The dynamic between Black Lives Matter and the police mimic Batman and the Joker in “The Dark Knight” (2008). By their own premise, Black Lives Matter purports that poor black people are perpetually naughty children who inevitably deal with the police. These naughty children have no standard of behavior to meet nor rules to abide by- they are inherently naughty. The police, who make their careers handling violence, have rules and standards to meet, and even when the situation is crazier than usual, if those rules are broken it’s cause for outrage and demands.
One side of the equation is given a ready-made excuse for lacking accountability, the other side is burdened with limitless accountability. One side is expected to be unpredictable while the other is held to the expectation of perfection.
Darth Vader is a big black dick raping the galaxy. The hard plastic shell of his costume mimics an erection, and Vader carries a large and imposing physical stature. Don’t believe me? His dickhead helmet is a dead giveaway. Vader represents the kind of toxic masculinity that’s become a popular point of critique after the jump to Progressive light-speed post-1960.
While Vader eventually meets his emasculation when the mask comes off and he’s revealed to be a fat white doofus, Lucas permits Vader to carry the credibility of power and dread for two-and-a-half movies, perhaps mimicking the white man’s “reign of terror” until a kind of genocidal emasculation was put into motion, in media and academia, by second-wave feminism and the sexual revolution.
Christine went to great lengths to convince someone that she wasn’t like those other girls. Her experiences had greater depth, her thoughts were more developed, her interests were more artistic, and her feelings were more genuine. Christine had esoteric qualities that made her special and unique, while those other girls were basic and shallow. Christine also had a bigger waist and fatter thighs than those other girls.
She wasn’t fat, but Christine was conscious of her limitations and adjusted accordingly. If she couldn’t compete with those other girls, Christine would attempt to hijack and redefine what it meant to win and then try to convince men that what they thought they wanted was all wrong.
“A Nightmare on Elm Street” (1984) is about suburban invasion, and Freddy Kruger is a rapist. Suburban horror was a response to the 1950s idealism of “darn good people living in darn good neighborhoods.” While normally this type of cultural critique would annoy me, Progressives attempting to deconstruct a system that works for the majority, the foundation of horror is about the inescapable.
The suburbs, on their own, will not solve the problems of a damaged culture nor will they filter out the dangers inherent in reality; the suburbs are not walled, nor are they caged. Danger can find its way, and most particularly when the foundation of the family has been turned toxic.
Freddy Kruger is the Progressive response to Dracula. While Dracula played on the beta’s anxiety of being usurped sexually by the handsome and powerful Alpha, after the Sexual Revolution this anxiety was pushed below the surface (yet is still very real). If a woman has no restrictions on her sexuality, and realizing that sexuality in terms of selective promiscuity has become what defines the fully realized woman, fearing the powerful Alpha seducing women away from the pandering beta, and in-turn, ruining these women as prospective wives and mothers, must be redefined as the vile beta rapist.
The game plan is always the same. It goes exactly like this: the Progressive will cite hypocrisy as the greatest possible sin; in particular, hypocrisy in the face of lofty moral ambition (Progressive mortal sin). They then hijack and redefine an opposing group’s beliefs under the guise of faux-concern. When genuine members of that group don’t live up to this new redefinition of their mission and intentions, the Progressive shames members of the group with accusations of hypocrisy.
This is the Progressive go-to. It doesn’t change because it doesn’t need to change; it almost always seems to work.
So the faux-concerned, intellectually superior Progressive will explain to the Christian that Christianity is defined as limitless charity and altruism (specifically altruism to those not part of your own community/tribe/nationality), and when the Christian fails to live up to this impossible standard, the Progressive will claim that “Christianity is about hypocrisy,” and then pats herself on the back as a job well-done.
“Hollywood only makes two movies. The Boy’s Movie and The Girls’ Movie.” – Delicious Tacos
Modern Hollywood has a genius racket going where they actually now sell boy-movies written as girl-movies. Hollywood has hijacked and redefined the boy-movie to primarily appeal to girls in its writing and thematics with the idea that boys are only looking for familiar shapes and colors.
A boy wants to believe he’s seeing a boy-movie. This idea is easily satisfied by putting Iron Man or Spider-Man on the screen. The shapes are familiar and the boy is happy. This is all the boy is getting. Anything further is intended for girls (and maybe the social conditioning of boys).
While I should have called it a day after seeing Nolan’s masterful “The Dark Knight” (2008) in theaters, I maybe had one too many beers on the forth of July, and was convinced to venture once more to the movie-house and see “Terminator: Genisys” (2015), and of course had quickly realized that I had been had.
The United States is founded on the idea that there is an inherent justice in rebelling against a seemingly unjust system. If Public Education is primarily teaching ideology, the most important initial lesson taught is The Revolutionary War. The rebellious colonies were inherently justified in their rebellion. Their assessment of Great Britain as greatly unjust must always be taken at face-value; the American colonies were victims and victims never lie.
There is a eerily lyrical quality to the two planets destroyed in George Lucas’s “Star Wars” (1977). The first was used as the only piece of evidence to justify the Empire’s malicious reputation; the fact that Alderaan was a peaceful planet mattered not to General Tarkin- the destruction of Alderaan was considered necessary for the greater good, the restoration of order, for the larger galaxy. The only morality, for General Tarkin, was civilization. It should go without saying that the decision to destroy Alderaan must have been a difficult one, but the true essence of leadership lies in the difficult and unpopular decisions the role necessitates. It seems childish to think the Empire enjoyed destruction as an end in itself- they weren’t a maniacal serial killer, they were a fascist dictatorship. There is a chaos to genocide, they desired predictability.