The Backlash against 'Superman versus Batman'

Yes... no body seems to get hurt, same on most tv cop shows, unless it's a detective show that starts with a murder in need of being solved by some 'exceptionable' person with a badge and a license to lie, cheat and steal.... so 'American', no? :cool: This is so typical of how our empire operates... in the shadows of controlled medium and thusly controlled message... 'see no evil, hear no evil, show no evil'... thus it doesn't exist, right? This way, the sheeple 'know not what they do'... directly or indirectly... so it isn't surprising to see most of these comic book heroes in the imperial design of fighting crime, even super crime, as long as they wave the flag of deceit by showing that no one in the herd is harmed except the 'bad guy'... who seems to escape punishment and keeps coming back for more, all blamed on the system of course, something the super hero seems too stupid to consider and fix... and his (usually) silence is supportive of the empire as it marches on. Has anyone looked into intel or pentagon support for these films?

Yes, most of these films/shows are entertaining, and that is the best Hollywood can deliver... just not in the script department... same with most channeling... much ado about nothing to quote the mysteriously dead poet. These supers are distraction devices, with most form of entertainment, circuses and the like... same routine everytime... didn't the oligarchy of Rome support their local 'superheroes' in propaganda for the masses to support their wars, slave trade etc? These supers never seem to discover all or any of this 'evil' in the world, just some egotistical super villian... how convenient.

Perhaps the 'backlash' is that as the average young 'critic' or 'fan' grows up, they want MORE (Madonna song from Dick Tracy is a good example)... and that more can be for better or for worse on either side of the fence... but it is always more.... and needless to say, they remain disappointed almost every time, in every sequel, as all they seem to find is more of the same, which is not really more... but actually less... even if they aren't really sure what they want in the first or last place... but they feel that need for more. Either they break out of this shell or they grow despondent and give up... and proclaimed depressive and put on pills to help keep them quiet, submissive and complacent.. just like most supers seem to be in their real lives, once the uniform comes off. They all live in the same bubble as the rest of the herd, and serve the system nicely... same as most 'super cops'.... keep the lie alive! especially if it's a super lie. ;D
 
Hello everybody,

This is an interesting discussion all around, very thought provoking. As regards the analysis of this film and its possible Ponerological effects on society, as per the opening question in this thread:

[quote author=Kalibex]I suspect that this general rejection of Snyder's 'darker, grittier' Superman may be (for what it's worth) an instinctive rejection of Snyder's attempt to essentially corrupt or 'ponerize' what was originally conceived of as an unabashedly heroic, 'light' character meant to be looked up to as an ideal. Thoughts?[/quote]

Well, I found this, which seems to support such a view:

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGn6ypv_L7A

I generally like his analysis, and I think he hits something rather crucial, something which is unfortunately all-too missing in most other discourses I’ve seen/listened to regarding this subject. However, I would make an important amendment to what he says at 5:38:

“I suspect that how people feel about this issue will largely depend on how they feel about the war on terror: Some feel that terrorism is a social disease fathered by the poverty and hopelessness of disenfranchised people; that it needs to be “cured” by raising standards of living and banners of hope in the worst places in the world. Others feel that terrorism is an anti-Law-and-order movement that threatens the foundation of ALL civilized society that needs to be utterly destroyed… There’s not much of a middle on this issue…”

The above dichotomy of how people feel about the war on terror, while soundly reflecting the genuine (and the said “unfortunate”) sentiments of the majority of people, is a false one and entirely manufactured by the very psychopathic elites that have not only shaped both of these falsehoods, but in actuality created the “terror problem” in the first place.

The first viewpoint, that terrorism is a social disease that needs to be “cured” precludes the implication that it’s the US’s job to go out there and “cure” it, with all the requite BS strings attached, like “freedom and Democracy” etc. While the second view, that it needs to be destroyed, precludes and justifies the violence and chaos that is being wrought on the world AS WE SPEAK.

So, when we discard the above false dichotomy and view the situation from the lens of objectivity, namely that “Terrorism” is simply part of the psychopathic program fostered upon us by STS forces, I find that his “elephant in the room” analysis to be even more on the dot than even he himself perhaps realises, especially when he says the following at 6:15:

“So why this message now? Why the co-opting of heroes in service of an imperial American message about law and order at a time when our society is facing a REAL Fascist threat?”

-This question suddenly takes on a much more sinister and frightful tone than the way he frames it, doesn’t it?

It’s just a part of the programming.

