Movie Scenes

My favourite film is Natural Born Killers. Here are a few scenes with Tommy Lee Jones who plays Dwight McClusky.
I really like him in this film.




and a few scenes from other films:

The symbolism of The Matrix Trilogy is rich with implications. The movie is strewn with philosophical insinuations, connecting multiple ideas into a web, a matrix, of fast paced innuendoes.
The heroes find themselves in a world populated by the sleeping multitudes, the zombies, who have no clue and remain outside the premises and the activities that will unfold. They are the ones who must be “saved” in the name of humanity.
Relating the awakened ones with a kind of underground world, conveniently named Zion, with a distinctly hippie sexual undertone governed by a political system founded on modernistic principles of gender and race equality, and positing a machine-world, represented by Caucasian, stiff-necks, as the antagonist the audience is lead through action-packed sequences subliminally infecting his mind with metaphors.


The Matrix Trilogy is a good example of how social engineering is accomplished by using symbolism. In the movie the underground lair of humanity, fighting against the hive machine world, is called Zion. The relation with Zionism would not be taken to be accidental. It is with these subtle, yet obvious, methods, compounded through many forms and through the years that produce a lasting effect in the minds of the audiences. Next time they hear the word “Zionist” or Zionism” they will be positively inclined towards it, as it has been connects, on a conscious and subconscious level with a “humanistic” element battling against the forces of evil and destruction.



From the Matrix Trilogy movies: The Matrix:
Morpheus: We are trained in this world to accept only what is rational and logical. Have you ever wondered why?
Morpheus: As children, we do not separate the possible from the impossible which is why the younger a mind is the easier it is to free while a mind like yours can be very difficult.
Neo: Free from what?
Morpheus: From the Matrix.
Morpheus: Do you want to know what it is, Neo?
Morpheus: It's that feeling you have had all your life.
That feeling that something was wrong with the world. You don't know what it is but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad, driving you to me.
But what is it?
Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere, it's all around us, here even in this room. You can see it out your window, or on your television. You feel it when you go to work, or go to church or pay your taxes.
It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. That you, like everyone else, was born into bondage... kept inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch.
A prison for your mind.

In this scene the malleability of what can be considered “rational” is exposed as being nothing more than a result of training the mind to think within particular parameters.
Because the brain is attracted to order, to patterns, in a world/reality which is tumbling towards chaos, these patterns can be controlled and manufactured within environments that selectively exclude what contradicts them.
This is the simulation Baudrillard refers to.
A selective choosing of patterns so as to raise/train a mind to only think within those premises, directing its judgments and choices. All the while, the individual is convinced it is free and that its actions are not externally determined when it is offered choices, chosen by others, and it is placed in dilemmas, forcing choices, which others manufacture.

In this scene the “impossible” is presented not as the irrational but as that which has been denied to the mind as a consideration, expanding tis sense of what is rational.
The idea is introduced, of a mind-prison, made-up of social and cultural walls, presented by one of the methods used to imprison the mind with them.
The prisoner is convinced that he is “outside” the prison, when, in fact, he is within it; the salve is made to feel free, making him his own imprisoner – a self-correcting mechanism, where no physical force is necessary once mental force has had an effect.



Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see?
Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters.
The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy.
You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged.
And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.

The Christian ethos is obvious here.
The entire movie is a polemic on “the system” but all the while it is merely a venting device; a wink at the growing discontentment, the increasing awareness, feeding it what it is beginning to suspect to undermine it by caricaturing it – turning it into a child’s fairy-tale; a two hour escape that has nothing to do with “real life”.
At the same time it casually injects the narrative with a desirable outlook.
The “free” ones, the newly awakened noes, are supposed to want to free all mankind from the dreaded machinery of the Matrix.
Humanism, Marxism, Judeo-Christianity, a part of the Matrix itself, finds a way of presenting itself as the rebellious underlying ethos.
The liberated, for some reason, must risk their newfound liberty in order to free all the “sleepers” – those who will oppose and hate them. The martyr struggles to offer salvation to “all,” no matter if they deserve it or not or if you know them or not.
The idea that humanity is one united body towards which we are all dedicated and for which we all fight, is the theme that returns the audience back to the matrices it has begun to become aware of and is now questioning.

