Movies - short reviews, recommendations, opinions, discussions...

WARNING: The thread will contain spoilers. Recently I watched:

Ender's Game

It's a movie about a group of kids (aged 12-15 or so) who are trained from young age in warfare to become soldiers and defend humans against an alien threat. Ultimately, they end up being given control of an entire army and exterminate the aliens while still thinking they're just playing a game.

Firstly, obviously there's too many non-whites and women there for the entire thing to be realistic. Based purely on ability it would be only white and maybe some Asian men. This forced diversity is a cancer.

Secondly, humans reach their peak intellectual development sometime in their late teens/twenties - even exceptional kids would likely not be as competent as slightly less exceptional adults.

The movie promotes the idea that if you know your enemy, you must end up loving them in the same way they love themselves - this is a typical modern conflation of empathy and sympathy that's been discussed here already. So the protagonist, after unwittingly conducting the genocide of the aliens, feels bad about it and complains how they exterminated an entire species.

This is just more emotional leftist bullshit.
- Out-group preference of aliens over humans
- There is a real genocide going on, the genocide of white people, yet you'll not hear much complaints about that
- The aliens are not the first or the last species to go extinct, we don't cry about the countless other species that went extinct throughout history
- On an individual level, any organism that doesn't reproduce has gone "extinct", yet we don't cry about that either
- So yes, natural selection is merciless, organisms and groups compete for energy to reproduce themselves, and some lose - tough shit

Aliens are enemies, they are competitors for energy, they are not part of the in-group, and thus destroying them cannot possibly be "immoral". The well-being of aliens doesn't enter into the equation of what is moral, the well-being of the in-group, in this movie humanity, does.

The more interesting discussion is:
- Does the entirety of humanity (or in general, any group) deserve to be saved just because of the competence of a small group of people within it? I've implicitly supported this idea in the past, though there may be an inevitable accumulation of degeneracy and weakness which is being sheltered. But that may be only characteristic of societies with permissive, lenient rules which permit for such a thing, and not an intrinsic property of society in general.

- As Impulso Oscuro pointed out elsewhere, perhaps the absolute domination of all enemies is nihilistic, presumably in that it leads to a lack of conflict and thus stagnation. Then again, we might be missing out on great benefits by not destroying our enemies, and as long as we are aware of the need for conflict to remain healthy and virile, it may be possible to manufacture artificial forms of conflict until a new real enemy turns up.

A parameter to consider, without having watched the film, is the gradual normalization of paedophilia, by presenting mature adolescents as leading the way towards a Utopian paradise on earth.
This is how they gradually seed minds with insinuations that will bear fruit in the future.

Paedophilia will be the next paraphilia to be normalized. It will be itself on age discrimination, ageism, and the ability to give consent.
Beastiality will be the next, as it will take a redefinition of sentience.

You two are too much sometimes.

Satyr wrote:

A parameter to consider, without having watched the film, is the gradual normalization of paedophilia, by presenting mature adolescents as leading the way towards a Utopian paradise on earth.
This is how they gradually seed minds with insinuations that will bear fruit in the future.

Have you ever been diagnosed of having some sort of paranoia condition?

the doomsayer

So, 80's movies, 70's movies, with children in lead roles, is some secret nwo agenda of pedophiles? Snoopy, Peanuts, is secret pedophile propoganda, because it depicts children as more wise than adults?

I wont deny that some of the rich elite are pedophiles, I think PizzaGate is real. But this conspiracy hubris has to stop.

I have addressed your bestiality doomsaying in another thread.

AutSider wrote:

WARNING: The thread will contain spoilers. Recently I watched:

Ender's Game

It's a movie about a group of kids (aged 12-15 or so) who are trained from young age in warfare to become soldiers and defend humans against an alien threat. Ultimately, they end up being given control of an entire army and exterminate the aliens while still thinking they're just playing a game.

