I wrote a post a few months back saying that a really positive and pro-America Superman film could be a good thing for American culture. I said it could happen as a part of the “Trump Effect.” A lot of people were saying that no, I was stupid, it was going to be woke as all heck.

Well, the film has been released.

Statistically, most of you didn’t see and probably are not really very excited to. It didn’t perform poorly over the weekend, but it certainly was not a blockbuster, and not what Warner Brothers was looking for. That said, after the weekend box office (which was below projections with the film on the path to break even), WB head David Zaslov said this new DC Comics “universe” of films will go ahead and he was happy with the box office.

For some reason, before the release of the film, director James Gunn decided to attack his own film release by announcing that Superman is “an immigrant story.” This caused many people to believe the film was woke, and refuse again to pay $15 for a moral lecture.

I think it’s HILARIOUS trumpers are bitching about Superman now because he’s an immigrant.

He’s from fucking KRYPTON, you dopes.

Of course, you’d have trouble relating to him, as he stands for “truth, justice, and the American way.”

And he’s woke AF.pic.twitter.com/usp1rRAyo5

— BrooklynDad_Defiant!☮️ (@mmpadellan) July 8, 2025

The new Superman movie is about “an immigrant and kindness”, says Director James Gunn.

I won’t be watching this woke trash.

What about you? pic.twitter.com/VuVFiVEZx5

— Mr. Star Spangled MAGA (@4thOfJuly365) July 8, 2025

If this film was actually woke, it still wouldn’t have made sense for him to say that, but it really isn’t woke. The wokest thing about the film is that they cast a Mexican who looks like a literal satanic ape as The Engineer.

In principle, I am not even against having a Mexican and a black, these big blockbuster CGI fest children’s films are intended for wide audiences and I think there might be some data-backed truth to the fact that people from these races will be more likely to see a film if they feel they are “represented.” (Although the thicc Mexican bitch who played Hawkgirl seems like enough latina representation?) This was the original idea of having a black character in films. In old slasher films, blacks actually loved the trope that “the black guy always gets killed first” (maybe they related to it, I don’t know, but they certainly always went to see these films and cheered when the black died first). I don’t expect these films to be full-Nazi, or whatever. So a bit of diversity in the casting, if it’s not an overload, isn’t “woke,” as this has always been a thing. I do think it is woke to pick a bitch with that face.

But everything else was fine. The black guy was fine. Literally the only political thing in the film at all was a surprisingly heavy-handed Palestine analogy with the Boravia plot line. The Jews are freaking out about that. I guess woke people do support Palestine, but Israel is so despised by the right, that doesn’t really count. And though Gunn made it way obvious what he was talking about, it wasn’t a huge part of the story. Though getting the actor who looks the most like David Ben-Gurion to play the leader of the racist oppression nation was funny.

That was sort of anti-woke, antisemitic casting, frankly. It made up for the Engineer being purposefully ugly.

So, I don’t know why Gunn decided to sabotage the film this way. It’s a head-scratcher. He can’t possibly have imagined that making the film seem “woke” before the release would be good for it. Maybe it was just an offhanded comment he made, possibly while drunk and on pills. I am sure Gunn’s personal politics are left, but he also seems like he would be willing to do a film that slightly signals to MAGA if it would secure him more money. Also, Zaslov, you’d think, would go along with doing some jingoistic Americanism in the film in the name of getting Americans to sign up and die for wars for his homeland. (Though he sort of did the opposite of that, actually, by allowing gun to put the Palestine thing in there, but this sort of indicates he just doesn’t care at all.)

They asked poor Nathan Fillion about the “immigrant” thing, and he said “c’mon, guys. It’s just a movie.” This is exactly what it is: it’s just a movie. (Unless you’re a Jew who doesn’t think anyone should be able to say genociding Arabs is wrong, in which case it is like another Holocaust all over again.)

If you would have thrown in some dogwhistles, shown some more American flags (I was excited by the one in the trailer), and had someone say “truth, justice, and the American Way,” the film could have been a blockbuster despite its mediocre quality.

And that is how I would rate the quality: it is mediocre.

Most of the critiques of the film are right. People are posting that clip of Trey Parker explaining if your story is just a bunch of “and then this happens” scenes strung together, it’s not a good story. That is factually true. That being said, it’s difficult for me, as a “science of literature” expert to see how you could have shoved that many characters into the film and then stuck to any sort of meaningful storytelling format. Yes, there are good novels with a lot of characters, but these novels would make 10 and 20 hour movies (as was done with the Game of Thrones books). To shove as many characters as were in Superman into a movie and not just have it be a series of events would probably be impossible. The literature science on the structure of stories is clear that the characters and plot are inseparable. No one has ever said “I liked the plot I just didn’t like the characters,” though with Superman, you could say the opposite thing. I did like most of the characters. Superman was my favorite character, however, and he ends up getting pushed out of his own movie by a barrage of different characters, some of whom might be interesting in their own right, but there just isn’t enough time in a film’s runtime to find out.

I think this was the only mandate from Zaslov: you have to include a bunch of different characters we can use for our “universe.” Very stupid thinking. But I don’t think this means James Gunn is a bad writer. Unless it was his idea to have this many characters, which I doubt, then you can’t blame him for not being able to formulate a properly flowing cause-and-effect plot around this directive. It could only really be a series of strung together “oh here’s this person who has this thing going on, that’s fun, right?” scenes.

Frank Grillo as Rick Flagg, Fillion as Guy Gardner, and others to various extents, were potentially interesting characters. The film simply didn’t have room for all of them.