The rebellious humans, in the context of the film’s storyline, should expose themselves to the possibility of being discovered and destroyed, over and over again, because their morals and their self-identities are still enslaved to the Matrix’s power.
Instead of taking advantage of the simulated environment within which the liberated ones can act as demi-gods amongst bugs, they are urged to think of freeing mankind as being so obvious as to not even require a justification.
Humanity is not something to be overcome but returned to, surrendered to.

The system now uses a clever ploy to feed into disillusionment and the still functioning indoctrination to guide those who are starting to see – and seeing is the first stage in awakening – back towards the earlier slumber…and the infinitely repeating cycles. At the very moment when the freed individuals acquire an opportunity to be more than robots, batteries powering a system that puts them into a state of narcosis from birth, is the moment the Matrix, via this movie, enters the scene to expunge it and extinguish it.
It is ironic, if not expected, that the very system, the real one, indoctrinating, and exploiting, and brainwashing would be the one that uses these “artistic” avenues to take what awareness germinates, and redirect it back towards its own institutionalizing fabrications.



Smith: Can you hear me, Morpheus?
I am going to be honest with you.
I... hate... this place, this zoo, this prison, this reality—whatever you want to call it, I can't stand it any longer.
It's the smell, if there is such a thing. I feel saturated by it. I can taste your stink. And every time I do, I fear that I've somehow been infected by it; it's repulsive, isn't it?
I must get out of here.
I must get free.
And in this mind is the key, my key.
Once Zion is destroyed there is no reason for me to be here, do you understand?!
I need the codes, I have to get inside Zion, and you have to tell me how.
You are going to tell me or you are going to die.

The oppressing mechanism feigns camaraderie.
Both he, this mechanism, and Morpheus, the other mechanism, are in agreement – they both hate the system they serve and are a part of; the master/slave unity is established.
Both wish to be free from the system they serve by wanting to be free from it.
It is their shared desire to destroy this artificial environment which makes them the perfect agents for its preservation.
The concept of an “outside” the “zoo” is implied: some utopian world, conveniently called “Zion.”
The double-negative, the passive aggression, the reverse psychology, is saturating the scene with nihilistic reversals. What is “outside” the artifice of the Matrix, in this liberated state is, in fact, what binds the mind to it.
Freedom is offered, as a possibility, but it is offered with a word deeply connected to an idea that produces slavishness in the real-world.



The Matrix: Reloaded:
Neo: You believe in karma?
Rama-Kandra: Karma's a word. Like "love."
A way of saying "what I am here to do."
I do not resent my karma - I'm grateful for it.
Grateful for my wonderful wife, for my beautiful daughter.
They are gifts. And so I do what I must do to honor the them.

Here the idea of “karma” is used to bind.
Karma is nothing more than reputation. To be bound to the community of judgments.
“Bad karma” is what follows when you piss-off a majority, not adhering to the popular ethics and modes of behaving and thinking; “good karma” is when you’ve remained “positive” to the majority who see in you a reflection of themselves and a reaffirmation of their own enslavement to the judgments of the whole.
Neo, at this point, is still free from it. But this character reintroduces him to what he is trying to remain indifferent to; he does so by connecting it to that other word denoting surrender to otherness: love.
Another example of the cleverness of the film’s metaphors; it pretends to be rebellious and of airing a truth only a few are waking up to, yet it is nothing more than a method of subjugating this awakening to the very ideas that inebriate it.