Firstly, obviously there's too many non-whites and women there for the entire thing to be realistic. Based purely on ability it would be only white and maybe some Asian men. This forced diversity is a cancer.

Forced diversity is kind of cancer, actually, it breaks the 4th wall, because it puts focus on what the director is doing.

autsider wrote:

The movie promotes the idea that if you know your enemy, you must end up loving them in the same way they love themselves - this is a typical modern conflation of empathy and sympathy that's been discussed here already. So the protagonist, after unwittingly conducting the genocide of the aliens, feels bad about it and complains how they exterminated an entire species.

This is just more emotional leftist bullshit.
- Out-group preference of aliens over humans
- There is a real genocide going on, the genocide of white people, yet you'll not hear much complaints about that
- The aliens are not the first or the last species to go extinct, we don't cry about the countless other species that went extinct throughout history
- On an individual level, any organism that doesn't reproduce has gone "extinct", yet we don't cry about that either
- So yes, natural selection is merciless, organisms and groups compete for energy to reproduce themselves, and some lose - tough shit

How much time, on average, do you spend around other human beings?

Heaven help it if a child, after genociding millions of people, feels bad about it.

autsider wrote:

Aliens are enemies, they are competitors for energy, they are not part of the in-group, and thus destroying them cannot possibly be "immoral". The well-being of aliens doesn't enter into the equation of what is moral, the well-being of the in-group, in this movie humanity, does.

The movie clearly implies that in such cases, there is moral ambiguity, and that humanity was "the good guys" for wiping them out. Furthermore, they weren't merely wiped out for competition of "energy", but because they tried to attack planet Earth two times already.

autsider wrote:

The more interesting discussion is:
- Does the entirety of humanity (or in general, any group) deserve to be saved just because of the competence of a small group of people within it? I've implicitly supported this idea in the past, though there may be an inevitable accumulation of degeneracy and weakness which is being sheltered. But that may be only characteristic of societies with permissive, lenient rules which permit for such a thing, and not an intrinsic property of society in general.

Deserved or ought? Deserved is a fictitious emotional word. Owed is more of a sensible word. Is humanity owed salvation? Not really but it's the right thing to do.

I spend more time around others than I'd prefer to. Not much.

Trixie wrote:

Heaven help it if a child, after genociding millions of people, feels bad about it.

The "child" is supposed to be a tactical genius, so surely he would be able to realize that the aliens are enemies and that by eliminating them he saved his own group and that therefore his emotions are a primitive reaction that don't fit the circumstances and ought to be modified through willpower and reason.

The movie doesn't just imply that there is moral ambiguity, but that somehow the humans were "evil" for destroying their enemies. But not just this, it bothers me how I know that these exact people who made the movie would ignore actual genocides that happen in reality, only to construct this fictional narrative where humans commit a genocide and must self-flagellate because of it. It's the hypocrisy and virtue signalling that irritate me. Shitting on whites in favor of the outgroup (non-whites) isn't enough, now we must shit on all humans in favor of non-humans?

I mean, some of these animal loving faggots already do this. They say how animals are all nice and cute and innocent but humans are eeeviiiil and we don't deserve to share the planet with dogs and cats.

Shitting on your own group in favor of the out-group has been made into a virtue. Treason is now a virtue. Like when the "genius tactician" kid carried that last baby bug to a new planet because of guilt.

Imagine you want to defeat Nazis and you finally think you've done it, but your genius tactician took a little baby Hitler clone to a new planet because he felt bad, so the baby Hitler grows up to create a 4th Reich and exterminates your group and gasses all the poor Jews. What then, huh?

Also, I've observed that only white people feel this "guilt" and want to "make things right". No other race seems to give a shit.

Did they attack Earth two times? I thought it was only once. But WHY did they attack? Because of energy. They tried to make a colony because of their unsustainable population growth rate on their home planet. Ultimately, it is all about energy and who will get to use it to reproduce.

It's not a horrible movie, but it's still a Hollywood movie.