In terms of watching the film as a comic book fan, there was nothing offensive. Well, there is one very offensive thing that I expected to get revealed as a Lex Luthor scheme by the end, but it never was, and that was really more confusing than offensive, because I just assumed that it would be revealed it was a hoax. (And maybe it will be later on in the series, check the spoiler at the bottom of this page. I guess I liked Superman enough to think some people will want to go and watch it and have fun and not have it spoiled, so I’ll keep it down there for the majority who do not care.)

Along with liking the characters, I liked the general tone, which drew on Silver Age themes that Gunn has said he came across through Grant Morrison’s All-Star Superman. It’s a very silly and comic-booky tone, which you have to have if you are doing literally any DC comics heroes other than literal Batman. (Yes, if you “nerd out,” there are other DC heroes you can do dark and “realist” takes on, but it works with none of the main Justice League characters. If you want to “nerd out” right this very moment, go look at the current “dark” line of DC comics, the “Absolute” series, and tell me why Absolute Batman is awesome and the others are unbearable.)

DC should have looked at Disney’s success with Marvel’s “universe” and said they were going to go the opposite direction, and be more comic booky and silly-fun than Marvel. Instead, they let Zach Snyder make all of those nightmarish films and lost I think multiple billions of dollars. I’m sure part of the pitch from Gunn was exactly this: “let’s go in the other direction and just have fun,” and to a not totally insignificant extent, Superman succeeds with this.

It’s almost like there is just a lot of bad market research going on here. Like, as if a bunch of marketing research people are literal criminal fraudsters. Along with the silliness of Gunn saying that immigrant thing before the release of the film, the film was also sabotaged by the trailers, which made Superman look weak and whiny. Releasing the scene with Clark and Lois arguing was really dumb, as in context, you don’t really think much about that. Clark/Superman as a character is totally fine and I liked almost everything about the portrayal. Even the suit that everyone complained about before release looks great.

But yeah, not a great film, not a film I would really recommend anyone watch, and definitely not the “Trump Effect” pro-America film I was hoping for. I don’t know, maybe Warner has marketing research geniuses who did the math and realized the Trump Effect would be mostly gone by mid-July. My original thinking was that if they could have gotten Trump to endorse it as “a great pro-America film,” it would have been a big deal, and I still think it would have been a better strategy, but it wouldn’t carry the weight it would have in April. Faster than I ever could have imagined, the MAGA Spring has given birth to a “Wait, What Did He Just Say? What the Hell is Going on Here?” Summer.

But hey, I don’t want to talk about that in this article, man. I don’t really want to talk about that at all anymore, dude. I just want to do “woke or not?” pop culture review, bro.

Just relax.

None of it even matters anyway.

Oh, and I almost forgot: Lois breaks up with Clark when he’s getting attacked by the media then decides she’s in love with him after the media decides he’s good. Literally, there is nothing else driving her relationship decisions than Superman’s social status. The sort of garbled non-plot might make it not obvious, but if you watch it, you can literally see she does not have any interactions with Superman between giving him a cold “now you’re in the friend zone” hug and jumping all over him telling him she loves him. No interactions. Her decision was completely based on media reports of the man’s social status.

I think what probably happened was that in the mess of reshoots and recuts trying to make this garbled mess of mostly disconnected things happening in a series, they didn’t realize they got a bit too real with how women actually think about men. It could also have been on purpose. Either way, it was very funny to me. And literally true.

When Mel Gibson got condemned as evil by the media for saying those things about the Jews, when he was literally at the lowest point in his life, his wife of many decades with whom he had seven children decided to do the brave thing and file for divorce. I guarantee if there ever comes a day when the media decides “it turns out Mel is the good guy after all,” that ex-wife is going to start calling him and talking “oh, I was just thinking about you, we had so many good times together and a part of me misses it.”

Women are utterly ridiculous, actually buffoonish in nature, and I always love when that is pointed out.

Spoiler Thing:

The thing I expected to be a Lex plot was that the video from Superman’s birth parents sent him from Krypton to conquer the planet earth, and told him to have a harem of women to produce the maximum number of children with Kryptonian blood to rule as his heirs. That is very offensive if it is an in-universe thing that’s real. The thing is, Supergirl is in this universe, and if she’s Kara, which I assume she is, she was also sent to Earth to escape Krypton’s destruction, and if you were planning on conquering a planet, and you specified to do so by using the “Spanish dudes in Mexico” method, you would not send a female with a vagina and would instead send two males with penises.

They could say that Kara was sent to be Superman’s pureblooded Kryptonian wife to create a royal line to lead the half-breed earthlings (which was the only reason Spain ever sent women to Mexico), but in this case, they wouldn’t have sent his first cousin, which Kara is, and I’m pretty sure it says “cousin” in the film.

Anyway, it never crossed my mind that this was anything other than another Lex trick, so it didn’t bother me until I’d finished the film and realized it was never resolved. Anyway, if this does turn into a successful “universe,” which seems unlikely because I just don’t think this “blockbuster film that has to make a billion dollars to be profitable” model was ever sustainable (but who knows), they will just retcon that even if it was originally intended by Gunn to be canon. Because no one likes this “Superman’s parents were evil” thing. Superman has been around nearly 100 years, they’ve done every possible storyline with him, including various versions of “evil Superman,” but the only case I know of where Superman was sent to earth to set up a one-man breeding farm and conquer the planet is in Invincible, which is not a Superman book, even whilst Omega Man is obviously a Superman parody. The Invincible cartoon is really popular now (not for no reason, I’d argue), so maybe someone thought it was a good idea to weave that in? That doesn’t make any sense, but nothing about it makes sense. Even on a basic level of the story itself, a people whose planet is being destroyed and who can only send one child to another planet (later two, with Kara) would not be thinking “we command you to conquer this planet in our name.” The reason it works in Invincible is that Omega Man lies about being the last of his race and he’s actually a representative of an alien empire that is planning to conquer Earth.