The insinuation is telling: the character has been given the right to procreate and to have a sexual partner by a system he now must be grateful towards, surrendering to it so as to honor it.
He, this program within a program, does not “resent” its karma….in other words it does not resent its dependence on the community that provides for it a possibility it could not guarantee for itself. Its comfort, its ease, its certainty, must be honored with gratitude; gratitude expressed by servitude.
Neo is being turned into a messiah for the disillusioned: the one, the new (νεο).
He offers salvation form uncertainty, form the cold, cruel world of nature, by returning these “black sheep” back to the herd. Neo is gradually turned into a shepherd of complacency and surrender.
The entire film I an agent of surrender, masking as a dissident promoting freedom. It is a method of insult, shaming the “loser” who takes it seriously, into silence (self-censorship).



The Architect: Hello, Neo.
Neo: Who are you?
The Architect: I am the Architect. I created the Matrix.
I have been waiting for you. You have many questions and though the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, some you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize, it is also the most irrelevant.
Neo: Why am I here?
The Architect: Your life is the sum of the remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the Matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control, which has led you, inexorably, here.
Neo: You haven't answered my question.
The Architect: Quite right. ...Interesting, that was quicker than the others. The Matrix is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the sixth version.
Neo: There are only two possible explanations: either no one told me, or no one knows.
The Architect: Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly is systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.
Neo: ... Choice. The problem is choice.

The Architect exposes the real problem to Neo, while at the same time offering him a limited possibility. He establishes the context within which this “problem of choice” can be dealt with.
There are only two options.
The number is not accidental.
Two, is binary, dualistic, and coincidentally, the number of parties available to the U.S. electorate. A number quickly becoming an international standard of bipolar thinking: right/left.

In this way the film, through the Architect, uses honesty to disarm and then to impose the boundaries within which the “liberated” can express their liberty.
The two choices, which are really one, are presented thusly:
Save Zion, mankind…..or save the female, the attachment to the concept of mankind.
No other option is made available.
In both cases “love” is the ingredient that binds.
The concept of mankind is never challenged. It is offered as a de facto, self-evident, source of identification. One either comes to it through an abstraction, this Zion, or through a personification, a far simpler, immediate, connection, the female Trinity.
She even bares the label of Christian pseudo-complexity: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; the triadastic singularity.
Multiplicity reduced to monism.

The question as to who the Architect is is called “irrelevant,” because it is the most pertinent question of all. A casual dismissal that passes unnoticed once the options are presented and imagery floods the mind of the audience member.
The Architect is, to use another caricature from human story-telling, the Wizard of Oz (the White Rabbit reference is not accidental); he is, it is, the invisible hand, the man/men, behind the curtain, pulling the levers, funding this film; he/it is the conspiracy theorists unknown, infinitely mysterious and, for this reason, apt to be defined in ways that would make any real exploration easily mocked.

The “anomaly” mentioned is the Flux.
That it is still predictable and controllable is an indication of human innovations and understanding of animal behavior. The “fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations” is an allusion to (inter)activity.
The “anomaly” is the world itself. The Architect is nothing more than one, amongst many, offering a variant of order; a control program.
His problem is not only Neo but the Flux itself, which makes control problematic. Neo, like all of the participants, are manifestations of this “anomaly”.
The Architect follows through with a display of his control and understanding by limiting the “problem” of choice to only two possibilities. The concession he/it makes is in expanding the one outcome into two paths, two “choices” leading to the, desired, singular end.
In this way the storyline leads to the expected conclusion, which is but a beginning in a new cycle. The story will be played out again…and again… and the outcome will be the same. A “new” Neo will be awaked, resulting in the same outcome, if the Architect retains dominance over all the other programmes; Neo’s name is sarcastic, the real world architects thumbing their noses at the audience, behind the curtains of plausible deniability.
Neo is nothing new…he is expected, he is old, and he is one of many. This is why Morpheus, the dreamer, dreams him with such clarity. Morpheus has seen Neo in himself; he was a potential messiah, and not a prophet, lacking the courage of ignorance or the bravery of fanaticism and simplicity.
It is Neo’s combination of childish naiveté and ignorant courage that makes him “the one”.
The Architect proves to be a master of this game. His/Its control/power is expressed in repeating the cycle in a predictable manner. The cycle is the illusion of freedom when the ending is already determined by knowing the participants – as this is shown by the names they carry as monikers of self-consciousness – and by limiting the choices.