Hey, if women can do it and kids can do it, why not infants too?

Why couldn't infants outsmart and make fun of adult men?

This shouldn't be a comedy - it should be a serious movie. To say otherwise is pure ageist hatred and bigotry.



In the 1990s, this idea might have been comedy, like the idea of women voting might have been a comedy in even darker times, like the 1890s, but we have progressed SO MUCH since then. It is 2018.

It's time for infants to be equal with adults.

DOWN WITH AGEISM

Did Nazis give kids equality? No they didn't. So if Nazis didn't give kids equality, and you don't give kids equality, what does that make you?

Exactly, you fascist.

NOW GIBS THEM DAT EQUALITY

AutSider wrote:

I spend more time around others than I'd prefer to. Not much.

Trixie wrote:

Heaven help it if a child, after genociding millions of people, feels bad about it.

The "child" is supposed to be a tactical genius, so surely he would be able to realize that the aliens are enemies and that by eliminating them he saved his own group and that therefore his emotions are a primitive reaction that don't fit the circumstances and ought to be modified through willpower and reason.

The movie doesn't just imply that there is moral ambiguity, but that somehow the humans were "evil" for destroying their enemies. But not just this, it bothers me how I know that these exact people who made the movie would ignore actual genocides that happen in reality, only to construct this fictional narrative where humans commit a genocide and must self-flagellate because of it. It's the hypocrisy and virtue signalling that irritate me. Shitting on whites in favor of the outgroup (non-whites) isn't enough, now we must shit on all humans in favor of non-humans?

I dont recall anyone in the movie setting themselves on fire or committing suicide, only feeling some guilt about it. Also I dont recall the movie painting the humans in that negative of a light. The vibe of the movie I got was, "At the end of the day, the ends justify the means, and that war is hell otherwise we would be fond of it, we have to do shit we aren't proud of, and things which make us feel bad, to make a better galaxy." Thats the vibe I got however its been a while since I saw the movie and I only saw it once.

And yes there is a Hollywood "agenda" as hollywood is ran mostly by jews. Hitler killed 6 million jews so he is always the go-to bad guy, and they conviently ignore other genociders, like winston churchill who killed 6 million indians, or the russians who killed 66 million of their own kind, or the genocides of Indonesia, mostly because the world is made to be ignorant and fed a narrow set of educational values.

Quote :

I mean, some of these animal loving faggots already do this. They say how animals are all nice and cute and innocent but humans are eeeviiiil and we don't deserve to share the planet with dogs and cats.

Mostly its because humans are destroying nature and often are intentionally sadistic. Though it is true there are some species which are worse than humans like some plaguous insects for instance. Or that some beasts eat other animals alive which is a form of torture. However the argument is that "humans should know better than beasts" so it essence the reaction is a father being angry at a child for not living up to his expectations.

Quote :

Shitting on your own group in favor of the out-group has been made into a virtue. Treason is now a virtue. Like when the "genius tactician" kid carried that last baby bug to a new planet because of guilt.

I don't remember that scene but I will take your word for it. But I would imagine a guess that that scene was put in there to make open the possibility of a sequel and to drive a point home that he made a stupid decision and would lead up to a movie about having to defend against an alien horde all over again.

Quote :

Imagine you want to defeat Nazis and you finally think you've done it, but your genius tactician took a little baby Hitler clone to a new planet because he felt bad, so the baby Hitler grows up to create a 4th Reich and exterminates your group and gasses all the poor Jews. What then, huh?

Hitler wasn't that unusual of a person, genetically. He had a rough life, his mother died at an early age due to a Jew doctor. He was unemployed and rejected by his art teacher and told his art was trash. Germany was in a state of decay, depression, and poverty and the general public was depressed and angry. He experienced homelessness and being constantly banned over and over. He was exposed to literature about a Jew conspiracy and viewed himself as a hero fighting against some kind of conspiracy. In the war he was blinded by gas and whatever squad he was in, all of his squadmates died except him. So it kind of made him cold. I also heard he had a psychological effect of being blind for many months, despite his eyes actually functioning, so I think something affected his mind negatively.