Although I am on the “it’s definitely mostly nature” side of the nature vs. nurture debate, I am also sympathetic to “you’re not required to be like your parents” stories, which can be real human stories. But this is not the place for that, James Gunn. Literally no one wants “Superman was supposed to be evil but he overcame it,” except in Invincible, where it is a completely different thing and “Superman” actually does do a bunch of evil things before reflecting on whether he wants to be like his parents.

The final trailer for James Gunn’s Superman was released this week, and I do hope it is good.

I’m sure six million people can inform me that Superman was created by the Jews. Yes, I am aware. However, he is a hopeful American superhero, and it seems to me that a good Superman film, with a positive message, would be good for everyone. People complain about the entertainment industry a lot, obviously, and while it is true that basically nothing good is ever released, it should be noted that some of the reason for the poor quality is that everything is so dark and negative. It would be nice to have some piece of popular culture that is not totally nihilistic and dark.

From the trailer, I would say that Clark, Lois, and Lex all look good. And Guy Gardner. But Superman does not look great. And it really looks like there is a lot going on. I don’t know how there are this many characters. I guess you had to ram a black man in there, but there are really a lot of characters. Putting Metamorpho, Hawkgirl, Ultraman, The Engineer, and others in the film seems to be a bit much. I’m fine with Krypto. I think he should be a yellow lab instead of whatever that dog is, but including Krypto is fine.

Primarily, I don’t like the fact that Clark is getting berated and nagged by Lois. And I don’t like that he gets all mad. I don’t ever need to see another man getting nagged or him getting mad in response to nagging. Maybe in the film, she keeps nagging him and then he punches her in the stomach and rapes her, which would be cool. But I doubt that happens. I mean, that would subvert expectations, to have Superman engaging in domestic violence and rape, but I wouldn’t bet crypto on Polymarket that Superman beats or rapes any women in this film.

But in general, the tone looks fine, frankly. It’s what I would want the tone to be.

The rumor is that “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” is never said in the film. But the tone is fine.

There is something political in the film, apparently. Superman is involved in some kind of war. It’s not clear where. So that suggests that there might be some kind of political commentary, which would completely kill the film. I doubt they will make it political. It looks like Lex is the bad guy and Superman is the good guy and there isn’t any sort of confused political gibberish.

This trailer could be a fake-out, I guess, and it could end up being a totally political thing. As with all big budget movies, any of the gay stuff or anything else sickening is kept out of the film by the fact that the budget includes selling it in China. So there won’t be anything too terrible.

But that “nigger” in the film, which is what people are calling him (they’re also calling him “Supercoon”), Mr. Terrific, is gay in various DC TV shows, and he can’t be gay in the movie because it would get it banned in China and all of the budgets of Hollywood films are based on including the Chinese audience. If the Chinese would only show movies based on the response on 4chan, the world would be a much better place.

But I think it might be okay. And Superman sending a hopeful message to the world would be good. There’s no reason to just be totally negative about everything. If the Superman movie is not political and has a hopeful social message, and it’s a big blockbuster hit, it’s hard to think that’s a bad thing.

The invasion of blacks into formerly majority white entertainment media has been like a plague. In particular, it is black women. I don’t know why it’s women more than men, but it seems like no television program, video game, or comic book can be without a black woman as the female lead. You would think it was the law.

Desperados 3, developed by Mimimi Games, was one of my favorite video games of the last few years. This is an indie dev making pretty niche genre games. I would wager that not one single black woman played Desperados 3, and I would think the total number of both women and black men would be much less than 1% of the total player base. It would be an overwhelming majority white men, with the second largest group being Asian men. But for some reason, this game, which did very well for being a niche genre game with a low budget, was followed up with this:

Within weeks after the release, the company shut down, saying that the newest game’s sales did not justify the studio continuing to exist. That game was released in 2023, presumably having been developed during the Black Lives Matter movement, and apparently, putting black women as the face of your game is just what game developers, including indie devs who were not under any kind of corporate pressure, thought they were supposed to do.

You can come up with all of these theories about BlackRock ESG programs to explain why Ubisoft or Activision-Blizzard went full “niggermania,” but there is no obvious explanation as to why a small indie company would do this other than they thought it would make them money. Clearly, this doesn’t work, and now when people see a black woman on the cover of any entertainment product, they register it as a personal attack. It’s not simply that people don’t relate to black women, although that is certainly part of it. Because this movement in entertainment was associated with the BLM movement and a larger anti-white movement, the kind of person who is going to play an indie real-time tactics game immediately registers the inclusion of blacks where they didn’t used to be as an attack on their immutable characteristics.

In the current situation, blacks (and particularly black women) are seen as barging into a place and demanding to control it. Of course, that was never really what was going on. Blacks rioting during BLM were doing these riots primarily because black people enjoy violence. Secondarily, black people hate the cops, and thirdly, they hate (or at least strongly dislike) white people in general. At no point did the blacks demand they get more roles in white people movies, or be featured in niche indie video games. If you let blacks make a list of their demands, “we want in them white people movies” would never come up. This was a very Jewish operation, saying “we’re going to make this your problem, whitey.” I’m not even defending the blacks, who are clearly a menace, I’m just saying that forcing them into entertainment media was a completely Jewish idea to attack white people. It also inspires even more loathing of the blacks in white people, which may or may not have been on purpose, but whereas no one blinked in the 1990s at a Blade film starring Wesley Snipes (it was actually very popular and good), now when you see a black face, you think “oh yeah, fuck you too then.”