Dealing with the Stragglers

The Matrix: Revolutions:
Smith: Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why?
Why do you do it?
Why get up?
Why keep fighting?
Do you believe you're fighting for something, for more than your survival?
Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know?
Is it freedom?
Or truth?
Perhaps peace?
Could it be for love?
Illusions, Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception!
Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose!
And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although, only a human mind could create something as insipid as love!
You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson, you must know it by now, you can't win! It's pointless to keep fighting! Why, Mr. Anderson, why?!
Why do you persist?!
Neo: Because I choose to.

In this scene what remains of dissilusionment and resistant awareness, is delt with, with a heavy dose of nihilism; a severe slap in the face of resistance to the real Matrix this film is a part of:
“Why?”
Why suffer, why endure, why resist, why fight?
Fatigue is used as a weapon.
This is the closest this propaganda film comes to honesty. A bow to this “anomaly” that makes this antagonistic masculinity emerge in the entropy.
Agent Smith goes through the litany of nihilism, trying to break down what remains of resistance, in the audience, that still sees in Neo a hero, a pop-icon, he vicariously identifies with.
Agent Smith has been freed, by being exposed to this Judeo-Christian agency of Neo, the reborn messiah of servitude, from the Architects control. Now he wishes to construct his own Matrix, made up of clones, copies, of himself – an allusion to Marxism. His examination of Neo’s motives could have been carried out by the architect if he/it were not more aware of the issue at hand. Agent Smith’s ignorance represents the ignorance of Communism’s Ideal in regards to human nature; and explains its inevitable failures.
Neo’s reply is spartan, but not illuminating, particularly when one considers the entire film and how regulated his options have been.
His “choice,” means little.

Satyr wrote:

Third-eye wrote:

But maybe he cant free them.
what i don't understand, is why doesn't Hannibal either kill her or forget about her?

Perhaps it's because you've bought into Lecter's inhumanity.
He is the most human person in the movie; the most noble spirit.

He kills to rid the world of what confronts his aesthetic tastes; he cleanses the world of garbage.


But he is lonely, as he is rare.

With Will he sees a kindred spirit which he exceeds but that reminds him of himself.
He tells Will this so as to gain an advantage by flustering him.

With Clarisse there's the sexual element. With her he senses potential; a mate.

Third-eye wrote:

For example, Lector tells Clarisse that she loves the FBI bureau almost more than the "husband and children that she gave up to it". Meaning that she hates her past and her own identity and her own life so much that she has chosen to completely immerse herself in mindless success in a career and service to authority and recognition because she has nothing else inside of her to nurture.

She's institutionalized.

Third-eye wrote:

In other words, she is a total lost cause even if she is a little like Hannibal, like you said. She is too far gone. She can't be changed. Doesn't Hannibal realize this?

You should read the books rather than going by the Hollywood ending they provided for you.
In the movie they give it a twist which returns you to the social conventions: evil pays a price; it is maimed, unloved, defeated, though he escapes.

In Harris' books the ending is very different.
Hannibal does not only not lose a hand but Clarisse runs away with him to South America.
The black orderly bumps into him in an opera house in Argentina where he has gone for his honeymoon, which he's combined with his quet to see all of Vermeer's works.

He sees Hannibal from behind and hides....pulling his wife out of the opera house and away.
He knows that if Hannibal sees him and Sterling - because she is there next to Lecter - he is as good as dead.

Third-eye wrote:

I mean he chops off his own hand for her. i probably would have just killed her, and THEN cut off my hand. lol

See, this is where Hollywood steps in to sell you the cultural lie.

Third-eye wrote:

I guess what im saying is that, even if Will and Clarisse are special to him, they are still nothing more than servants of authority.