I'm saying if hitler was born into a utopia he'd probably be a nice person and make his own business like elon musk or something.

Quote :

Also, I've observed that only white people feel this "guilt" and want to "make things right". No other race seems to give a shit.

Mostly because whites have more mirror neurons and deeper humanity. I have often wondered why Indians (of India) are considered the true Aryans when they seem to subjugate everyone into a vicious caste system which denies certain groups their humanity. However they do seem to have sympathy for cows and other animals.

At the same time, there are many black Americans who care about their fellow human being. The more militant blacks are just bitter like someone in a family feud. And there are some blacks who are just n-words with no mirror neurons and don't even care about their own race. One time this n-word posted on a thread about how a white cop shot a black man in cold blood, and the n-word said he was happy about it, he didn't even give a shit and started posting illegible nonsense about drugs hoes and having a party with his friends.

The other thing is that blacks have been slow to the tech race and so never had the organization or tech to really globalize or conquer other parts of the world. Thus history schools never really showcase the atrocities black gangs and warlords have committed and only focus on white atrocities. So most people are simply ignorant of black atrocities and thus only complain about the stuff whites did since the whites have globalized more.

Quote :

Did they attack Earth two times? I thought it was only once. But WHY did they attack? Because of energy. They tried to make a colony because of their unsustainable population growth rate on their home planet. Ultimately, it is all about energy and who will get to use it to reproduce.

It's not a horrible movie, but it's still a Hollywood movie.

Yes and I believe their government should have sterilized a percentage its own population rather than murder other planets. Obviously the aliens were savages with politicians who could not be reasoned with for the greater good. And their own politicians drove them to extinction with their bad decisions.

The movie is pretty good and solid. There is a 'quota' on minorities and a female in the movie. As mentioned, in reality, whites and asians (males) would consist of top gamers throughout the world. But it is a team-effort and they need to pull from all the talent around the world, or off-world. Essentially it's "humanity's best".

There isn't really any sexual content / paraphilia in the movie. So Satyr obviously needs to *watch the movie*.

I agree with the conclusion. It's a very liberal-leftist white-guilt ending. Whites are supposed to feel bad, not proud and happy, about dominating the galaxy. That's really the "message" of the movie. Win, but have white-guilt, otherwise your absolute winning is unjustified. Don't feel proud of your dominance.

Regardless of that, I kind of like the fact that Ender saved the ant-queen and put her in a museum/zoo. That's pretty humorous to me. Dominate all your enemies, then put them in a zoo. Lol.


It's one of the better movies/themes of the last 50 years. I can get on-board with Ender's Game.

Another note:

To Autsider, another big point of the movie, is that children have to be 'tricked' into being dominant ass-kicking warriors. It's an underhanded sleight. It's a trick to absolve kids of white-guilt... up to the point that they murder and genocide everybody. Did you notice this point? It's *okay* to murder everybody and be dominate as a white person, but only within the frame of a video-game, and only while being tricked/used to some greater purpose (the general's motive).

LOL

Did you guys miss that?

I think the motive of the movie is legitimate.

To 'win' at all costs, you need all the constraints and limitations removed. You need to treat war, as a game. That's the underlying point of the movie. A child's innocence is also another great point. Children have no inhibitions. So by the time they are indoctrinated, they lose potential. I think that's why Ender's game is about children, not teenagers or young adults. In terms of indoctrination, even by the age of 16-22, young people are tainted. They're inhibited already. The movie is about 'pure' inhibition, taking off all shackles and snares.

Treating war like a game, to be won, is the hypothetical 'future' method of dominating opponents, the top of strategy.

I think Satyr meant that the mere introduction of kids as on the level of adults might be used to gradually normalize pedophilia.