Blacks were not historically banned from media, nor was it always looked at as an attack to include a black. Historically, blacks were included in American entertainment media either because they fit the role (i.e., playing a role of a black person, for example, a criminal or street pimp), because white people liked the black person (e.g., Wesley Snipes), or because the product was being sold to black people (e.g., the original Black Panther comic books).

The fourth reason that blacks would be in a product is if it was made by black people, generally targeted at other black people. When Tim Burton was attacked for not having enough black people in his films (there are literally none), it was before the 2020 BLM mania, and he started talking about how black people have their own films so there is no problem with his films being for whites. This is really the obvious answer.

The explanation then seems to be “well, blacks can’t make their own films, because of slavery.” Or something. I don’t exactly know what the explanation is. Well, the real explanation is “because Jews hate you.” But the ostensible explanation oscillated between “they have to take your films because they don’t have their own because of slavery” and “you have to look at them as punishment for slavery.”

But here’s the issue: Sinners is a good film. I am by no means recommending it, because I don’t think many of the readers will appreciate it. I think most of you have seen enough blacks and don’t want to see any more. Which is understandable and I agree with you, but I was interested in the film because it was popular – billed as the first hit of 2025 – and because it was a totally black film, written and directed by a black and starring mostly blacks.

Regardless of my lack of a recommend, it must be said: it is a totally competent film. I enjoyed it. Though simple, it was well-written and visually neat. I usually am not a huge fan of the “one guy plays twins” trope, but Michael B. Jordan does a good job with it. Everything about this film is fine. I don’t think it’s some cinematic masterpiece, but it is fine. It’s anti-white, I think. The evil vampire is an Irish folk singer who turns the blacks into vampires to use in his folk dances. Which is kind of too hilarious to be offensive. But the director, Ryan Coogler, adds a scene at the end (after what should have been the film’s conclusion) where the main character just kills a bunch of white people. I originally thought it was the studio that had requested he add a scene like this at the end, because aside from any politics, it takes away from the film, but the Wikipedia page says he had final cut rights. So I’m not endorsing anything about the message of the film. I just want to note that it disproves the idea that blacks need to force themselves into our films because they can’t make their own. Coogler – or as I like to call him “Coonler” or “a nigger” – is a fine writer/director and it is proof of concept that the blacks could be making their own films.

But, seriously, all my love to everyone involved with this film, I wish you niggers all the best. I wish you didn’t have to kill a bunch of white people every time you made a film, but it’s fine, I don’t care, and I’m actually able to sympathize with an Irish folk singer vampire whose goal is to get a bunch of niggers to dance jigs to his songs. And thanks for respecting our traditional music. We sure respected your traditional music, my black chappies.

(I want to note that there are Chinese people in this movie, which seemed like forced diversity in an otherwise almost all-black film. There weren’t any Chinese people in Louisiana or Mississippi or wherever this was in the interwar period. If there were any, they definitely were not integrated and speaking dialect with negroes. Frankly, replacing historically black roles with Asians felt very forced and bizarre.)

It seems like the Jews are currently backing off of the “forced diversity in entertainment media” program. At least partially. It’s unfortunate for indie game devs who destroyed their companies by going full niggermania, but I guess it’s good for society? Obviously, I don’t think having slightly fewer blacks forced into white films is going to help anything. At least not on its own. But we are witnessing a broader shift towards a rejection of Jewish values. Hopefully, the blacks can experience something similar. Maybe they are. I don’t really know that Kanye West is representative of the blacks and their feelings about things. But if they can make their own films, that is good. Much of the problems with the blacks are based on the issue of dependence on white people for everything in their lives. That creates resentment. They become like rebellious children angry at their parents. If they can gain some kind of independence, they can back off a bit and stop being such a nuisance.

The woke right is rising.

The Jews seem to be on the backfoot, not just on the world stage with their Israel project, but also domestically with their tranny/nigger/women program. But that really seems like a mirage. To me, it seems unbelievable that all of a sudden the Jews would just lose all this power for no reason. If there was some kind of religious revival and people were praying for a restoration of normalcy in the country, I could believe it. But that isn’t happening. Right now, we’re supposed to believe the Jews just all of a sudden surrendered and let everyone back on the internet for no reason.

Frankly, I don’t know what is happening. But it seems very unlikely to me that it’s totally straightforward and exactly what it looks like. I’m sure Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Candace Owens, Tim Dillon, Theo Von, Joe Rogan, etc. are all very nice people, but the idea that because Trump got “elected” in this sham system means that all of a sudden you can now just talk about the Jews on YouTube doesn’t make any sense to me at all and I don’t believe it’s what it looks like it is. I don’t know what it is but I don’t have to know what it is to not believe it. I can not believe anything I don’t want to believe. This system simply cannot function on even a medium-term timeline if people are allowed to talk about Jewish behavior and Jews have the ability to shut it down. Trust me, they have that ability. The only thing I can reckon is that they’ve run AI simulations where the amount of censorship we had previously was going to result in a violent uprising, so they rolled it back some, but it’s right now rolled back too far and there is going to be some kind of correction which will probably be a staged “far right terrorist attack.” That’s where I would guess this would go. Of course, I can’t predict the future; I’m not a wizard. I’ve never looked a gift horse in the mouth, but I’ve also never looked a Jew in the mouth and I’m not going to do so, ever.

