depress wages and benefit corporations at expense of workers? If they answer in the affirmative, they are non-woke. Some of might say.. but this does not appear so bad. In fact, these non-woke leftists seem to be fairly reasonable people. A lot of what they want seems very similar to what occurred in this country after FDR pushed the New Deal and similar programs. And you are right, the non-woke left is actually far more reasonable and realistic than phony “woke” left. So why am I saying that they are as delusional as their “woke” counterparts? Well.. it comes down how the non-woke left (more specifically, its leadership) has evolved over past ten years.

Some of you might remember a time when Bernie Sanders (who is currently busy licking the DNC’s soles) stood for policies such as restrictive immigration, opposition to “gun control” etc along with ideas such as higher minimum wages, socialized housing for the poor, singe-payer healthcare, drug decriminalization, corporate monopoly busting etc. So what happened to him and others like him? To make a long story short, leaders of the non-woke left found if far more profitable to be adjunct members of the “woke” left than strike out on their own- regardless of the consequences. The election of Trump in 2016 further sped up the process of non-woke left leaders pretending to be “woke”. But why does any of this matter in 2020 or after that?

A pretty significant minority of voters in this country have positions of the non-woke leftist type. They are often described as socially conservative but economically liberal voters or the opposite of coastal baby-boomers. In most elections, these people will either abstain or vote for democrats. However it has been clear to this group (which is also demographically younger than most) that voting for democrats is not a winning strategy for them. This is why Obama in 2012 (and HRC in 2016) could not get as many votes as he did in 20008. To make matters worse, the democratic party has embraced more and more “woke” positions and performative politics rather than actually delivering even a fraction of what they promise during campaign season.

And here is why it matters.. many younger people (irrespective of race) are not enthusiastic for voting for parties who have no interest in making their lives better. But they will vote for anybody who poses a credible threat to the grim status quo. That is why Trump won all those mid-western states in 2016. To make matters more interesting, recent polls show that even a grade A moron such as Trump has higher popularity among Black and Hispanic people than he had in 2016. It does not take a genius to figure out that this will translate into votes for Trump or, more likely, those people not voting for democratic candidate. Between this, economic fallout from COVID-19 and the fact that Joe Biden has dementia, we might see a far different result on Nov 4, 2020 than what many media pundits are pretending. But it gets worse..

A few republicans such as Josh Hawley, Marco Rubio and Tucker Carlson have already figured out that promising a notionally right-wing but welfare state is an excellent strategy to win future elections. Sure.. it might be just as racially discriminatory as USA during 1940s-1970s, but clearly there is a large audience for that sort of thing. The thing is.. people want to keep their big cars, plastic drinking straws and guns but are also very OK with single-payer healthcare, corporate monopoly busting, inexpensive university education etc. I would not be surprised to see such politicians pushing such policies get the support of a pretty large percentage of the traditional non-voters and disgruntled democrats- and win national elections.

See.. most people want universal healthcare, good jobs and careers, affordable housing and universities, limits on corporate power etc. They do not care about “trans” rights and other fashionable issues, environmentalism which hurts their lifestyle, people pushing new labels like ‘latinX’, cancel culture wars etc. They are tired of performative politics that delivers nothing concrete. Any politician or party faction which appeals to this silent majority (even a little) will win future elections in this country. Based on what I am seeing, it won’t be the democrats, but leaders of the non-woke left are too busy licking the soles of democratic party to figure that out or even care. I am sure that MikeCA has a convoluted rationalization for why it will be different.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Allegedly ‘Progressive’ Political Parties Keep Losing Elections: 3

December 28, 2019 29 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about why “woke” performative agendas which are so popular among the incestuous classes in charge of LIEbral and “progressive” parties throughout the west have driven the working class vote away from them, and towards right-wing parties. It does not help that these parties, once in power, either continue the right-wing policies of previous administrations or try to “compromise” with them. To make matters worse, leadership of LIEbral and “progressive” parties desperately want bourgeois social respectability and therefore lack the spine or balls to stand up for their beliefs. I also wrote that all their talk about “environment” and “climate change” also ends up alienating working-class voters. Here is why..

Some of you might remember that I had posted a (still to be completed) series about why belief in anthropogenic climate change was a form of secular apocalypticism. The very short version is as follows: belief in man-made climate change is a secular version of Catholicism and like every other religion is about controlling other people to benefit and enrich a few. So why is belief in this secular religion so toxic for the future of LIEbral and “progressive” political parties? More than a few of you must have heard about the Yellow vests movement in France, which is over a year old and has transformed into an anti-neoliberal movement. Do you know what started it? Well.. the neoliberal leaders of France decided to raise taxes on gasoline and diesel to make up for losses from corporate handouts and fulfill “environmental” mandates written by un-elected bureaucrats.