Will, yes...but with him Lecter is not interested in freeing him from servitude. He only wishes to take him off his game by reminding him that, despite himself, he is far more animistic than he would like to believe.

With Sterling it is sexual.
He wants to be her father figure, with Freudian undertones.
She has lost her father to the "job". She is becoming dissilusioned by the F.B.I.'s practices.
She feels more similar to Hannibal than her own fellow officers.

They try to scapegoat her...and she turns on them.
In the book she runs off with Hannibal.

Fuck the Hollywood ending.
That's part of the brainwashing.

this is my interpretation:

lecter is based on a nazi figure, also called lecter. the reason is he is fixated on "garbage," is that was actually what nazis called their victims. the word is "goy," or "goyim." this is not the same as being a non-jew, obviously. this was what ashkenazis called everyone who wasn't them.

it is not aesthetic, as that is an attempt to civilize what is a very base instinct.

clarisse had no interest in lecter sexually. that would be a product of lecter's solipsistic nature. what he wants from clarisse is a way to steal her gifts genetically.

that's about it. as an aside, the study of lecter was actually the beginning of hannah arendt's "the banality of evil."

It's always nice to have every subject return to the same old, demonic symbols.

Say anything honest about any subject, and see how fast Hitler, Nazis, the war, hate are brought up.

A Nazi is integrated into a system...Lecter is outside the system.
He acts in accordance to his more refined aesthetics, and answers to nobody and follows no ideology.

Ardent was another woman...not much there.

By the way, the books end differently than the movies...and both Clarisse and Lecter see in each other a means...and are interested in each other genetically.

When a man likes a woman's ass, or when a woman likes a man's height, or finds him charming, funny, both are evaluating each other's genes.
Time to grow up, sweetie.
The other is always a means to an end.

scoutstahly wrote:

clarisse had no interest in lecter sexually. that would be a product of lecter's solipsistic nature. what he wants from clarisse is a way to steal her gifts genetically.

Sex is Rape, right?

Satyr wrote:

It's always nice to have every subject return to the same old, demonic symbols.

Say anything honest about any subject, and see how fast Hitler, Nazis, the war, hate are brought up.

A Nazi is integrated into a system...Lecter is outside the system.
He acts in accordance to his more refined aesthetics, and answers to nobody and follows no ideology.

Ardent was another woman...not much there.

By the way, the books end differently than the movies...and both Clarisse and Lecter see in each other a means...and are interested in each other genetically.

When a man likes a woman's ass, or when a woman likes a man's height, or finds him charming, funny, both are evaluating each other's genes.
Time to grow up, sweetie.
The other is always a means to an end.

there is a reason for why that happens. our entire culture worldwide was affected by the holocaust. and some things are just true. lecter was a nazi. that's where that particular branch of that "demonic symbol" started.

I wasn't affected.
I could care less.

You know if they ever make a movie about the holocaust the Native Americans endured, or the Armenians...I'll pay the price to go and see it...even if it does not have the special effects and the big names to make it sexy.

Are you sure there were 6 million and not 1.5 million?
'Cause the Russians lost 20 million.

the holocaust (the one we know as the holocaust) was many multiples of the given figures. the farther reaching body counts are all connected. yes, russia lost 20 million during the 10 years directly surrounding the war. they lost many more after as a direct effect.

another interesting, and little known, fact about the holocaust was how many blacks were killed. europe was very racially integrated prior to WWII. if we were to do a list of ethnical groups and deaths, it would go something like this:

black/jew
asian
middle eastern
latino/hispanic (including north american indians)

(this is by our current divisions, which do not really include separate categories for european ethnicity.)

scoutstahly wrote:

the holocaust (the one we know as the holocaust) was many multiples of the given figures. the farther reaching body counts are all connected. yes, russia lost 20 million during the 10 years directly surrounding the war. they lost many more after as a direct effect.

another interesting, and little known, fact about the holocaust was how many blacks were killed. europe was very racially integrated prior to WWII. if we were to do a list of ethnical groups and deaths, it would go something like this:

black/jew
asian
middle eastern
latino/hispanic (including north american indians)

(this is by our current divisions, which do not really include separate categories for european ethnicity.)