He didn't merely save the queen's baby, he promised to find it a new home (presumably a planet) and then went traveling the universe in a ship in search of it. So the bug race might eventually become a threat to humans again. Genius tactical move, just genius.

I didn't notice the white guilt aspect of it but yes, it is about how artificial realities can be used to desensitize us to real, actual violence, and how this can be dangerous because with modern technologies the distinction can be flimsy.

Technically, life itself is a game, a zero-sum game of competition for energy. Winning requires removing some constraints and imposing others. Specifically, it requires imposing self-affirming constraints and removing self-defeating constraints (like "I am evil if I destroy my enemy").

Not all education taints people with bad inhibitions - only leftist, subversive, self-defeating indoctrination does.

EDIT:

Also, ends always justify the means. How could it be any other way? If you think that something which is a means doesn't justify some end, it simply means that you're treating what is the means in that situation as an end itself.

Æon wrote:

I think the motive of the movie is legitimate.

To 'win' at all costs, you need all the constraints and limitations removed.  You need to treat war, as a game.  That's the underlying point of the movie.  A child's innocence is also another great point.  Children have no inhibitions.  So by the time they are indoctrinated, they lose potential.  I think that's why Ender's game is about children, not teenagers or young adults.  In terms of indoctrination, even by the age of 16-22, young people are tainted.  They're inhibited already.  The movie is about 'pure' inhibition, taking off all shackles and snares.

Treating war like a game, to be won, is the hypothetical 'future' method of dominating opponents, the top of strategy.

There is no civilization or community or any cohesive social group without limitations and helping the inferior at the cost of superior and re-defining superior/inferior according to whats best for the community.
Its like Trump never paying out on the last transfer after the job was already done to various building contracting companies throughout his career, every man for himself, 'strategizing' and ending with a Jewish dick deep in your anus as a nation.

AutSider wrote:

I think Satyr meant that the mere introduction of kids as on the level of adults might be used to gradually normalize pedophilia.

Yes...children gradually introduced into adult roles showing judgment...and so able to give consent.

They used a similar method before transsexuals 'came out' and began being normalized.
I noticed how homosexuals were not simply present, but were becoming increasingly flamboyant...wearing women's clothing, make-up, acting like 'flaming fags'.
They were not only there, they were font row and centre. Then some hints during newscasts where this new fetish was being discussed.
Boys trapped in girls bodies....on 60' minutes....and so on. girls who play hockey on all-boys teams.

Now we have women who are kick-ass fighters, beating up everyone, and ti all began with GI Jane...and those kinds of hints.

Now I see this slow introduction of prepubescent, or even adolescent, girls/boys in mature roles.  
I'm seeing no hints at bestiality....no inter-species subtle messages.
This makes me believe that paedophilia is the next paraphilia to be normalized.
Of course it will happen gradually...not with ten-year-olds but subtle...like Lolita, barely teenager girls boys, involved with adults in erotic relationships...flirting, and so forth.  
Teenagers that act and think more maturely than actual adults...things like that.
This is how you habituate the masses with an idea.
They may test the waters before hand...with a film about some man who is involved with a teenage boy with sexual undertones, but friendly, like a big brother....and the man is wrongly accused, and then love finds a way to the top. The boy intervenes to protect his 'friend'.
Things like that.

But, I'm "paranoid"....so never-mind.

I dunno, maybe you will be right after all. In hearthstone there is a card called "validated doomsayer" where he is "right all along."

But I just don't see pedophilia as having a large audience. There are tons of gays and men who wish they were women. But if some liberal were to make a "Pedophile Support Group" there would probably be 3 fat old men who attended, the rest of the men would be afraid to even show up. And during the meeting they would just try to convert the Pedophiles, as a support group, into a normal sexuality.