Since this website is so censored that it no longer has the ability for popular reach, I’ve developed a general rule against “explaining it to the retards.” But with a recent barrage of criticism by the retards, I think there is enough to discuss that will be edifying to non-retards that it is worth responding and explaining why this particular criticism of me is retarded.

I posted the above clip in an article earlier this week commenting on Sam Rockwell’s appearance, which I find impressive for his age. I also noted that the clip is hilarious, with Rockwell talking about how he developed autogynephilia after engaging in rampant sex in Thailand for several years. I lurk in some Telegram channels where people share my articles in order to get an idea of what people think, and found a bunch of people condemning me for posting “degeneracy.”

Firstly, this is the gayest form of virtue signaling, because it is being done by people who claim to oppose virtue signaling. Do people know what “virtue signaling” is? The term is a transparent compound, so you already know what it means assuming you are familiar with the words “virtue” and “signal.” But why do people do it? It is something done by losers and pathetic people who want to feel like they’re better than other people. It is about gaining social status among a group.

This behavior is obviously most popular among women.

But men do it too.

Being in a right-wing group chat and announcing to the world that you are outraged that Anglin would post a clip of someone talking about deviant sexual behavior could only serve the purpose of making yourself feel like you’re a superior person, and the only reason you would do that is because you are a pathetic human being, with nothing else in your life to boost your personal confidence.

It’s possible that a valid response would be: “Anglin shouldn’t be propagating disgusting material like this,” if that is your opinion. It could at least be framed as a valid opinion. I don’t think it is a valid opinion, because we have been buried under tranny propaganda for nearly a decade now, and it has been inescapable for anyone on the internet, so the idea that someone could be seriously shocked by that clip is not believable to me. If I went and showed it to the Amish, I could see that as being gross, but if you’re telling me you’ve been on the internet in the last ten years and were shocked by that clip, then I’m no only calling you a liar, I’m calling you a pathetic human being who lies about his own moral purity for the purpose of making himself feel better about how pathetic he actually is.

But the problem is not that you are pathetic. At least, that is not my problem, and I wish you the best with figuring out some healthier way to boost your self-esteem. The problem is that flooding discussion with this virtue signaling nonsense serves to shut down discussion of topics which might be meaningful (even if the topic is not meaningful, shutting down discussion of it is cancerous behavior). You obviously couldn’t talk about black crime statistics or IQ averages when some woman was screaming at you about how you’re evil if you don’t simply accept that white cops are going around murdering black people because they hate the color of their skin.

Someone who just thinks “oh this clip is talking about gay shit” is going to miss the actual relevance of the thing, and why it is so hilarious. It’s hilarious because it’s subversive, and like much of what is in White Lotus, it’s shocking that it’s allowed on TV given the current social and cultural climate.

The themes in White Lotus are all a scathing indictment of modernity, as well as an analysis of human nature that stands in stark opposition to the liberal orthodoxy. Virtually every theme in the show is in line with a traditional Christian or classical philosophical view of man’s nature. Infidelity, hedonism, pride, the emptiness of the cycle of material desire in general, sexual roles, the indulgences of women, the lust of men, the nature of guilt, repentance, and redemption. There is a lot there, and none of it is stuff that the most of the audience would agree with if presented with it in a straightforward manner.

Part of why the show can get away with this is that they frame it in such an artistic way, nothing is spelled out in the way that would trigger some screeching woman on Twitter. Someone could watch the show, and most people do, and simply see it as yet another visual spectacle like every other one of these streaming shows. Further, it is vulgar, featuring an excessive amount of nudity, which implies that it is embracing rather than criticizing modern norms. The other reason is probably that the writer/director of the series, Mike White, is a homosexual. Regardless of the reasons, however, the show is able to address themes that I don’t recall any popular media having addressed in decades.

The clip in question, where the Sam Rockwell character describes in a frank tone that he spent 1,000 nights having sex with Thai hookers before realizing that what he really wanted was to become a small Asian girl and be fucked by himself is an absolute description, if not an outright indictment, of the overwhelming majority of the tranny movement.

The trans movement has been framed as an identity phenomenon. Sometimes we hear the term “gender dysphoria,” which means that the man feels as though they are trapped in the wrong body, that his soul is actually that of a woman. Though this does exist, and is a legitimate mental disorder, what is not discussed is that if we remove the children who are being manipulated into becoming trannies by the school system, the overwhelming majority of adult men who become trannies have something called “autogynephilia,” which is not an “identity” but a paraphilia (often called a “kink” in modern parlance), a disorder purely related aberrant sexuality. It has nothing to do with identity or some incomprehensible thing about the soul being trapped in the wrong body.

From the abstract of a 2011 peer-reviewed paper on the topic available on NIH:

Autogynephilia is defined as a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female. It is the paraphilia that is theorized to underlie transvestism and some forms of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism. Autogynephilia encompasses sexual arousal with cross-dressing and cross-gender expression that does not involve women’s clothing per se. The concept of autogynephilia defines a typology of MtF transsexualism and offers a theory of motivation for one type of MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia resembles a sexual orientation in that it involves elements of idealization and attachment as well as erotic desire. Nearly 3% of men in Western countries may experience autogynephilia; its most severe manifestation, MtF transsexualism, is rare but increasing in prevalence.

…

The concept of autogynephilia can assist clinicians in understanding some otherwise puzzling manifestations of nonhomosexual MtF transsexualism. Autogynephilia exemplifies an unusual paraphilic category called ‘erotic target identity inversions’, in which men desire to impersonate or turn their bodies into facsimiles of the persons or things to which they are sexually attracted.