What's the difference between a holocost and the slow mental poisoning by judeo-Xt. morality since the day they divided the world into real and unreal...
Tell me how is one to assess the mediocrity of our species thanks to your innocent jewish values.

Lyssa wrote:

scoutstahly wrote:

the holocaust (the one we know as the holocaust) was many multiples of the given figures. the farther reaching body counts are all connected. yes, russia lost 20 million during the 10 years directly surrounding the war. they lost many more after as a direct effect.

another interesting, and little known, fact about the holocaust was how many blacks were killed. europe was very racially integrated prior to WWII. if we were to do a list of ethnical groups and deaths, it would go something like this:

black/jew
asian
middle eastern
latino/hispanic (including north american indians)

(this is by our current divisions, which do not really include separate categories for european ethnicity.)

What's the difference between a holocost and the slow mental poisoning by judeo-Xt. morality since the day they divided the world into real and unreal...
Tell me how is one to assess the mediocrity of our species thanks to your innocent jewish values.

i'm not interested in engaging with you anymore. we are moving on.

Ha!!!
A retreat.

no, that's called an advance.

seriously. i will not do this anymore. if you cannot or will not connect me with the rest of the board, you can go to hell.

that message is for all of you.

you aren't going to get any further by leaving me behind.

*WARNING*
The thread tropic is "movie scenes".

There is only one more area, only for the few.
You do not have the requirements...the "credentials", to access it.

Someone, amongst the few, must sponsor you and then your nomination must be approved by moi and apaosha, the guardian of the keep.

you are one crazy chick.

Besides, in your mind I am all these monikers and alone...so it's me, myself, and I, against you.
A bit more of this rule breaking and off to the Dungeon you go.

I do hope the accommodations there are up to your standards.

Satyr wrote:

*WARNING*
The thread tropic is "movie scenes".

There is only one more area, only for the few.
You do not have the requirements...the "credentials", to access it.

Someone, amongst the few, must sponsor you and then your nomination must be approved by moi and apaosha, the guardian of the keep.

you are one crazy chick.

Besides, in your mind I am all these monikers and alone...so it's me, myself, and I, against you.
A bit more of this rule breaking and off to the Dungeon you go.

I do hope the accommodations there are up to your standards.

excuse me, but you are not a moderator. nor have i broken any rules. please note my guidelines posted in the dungeon.

i have no idea what you mean by "in my mind you are all of these monikers." there have been two icons posted besides mine since i have started. satyr and lyssa.

this is not a product of my mind, but of the website. either you already know this and are using it specifically to get away with something, or you don't know it, and you are the one who has a problem.

What is she going on about?

Satyr and I are two Different people. Tell me if you got that First! Then lets proceed.

Lyssa wrote:

What is she going on about?

Satyr and I are two Different people. Tell me if you got that First! Then lets proceed.

Pay no attention, she's nuts.

Narcissism...she thinks she has such an effect people follow her.


Like from a movie scene....fact is stranger than fiction.
She would be taken for a witch, in another age...probably burned, or cast out of the tribe.
Today she's put in a mental ward, then released, with medication, to spread her crazy.
She, too, should be loved.

The Satyr and Lyssa are one person theme comes up often.
Maybe we are one?

Its flattering

If only I could somehow be an octopus and grow ten hands and debate ten threads simultaneously... I'm yet to attain that level...

scoutstahly wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

scoutstahly wrote:

the holocaust (the one we know as the holocaust) was many multiples of the given figures. the farther reaching body counts are all connected. yes, russia lost 20 million during the 10 years directly surrounding the war. they lost many more after as a direct effect.

another interesting, and little known, fact about the holocaust was how many blacks were killed. europe was very racially integrated prior to WWII. if we were to do a list of ethnical groups and deaths, it would go something like this:

black/jew
asian
middle eastern
latino/hispanic (including north american indians)

(this is by our current divisions, which do not really include separate categories for european ethnicity.)