Mainly I don't believe pedophilia will ever catch on because it is not physical, there is no genetics behind it. I think pedophiles are men who were abused by adult women, so they search for children instead. What I am saying is, there is no "burning need" in people to be a pedophile. Say someone is dating a teenage chick, like 16. I don't think there is a slippery slope where they will want someone like an 8 year old. I think they will be fine with 16 because that is naturally when women are fertile. I don't think it will ever slippery slope to 8 years old because there is no genetic basis behind it.

hypothesis:

satyr wrote:

Yes...children gradually introduced into adult roles showing judgment...and so able to give consent.

They used a similar method before transsexuals 'came out' and began being normalized.

Not sure I know what you are talking about. If we are talking about the West. Before transsexualism was popular in the West the transsexuals shown in the media were mostly adult males. Unless you are talking about Hindu transsexualism which was already in the public for thousands of years.

Far as Bestiality it is already normalized and popular, that is why I doubt pedophilia will ever be popular. Your order of events seems wrong, since there are already a bunch of furry conventions and down south the confederates make it legal to have sex with animals, and bestiality has already been popular in third-world countries for a long time. If anything it would be the Liberals who put rules and restrictions on animal sex. Also, the furries seem to be their own worst enemy as they are making themselves unpopular by generally being junkie degens who trash every hotel they reserve.

Imagine he would not have pulled that knife and they would have actually handed him over to the Greek police. What kind of a Bond villain and what kind of a lame James Bond would that have been?
Besides the hypocrisy, (Bond kills a helpless guy for revenge just earlier in the movie) it’s bad writing, out of character for the whole movie as if somebody had to tack on that cuckold morality. Something like this does not happen in the novel apparently.
The audience shall have all the blood and guts they want but when it comes to relatable themes like revenge, know that you better turn the other cheek and let the British police do their faggot approved job. Otherwise we might end up with an uprising from the local peasantry.

Anfang wrote:

Imagine he would not have pulled that knife and they would have actually handed him over to the Greek police. What kind of a Bond villain and what kind of a lame James Bond would that have been?
Besides the hypocrisy, (Bond kills a helpless guy for revenge just earlier in the movie) it’s bad writing, out of character for the whole movie as if somebody had to tack on that cuckold morality. Something like this does not happen in the novel apparently.
The audience shall have all the blood and guts they want but when it comes to relatable themes like revenge, know that you better turn the other cheek and let the British police do their faggot approved job. Otherwise we might end up with an uprising from the local peasantry.

bond was always a cuck and obedient to the state, that is the theme of goldeneye.

As time goes on the bond movies seem less hypocritical. the divergence between the state and masculine ideals has travelled so apart that bond now rebels against the police state. Whether this trend shall continue is up to the moguls.

If the state actually represented White patriarchy then being of service to the state would not be cucking.

Pierce Brosnan is 1995 to 2002 Bond and that's in a way a high point of feminism/cucking.
Craig is a "dinosaur" as they call him in modern Cuckistan. The cucking has become transparent, it is known, outspoken.
It's quite interesting because, the movies in general don't get much love across for the state/the agency, you side with Bond and really it's a fight between him and the villain.
Bond is usually not very enthusiastic at the beginnings of an investigation. He goes through the motions of following orders but what gets him going is that things happen early on, like some friend gets killed or he gets threatened, and then it's Bond versus the villain and his henchmen on a personally motivated basis.
That's the emotional attachment the audience has with the movie plot, quite frankly I doubt people care if you tell them a million strangers are going to die if you don't stop Spectre.

But in terms of cucking something has changed and with Craig even more, Bond now gives a shit, emotionally, about M. With the older Bonds it was more of a "blabla, yeah, yeah, now let me go to the Bahamas and investigate the women there and have a fight with the villain."

OnWithTheirHead wrote:

bond was always a cuck and obedient to the state, that is the theme of goldeneye.

In most movies, TV shows and so on behaving like an obedient cuck to some external authority is what is promoted as "good", while acting as a sovereign entity is portrayed as "evil".

An example of a character that acts as a sovereign entity is Hannibal. He acts in accordance with his own preferences and values, imposes his own will on the world, and utterly disregards the state enforced morality, popular opinions, etc.