Most people have not even heard about this phenomenon, so for me, the Sam Rockwell bit in White Lotus was quite incredible in its content, as well as being hilarious. The way Rockwell says it all so calmly, as if he is describing the most mundane topic, as Walton Goggins sits there listening is so funny to me. And then that his solution is to become a Buddhist takes it into the realm of the greatest satire vignettes I’m aware of.

The other thing to consider is that the process through which autogynephilia and many other extreme paraphilias is described. Rockwell explains that it was after spending a thousand nights picking up hookers in Thailand that he began to develop the thought that he wanted to become a small Asian girl. This is exactly what happens in real life when men have access to unlimited amounts of sex and choose to engage in it without limits: they increasingly get bored with normal vaginal sex with attractive women and will go into increasingly more bizarre sexual practices. The same thing happens with compulsive pornography use, with the user getting into weirder and weirder material, needing something that he would once have considered disgusting in order to get the same level of stimulation he would have once gotten from “hot blonde gets fucked hard.”

The reason this is all of core relevance to society right now is that unlimited sexual “exploration” is encouraged by the society. It has effectively become a first principle of liberal democracy that all forms of sexual perversion should be embraced and continually expanded on. And the issue is that this all gets very dark, very quickly. A few years ago, the actor Armie Hammer, a handsome celebrity in his mid-thirties who had no doubt experienced a serious amount of normal sex with beautiful women, was canceled because he had apparently gotten into cannibalism. At least, in published texts, he expressed a desire to experiment with it. In 2013, Ian Watkins, the lead singer of a semi-popular British rock band, Lostprophets, again in his mid-thirties having had unlimited access to normal sex with beautiful women, was exposed for having sex with infants.

We you consider how dark this can all get, you can see how an elite with no limits on their sexual behavior could degenerate into the sort of thing we heard about during the “Pizzagate” era of internet activism. I won’t endorse all of the claims of Pizzagate, many of which were obviously untrue, and became increasingly more ridiculous as the “movement” went on, but when you look at human sexuality and the way that unlimited exposure to every kind of sex leads to increasingly bizarre behavior, it would almost be impossible if some of the darkest things imaginable were not happening among our current decadent ruling class here in this gloriously equitable democracy.

This society is very dark, and it might be unfortunate, but these topics need to be discussed freely. Whining moralizing doesn’t make the issues go away. Please disregard those who wish to flood discussions of complex and relevant issue with womanlike moral outrage.

The wokesters are crapping their little lacy panties as the patriot Mel Gibson won the top spot at the box office with his film “Flight Risk.”

The film, a thriller starring Mark Wahlberg and that guy who played Venom in the third Sam Raimi Spider-Man film, is also causing patriots to awaken from their slumber, fitting in with patriot president Donald Trump’s slogan “Awake – Not Woke!”

Reviewers are giving the film negative reviews, but that is only because they know it is redpilling people. The “reviewers” are a bunch of woke kikes who are easily triggered by facts and logic.

Mel Gibson was virtually banned from Hollywood after he tried to redpill the cops on woke Jews while drunk at a traffic stop. Flight Risk is the first film he’s directed since 2016’s “Hacksaw Ridge.”

Gibson was recently appointed by President Patriot to root out the woke kikes in Hollywood and make entertainment safe for America once again. He will be working with Sylvester Stallone and that guy who got sodomized in Deliverance to deliver a knuckle sandwich to wokesters.

Mel will need to make a blacklist of woke Jews so they cannot continue to turn everyone into trannies with their bluepilled woke slop.

It’s a big task, but Mel and Sly and that guy who got raped in Deliverance are true fighters, and if anyone can stop the kike wokester agenda, it’s them.

Remember to go see Flight Risk for your daily dose of redpills.

As they say, a redpill a day keeps the Jews away!

Hey Elon, Can I have my designs back please? #ElonMusk #Elon_Musk pic.twitter.com/WPgxHevr6E

— Alex Proyas (@alex_proyas) October 13, 2024

Elon Musk steals designs from everyone, buddy.

Join the damn “Elon Stole My Shit” club.

RT:

Movie director Alex Proyas has accused billionaire Elon Musk of reusing designs shown in the 2004 adaptation of Isaac Asimov’s ‘I, Robot’ book series.

The electric car company Tesla hosted an event called ‘We, Robot’ last week, with the name playing on the title of the world-famous series of short sci-fi stories. Musk, who is the firm’s CEO, showed off revamped Optimus humanoid robots and new self-driving vehicle designs at the reception in Burbank, California.

”Hey Elon, Can I have my designs back please?” Proyas said on X on Sunday, posting side-by-side comparisons between what was shown by Tesla and what was featured in the film that he directed, which starred Will Smith in the lead role of a robot-skeptical police detective.

All of Tesla’s designs for the last ten years have been ripped off the of the Chinese. I know it’s popular among white nationalists to claim “Asians are intelligent, but not inventive.” Well, if you believe that, then tell Elon’s team in China to stop ripping off Chinese designs.

Tesla is a fake company. It’s just a bunch of scams and ripoffs. It’s way more extreme than what Bankman was doing at FTX. All Bankman did was the same thing every financial institution does.

What Tesla does is a massive scam on the whole world.

The recent show had fake robotaxis and fake robots. It was a gigantic sham.

