Pokémon Go Gen 2 and some other work-related delays happened, but we're back...
Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Ah, another one that has been sneak-previewed here, back in August 2015. Wonderfully-choreographed reimagining of Batman's origin story, mostly-illogical once it gets to the confrontation with Big Blue Boy Scout. So, we're supposed to believe that a Superman bloodlusted by the kidnapping of Martha Kent, wouldn't simply hover in mid-air and fry Batman with his heat vision? Or, given that he's canonically quick enough to give Batman - who, let's face it, is just peak human, as evidenced by his exercise routines - a full pedicure before he can even bat-blink, figure out one of hundreds of ways to incapacitate him safely from a distance?
His plot-induced stupidity does allow Wonder Woman an excuse to pertly butt in to promote her upcoming feature film (which was probably required to appease the gender lobby, since the major female-driven plot point before that was Lois Lane being plucked out of mid-air, in trademark Mary Jane style; like, these guys should just date skydivers already), but since Superman's one of the actual protagonists, it falls to him to take over for the big finale, by pinning Doomsday down such that he can be nuked in orbit (a reversal from the usual)
Which brings back us to the under-the-surface theme, with the sacred Ultimate Sacrifice dutifully reenacted: the relationship between humans, and their chosen gods.
Rewinding, it's easy to see why many might worship Superman: simultaneously wholly alien in nature, yet familiar and flawless in Man's image, Superman is basically a deity-cliché come to life. The trouble with him, however, is that he is responsible - instead of hiding behind abstraction, as most less-involved but more-experienced godheads do, Kal-El takes pride in getting his hands dirty. Pan-dimensional interstellar menace? Confused African warlord? You know who to dial for.
As Superman soon finds out, humans are in general incredibly unappreciative. Get yourself beaten black and bluer heading off an invading renegade Kryptonian fleet - when one could easily have been off suntanning over in the next galaxy - and one would imagine a word of thanks being in order, but noooooo. Instead, you get some low-level flunkey - who was probably fooling about with dank memes - blaming him for his getting his own legs trapped under steel beams! And, to top it off, the loafer manages to haul himself up Superman's hard-earned memorial to vandalise it - despite having had his legs amputated - in the best traditions of modern liberal protestors; someone should really check if he's claiming disability.
What he spraypainted over the statue, was especially telling: "False God".
Superman's failing, one realises, is in his presentation. In ability and application, he is definitely not far off YHWH and other major competitors. His problem is that he sentimentally regards himself as a fellow human, and rather than imposing himself from a position of divine mystery by yelling commands from the clouds, he instead devotes himself to constantly saving humanity from itself. He listens, he empathizes, he seeks conciliation - and he is not respected for it.
Which is the fundamental paradox of organized religion, as contemplated quite often here: be reasonable, and one can get outcompeted, because if you're sure that your god (or conception thereof) is correct, why allow other faiths any deference? However, if everyone really, truly believes, then conflicts - some irresolvable - inevitably abound.
One of many gems from the #ShariaForAmerica campaign
These are the inconsistencies in the left-liberal worldview that the alt-right are jumping on (and, let's face it, they're far better at producing weaponized autist memery). It's progressive and all to present a slickly-designed unified front, but a honest inspection must reveal plenty of conflicting flashpoints lurking beneath - for example, between contemporary mainstream Islam and, among other concerns, preserving LGBT and womens' rights, to begin with. One can, of course, respond with the hackneyed "diversity is strength", but if what's happening in Europe - and Swedistan especially - is any indication, this is hardly assured.
It may not get much of an airing in the globalist mainstream media, but the cracks - even in the erstwhile ultra-progressive Scandinavian paradises - are refusing to be papered over. A Swedish police veteran has just been censured for merely stating the objective fact that migrants commit more crimes, even after likely cover-ups. It is almost amusing that, concurrent with acting indignant that their ideals aren't working out as planned, the Swedish authorities are resigned to broadcasting warnings that the streets ain't safe no more, or that utility companies are refusing to service whole cities, because of safety concerns. Defenders of the current situation are rebutting grenade attacks with excuses like "well, which major city doesn't have crime", which says it all really.