A similar character from a similar franchise - Dexter, is kind of the opposite. He is completely mentally enslaved by the memes of his time and place and the dominant authority's morality and seems completely incapable of independent thought.

I think Nietzsche would call this master vs slave morality.

I just tried watching Spiderman 1, and this is the starting scene:



Just listen to that whiny, weak, effeminate voice speaking... "like any story worth telling, this story begins with a gurrrl" - and this faggot is who we're supposed to sympathize with, then it shows the girl with some Chad guy and then he says "wow, obviously she's a worthless slut getting screwed by Chad, but I'm a cuckold little bitch and I don't mind taking sloppy seconds". Well that second one might have been my interpretation, not an actual quote.

Seriously though, probably like 95% of entertainment out there is cuckold programming, whether intentional or not.

Yes but the whole story of spiderman revolves around him being a beta male.

I dont think spiderman is a cuck but a beta male. He has severe anger and jealousy issues at times and doesnt really fulfill the role of a true cuck.

cucks typically are not incel and can get a girlfriend sometimes, that is why they are usually blueballed by women and tend not to disagree with the popular female sentiment. whereas betamales are fed up and usually turn into angry incels.

if anything parker would have turned into a school shooter in 5 years had he not turned into spiderman.

The Mummy - An entertaining, light-hearted adventure movie with a toxically masculine, shitlord white male lead and a pretty female with ladylike mannerisms. Plot-wise it's silly fantasy, but who cares.

A scene from the movie:



This is how you deal with stuff.

A feminine psychological manipulation tactic the likes of which have been discussed here already is that "true dominance is if you get permission to dominate"

So you see, the guy above who carried that woman and told the other men what to do, isn't actually dominant, because he didn't ask for their permission.

Like in the wilderness, when one wolf humps another and mock-penetrates him, it isn't actually dominance, cause he didn't get the permission to do that from the other wolf, lol

The basic idea is paradoxical, it states that in order to be dominant you have to only restrict yourself to actions approved by the other party, so in order to be "dominant" you have to be dominated.

It is essentially the weak trying to trick the strong that being submissive is "dominance", so that the weak can seize actual dominance for themselves.

Ah the good ol' days of movies.

The ol adagio moves.


As much as I love adagio moves, I fear all forms of roughhousing are being outlawed. In this way, we must "ask permission" from the State and feminists, in order to be allowed to dominate. There is a kind of "secret code" amongst those in the know, not to snitch to police except in serious affairs.

Gomorra(h) - la serie

Have only seen the first episode but it looks promising.
Italian with english subtitles.

The series Gomorra is doing the Game of Thrones thing.
Lots of characters get introduced and then killed off in a couple of episodes.

We follow one character as he accomplishes something, his plan, and then it all gets torn down again and we follow another character doing his thing which then gets torn down again.

How to invert the hero's journey.
The character is in a messy situation because of what happened last round, he has some success, some relief and at the end it all gets messed up again and torn down for the next round. That's the inverted hero's journey arc.

Minority Report

A movie where a special group of humans named precogs can predict crimes - mainly, murders. Why can't they predict other crimes? The explanation given was something like "there is nothing as destructive to the metaphysical fabric that binds us as murder of one human being by another". Gave me a good laugh.

The movie starts with a scene where a wife is cheating on her husband and then they prevent the husband from murdering them and lock him up. So I was reminded that even if we get such awesome technologies now, they'd be in service of the modern political system. So it's better to subvert and destroy them, as I don't want my enemies to grow in power.

It's a watchable movie overall.

Twilight Saga

I decided to watch these movies past few weeks. They're not even that bad.

It's all about a white chick cucking some beastly prairie nigger with her pale white skinned, Aryan ubermensch, trad boyfriend. It's implicitly white supremacist.

Aside from that, the movies are pozzed. There is everything, from nigger vampires to strong independent wimminz.