Sources: The remote controlled Tesla Optimus has problems balancing. Despite 3 years in development, it walks like a 90 year old human with bad hips and knees — why Tesla employees had encircled 👇 it to make sure a minor bump didn’t send it crashing 😆 pic.twitter.com/HydqB6uiau

— Facts Chaser 🌎 🤦🏻‍️ (@Factschaser) October 14, 2024

Fake Tesla robotaxi that only seats two and only “works” via remote control on fake city streets at one movie studio in LA has pointless swing up doors, forcing rider to cut a wider path to enter and exit — dangerous in real world traffic, and cumbersome in narrow spaces 🤡 https://t.co/s62XuQYvxP pic.twitter.com/0hGeEsuEAI

— Facts Chaser 🌎 🤦🏻‍️ (@Factschaser) October 14, 2024

Musk’s fake robotaxis were spotted faking larger rims via painted tires. The choice of gold is not shocking — low IQ Trump supporters love the flash of gold, like Trump 😜 https://t.co/vVBXJyxL5d pic.twitter.com/mXUvXE9dRS

— Facts Chaser 🌎 🤦🏻‍️ (@Factschaser) October 14, 2024

Note to Elon: I will stop exposing your shady scams and grotesque obesity if you give me my Twitter account back. thx.

Nobody seems to be smiling for “Joker: Folie à Deux” as it continues to flop at the box office. It was expected to be another comic book smash… instead, the sequel is a box office disaster.

So far Joker 2 has grossed $51.5M domestically and $165M globally after two weeks. pic.twitter.com/MQLghVu6m5

— Breakfast Television (@breakfasttv) October 15, 2024

Incels had one thing.

One thing.

They turned that one thing into a vagina overload.

The Guardian:

Joker: Folie à Deux is on course for a catastrophic financial loss of up to $200m (£153m) as its dismal box office run continues amid a stream of critical brickbats and poor audience ratings.

According to a report in Variety, industry analysts say Joker: Folie à Deux is projected to earn a total of $65m at the North American box office, and around $215m elsewhere for a total of $280m – well below the estimated $300m the film cost to produce and promote. With revenue splits with cinemas factored in, Variety say that in fact the film needs to earn around $450m to break even, though producing studio Warner Bros say that the break-even figure is in fact $375m. In an effort to claw back revenue the film is headed for an early debut on home entertainment and streaming platforms on 29 October. Meanwhile the Rotten Tomatoes rating website has recorded an audience score of 32%.

As a result the estimate is the film could lose its producers between $125m and $200m. However a statement from Warner Bros disputed the accuracy of the figures, saying: “Any estimates suggested by anonymous ‘insiders’ or ‘rival executives’ are grossly wrong and continues a trend where rumour is reported as fact.”

All this is in stark contrast to the reception given the first Joker film. With the same star, Joaquin Phoenix, and director Todd Phillips, Joker won the prestigious Golden Lion at the Venice film festival on its premiere in 2019 as well as winning the best actor Oscar for Phoenix; it was also a huge commercial success, earning $1.08bn at the global box office, including £335m in North America.

This is one of the worst failures in cinema history. It is the single least profitable comic book movie ever. People are saying it is the worst movie ever.

The Jewish director, Todd “Phillips” Bunzi, accidentally made a film that appealed to disaffected white men. He was angry about it, and made a sequel to attack the fans of the first film.

However, it was so bad that not even the hordes of journalists whining about how incels liked the first film were able to tolerate it. The fact that this film is complete shit is the first thing incels and vagina journalists were able to agree on.

You’ll all remember that as much as I dislike Alec Baldwin, I said from the beginning that this case was bullshit.

Actors point guns at each other and pull the trigger constantly. It happens hundreds of times in some films. It’s not the actor’s responsibility to make sure the guns are loaded with blanks. That is the job of the staff, and in this case, the producers hired a woman for the job, and unsurprisingly, someone died.

Baldwin was always the victim here. He has to live the rest of his life knowing he killed some woman when it was literally not his fault at all in any way.

He’s getting off on some technicality. But I think everyone knew this case was bullshit, and people just hate Alec Baldwin so they wanted him to be persecuted, generally.

RT:

A New Mexico judge has dismissed involuntary manslaughter charges against Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin, ruling that the prosecution withheld crucial evidence. 

In October 2021, Baldwin fired a revolver while rehearsing a scene on a film set, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounding director Joel Souza. Baldwin denied wrongdoing, saying he had been assured the gun did not contain live rounds, and was safe to use.

The prosecutors argued in court that Baldwin “violated the cardinal rules of firearm safety.” The actor’s defense team, meanwhile, described the incident as an “unspeakable tragedy,” but stressed that Baldwin “committed no crime” because live rounds were never supposed to be delivered on set, according to ABC News.

The defense team asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the prosecution failed to disclose that it had been given a batch of rounds when Baldwin’s lawyers requested a review of ballistic evidence. Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer agreed that it was a major flaw in the prosecution’s handling of the case.

“The state’s wilful withholding of this information was intentional and deliberate,” Sommer said. “This disclosure over the course of trial is so late that it undermines the defendant’s preparation for trial. There is no way for the court to right this wrong.”

Yeah, see.

People just hate him and were trying to screw him.

I understand that sentiment.

But for me, I believe in justice for all.

Like Metallica says.

Anyway, with Alec – I actually like the idea of a guy who is just a complete asshole and everyone hates him and he doesn’t care. They release tape of him screaming at his 11-year-old daughter and he’s just like “yeah, well – fuck that bitch.”

But then he had to get all political.

Doesn’t getting all political just totally destroy the “complete asshole” character?

A real asshole would be like “look, I support the candidate whose gonna be putting the most money in my pocket. Full stop.”

It’s a pretty basic rule of life: don’t ever break character.

I’m sure I agree with all of the various criticisms of Disney.

I’m sure they’re woke lesbians who make terrible shows and people are right to hate them over it.