What's the difference between a holocost and the slow mental poisoning by judeo-Xt. morality since the day they divided the world into real and unreal...
Tell me how is one to assess the mediocrity of our species thanks to your innocent jewish values.

i'm not interested in engaging with you anymore. we are moving on.

Just admit you've already come with a made-up programmed mind fed with federal statistics and system approved credentials and not interested in any genuine debate.

You are a Fake.

scoutsahly wrote:

lecter is based on a nazi figure,

How incredibly simplistic but presumably quite comforting for a sheeple mind.

Quote :

another interesting, and little known, fact about the holocaust was how many blacks were killed.

Blacks already have their own begging bowl and rights-entitlement holocaust gifted to them by white liberals/Jews which Afro[ec]centrics have termed the 'Maafa'.

As for your suggestion that the figures are grossly under reported I would like to see the evidence in another thread.

Apologies for the off topic post.

Jerome “Jerry,” Siegel and Joe Shuster are the two Jews who invented the character of Superman.The name is an anglicised version of the German Übermensch.
Is it shocking to discover how the original Jew conception was of a villain?
 
To make it more marketable for an American public of mostly young, European, boys, they changed his moral alignment into a “good” guy, but made him a protector of all the slavish, Judeo-Christian, herd-morality, their kind depends upon to remain relevant.

 
Man of Steele



Another one of those comic-book productions with the same message: if you have extraordinary qualities, you must surrender them to the service of the mediocre. 
Remember The Matrix?
Those awakened ones had to risk their lives, their freedom, to save the sleepers....no reason is given.
The morality is so ingrained in the majority that it is logical, in harmony with their world-view.
Batman resists the Joker's taunts.
He serves the people. The very ones that would condemn him to jail if they had the chance and they knew who he was.
The mask is his cover...his social persona. In this case the lie is reversed. His real face is Batman, his mask is Bruce Wayne.

Same thing applies for Superman.
He must wear his real face, glasses excluded, when he is himself....because the inferior ones will not forgive him his power.
But he is enslaved. He is powerful only in comparison; only around a yellow sun, on earth, does he have extraordinary abilities; only in comparison to the earthlings, the average, the base.  
When confronted by his own kind, those not indoctrinated in modern American moralities, those living amongst the stars, he is ordinary....weak, because of his mental constraints.
He tolerated bullying as a child, when he could smash their heads it, without ever displaying anything "supernatural". 
But the movie producers will not have it. The message must be preserved and repeated: the superior must lower himself, degrade himself, permit the mediocre to abuse him.
Political-correctness must be saved, so that the continuously decreasing average, can be sheltered from reality.
This self-constraint, this shameless humility, is his penance for being extraordinary. 

In one of the fight scenes with the female (Faora) from Crypton ("hidden" in Greek - also an allusion to the Spartan practice where, the story goes, youths were tested by releasing them into the wild, to survive using their wits, and where they were expected to soil their hands, for the first time, with the the blood of a helot) goes into Superman's moralistic weakness.
He, Superman, being infected by the same disease his earthly father had, and subsequently passed on to him.
He Superman, the term becoming sarcastic, is getting beaten up by one of the female's of his kind. He's become mentally soft.

Quote :

Faora:You’re weak, son of El; unsure of yourself.
The fact [beating up Cal-El] that you have a sense of morality and we do not gives us an Evolutionary Advantage. And if there's one thing that History teaches us it's that Evolution always wins.

Faora is a despicable version of a female warrior, for the average man. A warrior princess: both attractive and strong; both feminine, sexy, attractive, and masculine, strong, unyielding, unforgiving.

The producers neglect to mention that all have morals, and that Superman's just happen to be slavish, herd, Judeo-Christian, in nature.
And of course, the movie ends with her defeat, because feminism cannot stand in the way of power, though it comes in a female form, winning over meekness.
How else could it have ended?
How else could it have been permitted to end?
Evolution loses. Human delusions win.