And the entire thing with Edward and Jacob obsessing over Bella is just nauseating.

Also, I'm rewatching DBZ Abridged.



Vegeta is definitely the funniest character, especially later on.

Pride and Glory

Jimmy Egan did nothing wrong.



But of course the masculine white guy who has a beautiful, feminine white wife and lots of white children and kicks shitskin ass can’t be the “good guy” in a movie and has to get killed by some shitskins in the end. Yeah, he broke (((the law))) in the movie but, you know… it is (((the law))) and not the Natural Law. He got to brutalize shitskins and got money for that, props to him. That’s kind of like a RWDS. Of course I don’t advocate anything illegal.

So why was he fucked in the end?

Aside from being betrayed by fellow officer Sandy-nigger, because the meek voiced, traitorous bugman Edward Norton who delivers unwanted presents to his quadroon girlfriend, trying to appease her like the beta bitch he is, cares more about (((the law))) and some shitskin being killed than his own family, so he sold him out. The cuck idiot cuffed Jimmy in front of a rioting rabble of shitskins and was then surprised when they proceeded to kill him.

As usual, the "bad guy" is really the good guy.

That series I've been watching for a few episodes and that I mentioned in the earlier posts, which I shall not mention by name, turned out to be the creation of some Ficus lovers.
At least that's what it looks like judging by how it developed after the first episode. I skipped through the first season and it got worse and worse. Ficus lovers and their obsession with bodily-waste-fluids..., which is where we come full circle with the Ficus actions.


Ad Minority Report,
I like most Tom Cruise movies, this one is fairly good as well even though it was directed by the Spiel-berg.

I've been looking into old school action movies, a few notes on subtle propaganda:

Die Hard series
- Out of the entire team of evil German guys (yeah, I know, lol) the black guy is the computer nerd. Seems likely.
- Blacks are written to behave as if they were white
- The "bad guys" were usually handsome, young, European men
- The protagonist is assisted by some black in eliminating these bad guys, in most movies
- The protagonist acts like a supplicating, apologetic beta to his career feminist strong independent wife
- The general who fought communists portrayed as a bad guy

Lethal Weapon
- Kind-of nigger-acting white guy, and white-behaving nigger.
- Nigger has a hot daughter who looks mostly white
- Evil racist South Africans the antagonists in one movie of the series

The poz runs deep. You can probably find stuff like this in almost everything made after WWII.

So there are only really tolerable and intolerable levels of poz.

Also, two good, light-hearted but prophetic movies I enjoyed

Idiocracy - the decline of intelligence

Demolition Man - the decline of masculinity or more generally, a decline of a life-affirming attitude towards... eh, life.

King Arthur

A lot of freedom and equality propaganda in a movie set in Roman times. Also cringey women warriors.

The concept of knights of the round table being equal, as there is no head on the table, was interesting but ultimately hypocritical because Arthur was still their leader whom they had to obey. Though one could also interpret it as meaning that hierarchies aren't predetermined by some rules but determined through competition and consent.

Saxon leader was a good character, one of his soldiers wanted to rape a woman after conquest and he kicked him off her and I think "oh shit, a moral fag" then he proves me wrong and says "don't breed with these people, they'll give you weak offspring"

EDIT: Yep, from IMDB, a factual error in the movie:

"Pelagius did not advance a theory of political freedom, but resisted the doctrine of original sin, arguing that one was able to perform good works and achieve salvation by sinlessness alone without requiring spiritual Grace. It was declared a heresy of the Roman Church in 418 A.D. "

Interview with Yaginuma Kazuyoshi

Y.K., director of Netojuu no Susume (Recovery of an MMO Junkie) wrote:

But, even among those who know that Hitler was a friend, do you understand that Hitler and the Nazis were fighting against Christianity?
Hitler was trying to kill Christianity. He knew it was a Jewish mind control weapon.
Christian mind control matches the fraud in big finance, military power and political power.

Honorary af Aryan