Turns out, that this was the last straw for people living in rural and other non-urban areas of France who had already suffered a multi-decade hollowing of their local economy through “free trade” and other neoliberal scams. This combination of neglect and exploitation of non-urban working class in France is the reason why parties such as the National Front (now National Rally) have a growing electoral presence in that country. Curiously, this is the same dynamic which has bolstered popular support for parties such as AfD in Germany, Freedom Party in Austria, Law and Justice Part in Poland etc. Meanwhile the increasingly impoverished and increasingly non-white urban working class in west European countries face this same problem by turning to ethnic and religious identitarianism in addition to occasional mass car-burnings and other acts of arson.

While corporate “media” in USA does not cover “inconvenient” news from outside USA, a few of you might have heard about recent protests by farmers in Germany, Netherlands, France, Ireland etc. While the list of grievances driving each of these protests is slightly different, the common thread running through these protests is being subject to new capricious laws and regulations written by faceless bureaucrats who have never worked with their hands for a single day in their life. So why are these protests becoming more frequent and larger? Shouldn’t the mechanisms of democracy reduce such conflicts over time? So why isn’t it happening? I am guessing you know the answer, don’t you. Now tell me, why would you expect people who live in rural and non-urban areas whose livelihoods are threatened by “environmental” and other regulations to vote for the very parties pushing for them. Would you vote for somebody bent on destroying your livelihood?

Many LIEbrals try to convince themselves that Trump’s rants against LED light-bulbs, low-flow toilets, windmill farms, EPA regulations for automobiles etc don’t have traction among voters. Anybody who has talked with people without blue-tick marks on Twitter or part of the incestuous circle of establishment LIEbrals will tell you that LEB light-bulbs are far less cost-effectiveness than they promise, low-flow toilets are functionally worse than their predecessors and wind-mill farms are not a reliable source of electricity. They will also tell you that the surge of crossovers in american automobile market has to do with how they are classified by unelected bureaucrats. Or have a look at the level of knowledge about firearms displayed by politicians exposing “anti-gun” policies. Why would you vote for people who are trying to immiserate you, talk down to you and generally make your life harder and worse? Did I mention that they have shown themselves to be not knowledgeable about the topics on which they make decisions.

Do these LIEbrals and “progressive” idiots understand the consequences of people working in coal mining and oil and gas extraction-processing not having a job or livelihood? Why should they trust these incestuous losers who look and talk down to then help them transition to “better” jobs? How has that worked for all those people who lost their livelihoods after their factory was moved to Mexico and China? Hasn’t the impoverishment of flyover states in the past 2-3 decades taught LIEbrals nothing? Haven’t they figured out that the electoral success of the republican party (and right-wing parties in other western countries) in such areas has far more to with the voters feeling abandoned by all those supposedly center-left parties? Do these LIEbral dumbfucks comprehend how much they are hated by people not living the few islands of relative prosperity? Are they even capable? You know that is a rhetorical question.. right?

In the next part of this series, I will go into more detail about how the various tactics used to sell bullshit scams such as “man-made climate change” and other parts of the secular religion known as environmentalism has ended up creating far more skeptics and non-believers than would otherwise be the case. Then again, the credentialed incestuous bunch of losers known as LIEbrals and “progressives” have never shown much ability to empathize with people who do not believe in their bullshit cults. Of course, they increasingly cannot win national elections either..

What do you think? Comments?

Why Allegedly ‘Progressive’ Political Parties Keep Losing Elections: 1

December 15, 2019 38 comments

Over the past few days, you might have heard that the Labor party in UK suffered a particularly humiliating electoral defeat in the most recent election in that country. Those who listen to dying lamestream news outlets might try to tell you that this something to do with Jeremy Corbyn and his ‘socialist’ policies. Other paid losers, might want to push the laughably bullshit narrative that this has something to do with the labor party being ‘anti-semitic’ which is now a code word for not giving carte blanche to Zionists. I plan to write, in another post, about the unpleasant blow-back brewing in most countries in response to this particular conflation. But for the moment, let us focus on why Labor lost in this election, but also why it did so well in first post-Brexit election of 2017. That is right.. Labor under Jeremy Corbyn did very well in 2017, but really bad in 2019.