His true father is portrayed an Ionian character, confronted by the Doric Zod.

Quote :

Jor-El:What are you doing Zod? This is madness.
Zod:What I should have done years ago.
These law makers with their endless debates have led Krypton to ruin.
Jor-El: And if your forces prevail you’ll be the leader of nothing.
Then join me. Help me save out race.
We’ll start anew. We’ll sever the degenerate bloodlines that led us to this state.
Jor-El:And who will decide which bloodlines survive, Zod? You?
Zod:Don’t do this El.  The last thing I want is for us to be enemies.
Jor-El: You’ve abandoned the principles that held us together; you’ve taken up the sword against your own people.
I will honor the man you once were, Zod, not this monster you’ve become.

A dilemma that is supposed to cause doubt: who will be in charge if we get rid of this decay?
The dilemma is resolved in a stalemate. If Jar-El cannot guarantee that his bloodline will pass on, through Zod's cleansing, then nobody's bloodlines will pass on.
Jar-El agrees with Zod, but he has a secret, plan. He is a hypocrite. He has already increased his own bloodline's survival using clandestine means, and so will never become "second" to Zod and his clan. Jar-El is a hypocrite. He abandons his “together” to decay, prefers their demise rather than siding with a man he agrees with but cannot accept his rule, but has made plans to preserve his own bloodline, in secret.
Does this sound familiar?  
 
A repetition of the “madness” accusation, reminiscent of that other anti-Doric film 300. Sparta, in that case was described by the Persian emissary as mad.
Here Jar-El repeats the label, reinforcing it as one applicable to this Doric world-view.  
The question hovers in the air between them...and between the screen and the audience:
"Who will decide which bloodlines survive?"
And because no decision can be made (who would dare take the responsibility; who would dare expose his selfishness?), decay must be permitted to continue.
Jor-El, as a representative of the decay, the one who made it possible and allowed it to reach its end, surrenders himself to the inevitable, unable to make a choice, to sacrifice to be brave, discriminating, selfish. He is caught in the Athenian verbosity of Socratic skepticism. No absolute can be decided upon so letting the course of time sweep man away is the only "moral" thing to do.
When he saves his son, it is for a "greater good". He must veil his masculine egotism in a salve's duplicity.

The Civilization must be preserved, by remaining loyal to the bonding principles.
Here, the Ionian plays on the Doric psychology. He wants him to stand-down, in submission to the law, or left with, as he says, “nothing”. The “no-thing” implies that without the herd no man, no group of men has anything – the manipulation of the social instinct and an allusion to a ‘more-is-more’ anti-Doric perspective.
Zod is left with “nothing”, only within the value judgments of Jor-El.  

The only morality being that "we either ascend together or descend as one". Because this together is what causes the descent to begin with, the morality is infused with its own decay.
The many will overpower the one; quantity will destroy or imprison or degrade quality; all will be offered love, respect, compassion, and the rights all men are given by Divine providence, propagating the mutations that weaken the whole and lead it to its own destruction.
Superman is a contradiction. He lives because his own father had to moralize, his egotistical act. He had to make it "profound", by connecting it to some "higher" ideal, which has no face, and no body; he had to dehumanize it.
The moralistic infection is clever, insidious, duplicitous.
Life (survival) takes second place to its imperative...like Abraham with the knife at his son's throat.
Before the authority of the divine calling, the shared code, nothing can stand: not civilization, not honesty, not consciousness, not nobility, not even blood.

The mindless audience sits there, eyes wide, sucking-in this often repeated message. They enjoy the explosions, the special effects, the sound quality, knowing that all will turn out well in the end, all the while being brainwashed with a comforting, self-serving (selfish) message of selflessness.
They exit the theater feeling lighter: evil will not win, their secret is safe in its shared lies, what matters is indiscriminate togetherness.
Not even a Superman, from an alien planet, can escape the gravity of that Black Hole.[/center]