Where did it all go wrong with #StarWars ? What cues did we not give as fans to show what was needed for them to make money? Who in their right mind would greenlight #theacolyte or any show LIKE the #acolyte to EVER air in front of Star Wars fans? #Disney has LOST THEIR MINDS pic.twitter.com/5cfqca010O

— Xwing (@XwingsHangar) June 12, 2024

However, I must also say: making a show that you know everyone is going to hate and then lashing out and blaming the fans when they complain about it is hilarious.

You gotta respect that.

New York Post:

The creator of the controversial Disney+ “Star Wars” show “The Acolyte” is pushing back against those who say that her show is “woke” propaganda featuring “lesbian space witches,” slamming the criticism as “reductive.”

Leslye Headland, the “first openly queer person to create” a major Star Wars project as The Hollywood Reporter (THR) described her, spoke to the outlet this week about the backlash the show has gotten for its progressive themes, telling the outlet that she never intended to make a show with an overt political agenda, even if it contains some LGBTQ messaging.

“I don’t believe that I’ve created queer, with a capital Q, content,” Headland told the entertainment outlet.

Leslye Headland

“Star Wars: The Acolyte” has proven to be one of the most divisive entries in the Star Wars franchise since its debut on Disney’s streaming platform earlier this month.

I think we can probably say “the single most.”

People hate this more than the third JJ Abrams film, and people really hated that a lot.

Despite being a hit with critics – it currently features an 85% Rotten Tomatoes rating among professional movie reviewers – it has a 14% audience score, the lowest rating in that category among all Star Wars content.

The Disney-owned film franchise has been criticized by fans in recent years who claim the company has embraced “woke” storylines and characters, with fans slamming “The Acolyte” as the most progressive one yet.

The show’s LGBTQ reputation has preceded itself, generating a now-viral moment where a journalist from The Wrap told Headland and non-binary series star Amandla Stenberg during an interview that the show is “arguably the gayest Star Wars by a considerable margin.”

Amandla Stenberg, the star of Star Wars: The Acolyte, decided to pull the racism card and “own the haters” by flailing around like a fish out of water gasping for air while singing about how oppressed she is.

This is what Star Wars is now. pic.twitter.com/p35XyJXCP2

— MasteroftheTDS (@MasteroftheTDS) June 20, 2024

Headland also weighed in on a controversial storyline in episode three of “The Acolyte” which seemed to confirm critics’ worst fears about overt LGBTQ propaganda being part of the show.

The narrative in question implied that two powerful witches belonging to an all-female society used force magic to generate their female offspring, the twin main characters of the show played by Stenberg.

In social media circles, disgruntled fans started mocking the series for having made “lesbian space witches” a legitimate part of the Star Wars canon.

Well, the bitch is kinda thicc.

You know?

But yeah, also I hate the color of her skin and so on, so I guess she’s right that I didn’t watch this show because I’m hateful.

So I guess now I have to watch it and leave a good review so I don’t feel guilty.

Leslye Headland really thought she cooked with this goofy shit bruh 😂 #theacolyte pic.twitter.com/GEVtz80bU3

— Verbal Riot (@verbalriotshow) June 12, 2024

It’s a cool strategy to make shows you know people are going to hate and then try to guilt trip them into watching them.

It’s way funnier than just hiring talented people to make entertaining media.

People don’t know that if they don’t stop eating meat, start driving Teslas, and really pay a whole lot of tax to the government, they’re about to be melting out this bitch.

At least, they gonna be swamp ass like a mf.

The sauna business is gonna go out of business because people will just go into the air. The bitch is going to be so hot.

AP:

Aquaman might not mind if the oceans rise, but moviegoers might.

That’s one of the takeaways from a new study conducted by researchers who set out to determine if today’s Hollywood blockbusters are reflective of the current climate crisis. The vast majority of movies failed the “climate reality check” proposed by the authors, who surveyed 250 movies from 2013 to 2022.

The test is simple — the authors looked to see if a movie presented a story in which climate change exists, and whether a character knows it does. One film that passed the test was the 2017 superhero movie Justice League, in which Jason Momoa’s Aquaman character says, “Hey, I don’t mind if the oceans rise” to Ben Affleck’s Bruce Wayne.

But most movies fell short — fewer than 10% of the 250 films passed, and climate change was mentioned in two or more scenes of fewer than 4% of the films. That’s out of touch with a moviegoing public that wants “to see their reality reflected on screen,” said Colby College English professor Matthew Schneider-Mayerson, lead researcher on the study.

“The top line is just that the vast majority of films, popular films produced over the last 10 years in the United States, are not portraying the world as it is,” Schneider-Mayerson said. “They are portraying a world that is now history or fantasy — a world in which climate change is not happening.”

The study authors said they see the climate reality check as a kind of Bechdel-Wallace test for climate change. Alison Bechdel, a cartoonist, is credited with popularizing that test in the 1980s by incorporating her friend Liz Wallace’s test about gender representation in film into a comic strip. The test asks if a movie includes at least two female characters who have a conversation about something other than a man.

Bechdel herself spoke highly of the study’s climate test, which she described as “long overdue” in a social media post during this year’s Academy Awards season. Bechdel said in an e-mail to The Associated Press that “for a movie set in the present to ignore this existential threat just doesn’t make sense anymore” in the age of climate change.

I guess the more interesting angle is that the Hollywood movie industry has such an incredible capacity to change people’s beliefs about literally anything, including making them believe cow farts are going to melt them.

It will also make them accept gay sex, which is a lot more ridiculous than the idea that cow farts are going to cause people to melt.

Climate Change Hoax‼️👇 pic.twitter.com/9UXuVVOj7t

— Truthseeker (@Xx17965797N) May 26, 2024