But before we continue, one thing should be noted: to blame Sweden's woes on ethnicity or religion might be missing the point, when there exists another common denominator: their migrants are disproportionately young, single, impoverished males. LKY's hard-heartedness in the local context is beginning to look wiser and wiser, as the Europeans are slowly coming to accept the hard way that, in practice, importing millions of guys with no marketable skills, and expecting them to hang around behaving themselves... just doesn't work.
And, as much as the ruling elite are trying to suppress public opinion on the matter, the common people - who actually suffer the effects on the ground - have finally been driven to find their voice: thus, Brexit, TRUMPISM, and a general surge in nationalism. Much as cultural globalists might wish to ignore it, and despite the occasional grand gesture, the mood across the entirety of Europe is now clarion clear: no more Muslim immigration, please.
(Original source: independent.co.uk)
I'll be the first to note that this can indeed be very unfair at the individual level, but let's now turn our attention to America's new Superman: the GOD-EMPEROR TRUMP. While the media and liberal left are knocking him for bringing Sweden's sad state up as a prudent cautionary tale, the brutal truth is that TRUMP's limited halt on immigration is actually very popular, according to a citizenry that's becoming increasingly enamoured of his propensity to keep promises; his masterful trolling - in which he accused the mainstream media of not covering terrorist attacks, to which they again fell hook, line and sinker by collating huge lists to apparently contradict, but actually support his logic, likely helped.
And frankly, despite being completely vilified by the biased media, TRUMP's immigration halt is (a) not unprecedented, or even very special, (b) not even actually targeted towards Muslims, and (c) well within his assigned authority. Now, before a "fake news" report is made, let me say my piece.
Firstly, to begin with, selectively barring immigration from proscribed countries is something that the last five Presidents - at least - have done... and yes, that includes Saint Obama (who actually did it more than the rest). Faced with this fact, Democratic apologists like Politifact could only nitpick the details, for example that Obama's ban on Iraqis was specifically in response to a direct terrorist threat.
One could, however, note that Politifact then argues in the same breath that TRUMP's ban is unfounded because there were no terrorist attacks since 9/11 from the seven affected countries (hint: including Iraq... and they were identified as high risk by the Obama administration to begin with; note that not even Politihack could wiggle out of that) - which, even if technically accurate, sure sounds terribly disingenuous... as with quibbling over "radical Islamic terrorism" vs. "extremist Islamist ecosystems", when it's clear what's being referred to.
Second point - there is simply no good evidence that the actions constitute a "Muslim Ban". The religion is at no time referred to in the executive order, and a quantitative look at the numbers affected, conclusively shows that the freedom of the vast majority of the world's Muslims to travel to America, remains unchanged. Which is more than can be said, for certain others...
(Original source: r/the_donald)
But, seriously: if certain regions have been independently assessed to pose an appreciable threat, why should one fudge the results just because they share some demographic similarities? One could expect their buddies-in-Islam to be outraged... but no, is that Saudi Arabia building a 600 mile long wall on their Iraqi border?
Last but not least, the bottom line is: while one can debate if TRUMP's immigration halt is wise (it probably is), and whether it could have been better implemented (it probably could), it remains that GOD-EMPEROR TRUMP, as the lawfully-elected President of the United States, holds a definitive and constitutional right to control who gets in. It may be tied up in a manufactured legal quagmire for now, but there's no doubt in my mind that this is well within his scope - which, guess what, is hardly controversial, internationally.
It's hard to handle all the cognitive dissonance at once. I do commiserate.
Turning the discussion back to religion. Reiterating again, I still believe that most people, whatever (and sometimes in spite of) their religion (or lack of), are basically pretty okay. Indeed, I have come to view organized religions as mostly alternative power centres, that exist alongside state authority. This, I hasten to say, is a good thing; so long as there is free competition in belief. Monopoly, whether religious or atheist, has generally resulted in corruption and abuse, and being able to interact with those of various creeds (note: my old kindergarten is on it, in a small way) should help to have people realise that, hey, the other fellas are just human, too!
It has oft been noted - sometimes by Muslims themselves - that a reformation that separates the religion from the state, and temporal law, may well be the best way forward. Perhaps something like Atatürk-era Turkey? Well, we can hope, but forgive me if I remain somewhat cynical on that...
Next: Film Flam
Copyright © 2006-2018 GLYS. All Rights Reserved.