The delusional losers, who constitute a rather large percentage of what passes for left-wing public intellectuals, want to pin the defeat down to anti-Corbyn propaganda by the establishment and its media lapdogs. Except that this was as big an issue in 2017 as in 2019. The few rational types among what now passes for the left have correctly pointed out that in 2019, Labor tried to go “normcore” by promising to hold a second vote which, for all practical purposes, was an attempt to negate the original Brexit vote. In contrast, the 2017 platform of Labor explicitly accepted the will of the people (in England, at least) and simply promised to negotiate withdrawal from the EU on terms which would cause the least disruption to the lives of most people. It is therefore no surprise that they gained votes during 2017 election in traditionally de-industrialized and poorer areas which had voted for Brexit, but then lost those same areas and more in 2019.

But the problems with Labor, and equivalent parties in other western countries go much deeper. The original attraction of people like Corbyn (and Bernie) was that they, unlike the credentialed neoliberal leadership class before them, could relate to the needs and aspirations of common people. Their focus on the problems of class, critiques of economic policies and understanding the needs of average people is what endeared them to their supporters. But that is not the focus of contemporary ‘left- leaning’ parties in the west. Instead, they and their cadre of advisers.. I mean credentialed circle-jerkers, spent most of time addressing “social” issues and taking ideological positions that are either irrelevant to most people or now frequently antagonistic. Confused.. let me explain. Let us start by talking about the support of the credentialed elite of these political parties for the transexual agenda, fake “wokeness” and politically-correct speech.

Tell me something.. in a country where more than half the people are struggling to survive from paycheck to paycheck (both USA and UK), how is supporting thetransexual agenda going to get the majority to support them. This is especially relevant since many people rightly see promotion of that agenda as an attempt to interfere in their personal lives and make them say ‘2+2=5’. How is blind support of the most delusionary parts of white woman feminism a winning strategy when a lot of men (white and non-white) have shitty jobs or often nothing going for them? How is a white guy who has worked in a slew of precarious and poorly paid jobs for his entire working life supposed to be privileged? How many times can you tell men who have lost their house in a divorce that they deserved that fate? How often can you tell men that they are irredeemable sexist pigs? And just how do you expect those who you sneer at, look down and belittle on a daily basis to vote for you come election day?

And it does not get any better when dealing with the ‘working class’. How many of the politicians in the Labor of 2019 (or democrats) actually have a working-class background or some real-life exposure to the realities of that lifestyle? More importantly, how many trace their roots to the petite bourgeoisie and professional types. Do they understand why these “working class’ types are opposed to immigrants who compete for jobs involving manual labor? Calling people racist, stupid and xenophobic because they are not gung-ho about polish or mexican immigrants, without credibly addressing the dismal states of many areas which aren’t parts of a few select prosperous cities is not a recipe for electoral success. Similarly, dismissing ‘working class’ cultural mores as cis-normative patriarchal or the latest “woke” epithet is not likely to win their votes.

To make matters worse, look how easily these parties crumble in the face of fake criticism from elite circle-jerkers. Did Corbyn stand up for all the politicians who had to resign because of clearly fake ‘antisemitism’ charges? Did he ever tell the elite circle-jerkers pushing those lies to just stuff it? Did he ever take a stand against the pushing the trans agenda, even though it is based on lies and will result in the mental scarring and physical mutilation of tens of thousands of kids? Did Labor pay back CONservative propaganda ads and bullshit in the same currency? Why should people trust you to represent their best interests against the rich and multi-national corporations if you can’t event stand up to a few vocal peddlers of the trans ideology? Why should voters trust political parties that do not really like them, cannot stand up for themselves and fight with one hand tied behind their back- all of which they are allegedly doing to restore the system.

See.. the thing is, the vast majority of people understand that the current system is shitty and incapable of substantive reform. They just want to burn down the whole thing and will go along with whoever promises that particular course of action. That is why Trump won in 2016 here and CONservatives in 2019 in UK. The problem with people like Corbyn and Sanders is that, though they understand public sentiments, they still want to save the system. Which is why both enter into compromises with people and vocal minorities who should instead should be subject to public ridicule. Treating political opponents with kids gloves, trying to maintain civility, bowing to whims of SJWs and worrying about your ideological legacy is how you lose to people such as Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. In the next part, I will go into why all that progressive talk about the “environment” and “climate change” is further alienating them from most voters.

What do you think? Comments?

Intersection of Narcissism, Attention Whoring and Extra Woke SJW-ism

February 7, 2019 6 comments

A few years ago, I wrote a short post about my thoughts on why female “celebrities” appear to have high rates of self-reported sexual abuse. The brief version of that article is as follows: show business attracts people with certain personality types- which is a nice way of saying that people who stay and succeed (even modestly) in that sector are pretty narcissistic and crave constant public attention or fame of any sort. Combine that with “gatekeeping” by rich and connected but largely talentless assholes (Harvey Weinstein etc), and it is a pretty ugly place to work. Also, let us stop pretending that women are “innocent” victims. They know exactly what is expected of them. There is a reason we have terms such as ‘casting couch’ and ‘stage mothers’.

Now let us extend this observation to its next logical outcome. Ever wonder why so many actors, actresses, musicians etc are into personality-based cults, alternative religious beliefs or various social causes? While some might want to believe that this has to do with them being nice human beings- the reality is far more sad and banal. To make a long story short, the type of outwardly pro-social behavior you see in showbiz has much more to do with the intersection of narcissism, attention whoring and increasingly pathetic trying to remain relevant. There is a reason why the “celebrities” who support allegedly pro-social causes are either way past their prime (Alyssa Milano, Chelsea Handler, Debra Messing etc), not attractive (Amy Schumer, almost all female comedians, Lena Dunham etc) or trying to get back in public eye (almost any female celebrity).

So how bizarre can this sad intersection of narcissism, attention whoring and extra woke SJW-ism get? Well, let me illustrate with a story. But before we go there, here is the standard boilerplate disclaimer. This story, all names, characters and incidents portrayed in it are completely fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places or products etc is intended or should be inferred. Any why did I put this disclaimer before telling you the story. You will see..

The story starts with an attractive busty girl in her late teens who was pushed into modeling by her mother whose ambitions to become a famous model never came to fruition. So she gets into print catalog modeling, is reasonably successful and moves into TV ads. So far so good. She ends up having a very brief marriage in her very early 20s which ends in a quick divorce. Again.. that, by itself, is unremarkable. Then by a stroke of luck, a respectable adult magazine recognizes her physical attributes and pays her a low six-figure sum to pose nude. This exposure results in her getting some acting roles and more modelling contracts. At the top of her acting career, she is a C or D list celebrity. So far, her career path is neither unusual or remarkable.

But biology, you see, can be a bitch. The same genes which gave her a busty figure and mature look when she was in her late teens starts making her look a decade older. She tries networking in showbiz to get bigger roles, with some initial success. At around this time, she becomes one of the.. well.. regular non-exclusive sexual partners of a famous showbiz couple. However this gig does not translate into her getting the guy or bigger movie roles. After a few years, she decides to quit or (or is thrown out of that arrangement) and ends up dating and then marrying a C or D list actor- but one with a regular and decent paycheck. She immediately decides to have a child and within a year or so, gives birth to a male child. For the next 3-4 years, things appear normal.

And then the fun begins.. a few years into the marriage, she decides to start dating other women. Once again, this is not especially unusual by the standards of showbiz. However, for reasons that will be apparent later, she ends up with a lesbian showbiz type who goes out of her way to look masculine and has expressed interest in “transitioning”. Did I mention that this new person has apparently no talent and seems to have found success entirely due to her identity as a lesbian woman. Then again, many in showbiz have no talent.. so who cares. And this is where things start to get interesting. Within two weeks of starting this relationship, the once D-list actress abruptly declares that she has become a vegan and activist on all her social media profiles.

And then things take an even more interesting turn.. if you can call it that. She starts posting photos of her young male child in increasingly feminine hairstyle and clothing. In the beginning it is quite subtle, but then it starts becoming really obvious. Over next few months, she transforms her male child to the point where she starts referring to him as her daughter. The male child in question is less than 6 years old. What makes all of this a bit peculiar is the timing, specifically the fact that it started almost immediately after she dumped her husband and starting dating a lesbian woman who tries very hard (and in vain) to appear masculine. Also for some reason the publicly posted photos of her child start having lots of rainbow symbolism.

What makes this even more peculiar is that all publicly posted videos of child (by her) do not show any obvious feminine body language. Then ways things are going, there is a pretty good that this male child will end up getting puberty-blocking drugs and gender reassignment surgery or become totally estranged from his mother.. or maybe both. Who knows? The point I am trying to make is that this situation is almost entirely due to the desire of his mother to regain some popular relevance and attention, which feeds into her narcissism and compensates for the fact that she looks 10-15 years older than she should look- and will therefore never have the showbiz career she dreamed about in past. We also cannot forget the role of her partner- who has her own sordid past. But ya.. it is still mostly about the mother.

Readers might have noticed that I did not make any claims that the woman is abusing her child. Why not? Well.. because I don’t care about this sordid saga beyond its value as an interesting short story in the depths of human depravity. And make no mistake, what she is doing is no worse than female genital mutilation as practiced by people belonging to a certain religious faith who originate from some middle-eastern and north-African countries. Some mutilate their child to, ostensibly, satisfy a bronze-age deity.. others do it to express their enthusiastic embrace of a new secular religion. What is the difference? And one more thing.. This story, all names, characters and incidents portrayed in it are completely fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places or products etc is intended or should be inferred. Kapish?

What do you think? Comments?