I might speculate that Snyder has already proven himself useful to the elites in directing 300 and The Watchmen, as has been alluded to already in this thread (Not to mention how Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy contributes to the problem http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,9232.0.html).

Note to Admin: The Article that I am referring to is an analysis of The Dark Knight from a propagandistic perspective; I found it originally thanks to Anart posting a link to it in the above forum thread: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/163009-Batman-Hollywood-s-Terror-Dream - but this Sott article can no longer be found now… Is there a way to find it? It’s relevant to the current discussion, no?

So, I basically agree with the opening question, or I think that it’s at least possible, that the underlying reason as to why this film dropped 68% in sales in its second week, the reason why comic book fans seem to generally hate this film so much, and why people gravitated towards Batman instead of Superman, is because the authors and executers of this program are incapable of understanding that the decisive factor making their work difficult is the fundamental nature of human beings – the majority. [Political Ponerology. P196] Since, at the end of the day, a pathologically hypersensitive censor lives within the citizens themselves. [Political Ponerology. P177] Namely, within their instinctive substratum.

Thanks,
Robin
 
Thanks Robin. I watched the analysis last night and it was quite interesting.

I personally am 50/50 about it. The first superman movie in this series was with him not killing anyone. Zod then simply proceeded to rain havoc and carnage. In the end, superman killed Zod to stop him from harming other people because Zod wanted to subdue humanity and didn't really respect human life.

So there is that side of the argument he didn't touch upon. Zod being alive equaled death to humanity, zod being dead equaled life to humanity.

The war on terror is manufactured. The terrorists are funded by the same people who then fund the response system to said terrorists. It's all fake and basically a tool used against population groups for different reasons all in the aim of serving those at the top. For this reason, I think the analysis in the clip is flawed. That is, unless the presenter thinks batman and superman also somehow aid the villains and also fight them at the same time in some elaborate ruse.

The channel looks interesting though.
 
luke wilson said:
Thanks Robin. I watched the analysis last night and it was quite interesting.

I personally am 50/50 about it. The first superman movie in this series was with him not killing anyone. Zod then simply proceeded to rain havoc and carnage. In the end, superman killed Zod to stop him from harming other people because Zod wanted to subdue humanity and didn't really respect human life.

So there is that side of the argument he didn't touch upon. Zod being alive equaled death to humanity, zod being dead equaled life to humanity.

The war on terror is manufactured. The terrorists are funded by the same people who then fund the response system to said terrorists. It's all fake and basically a tool used against population groups for different reasons all in the aim of serving those at the top. For this reason, I think the analysis in the clip is flawed. That is, unless the presenter thinks batman and superman also somehow aid the villains and also fight them at the same time in some elaborate ruse.

The channel looks interesting though.
Click to expand...

I agree. Zod didn't care about life in general & sought control over anything or anyone that got in the way of this major STS program. Personally his female aid (forgot her name) seemed far worse to me - female psychopaths eh?! The anti-law & order & "cure" part in relation to pathological censors within people is true enough, but this program manipulated by SG (secret government) is still based on the STS Achilles heel... wishful thinking. For all evil that has been done & is being done & is yet to come, they're still destined to fail. If what the C's say (about their overall plan) is even remotely true, & what extensive research has turned up, then they'll be lucky to have a few million mindless automations left to control. I'm really stumped as to how this mode of BEING can get any real pleasure from such a scenario. If we look at the range of pathological characters depicted on the big & small screen, we see how much they enjoy the plotting, the manipulation, (especially psychologically - getting inside the supposed hero's head) & the fight in general. And of course making people submissive (not just their minions) to full-on conversion of non-pathological people. But of course What we see on the screen is the plan to conquer everything one city at a time etc. So what happens if the only way to do that is to kill most people or use some kind of beaming technology? Would they still feel/think that they're "the king of the world" supreme leader or whatever? Seems nonsensical to me but hey, full-on (higher) STS wishful thinking seems to me like, as Americans would say, "it kinda sucks."

Luke, what you said on your earlier post (previous page) at the end about (paraphrasing) "chief protagonists lives are defined by their status as superheroes" makes me think of "the dark knight returns" where Alfred & Bruce are watching footage of "Bane". Alfred is almost imploring Bruce to drop the obsession with his alter-ego & to be really effective as a champion of the city as Bruce Wayne. How does Bruce respond? "I can't fight a guy like that as Bruce Wayne." I remember it well because of the mental aspect. He was practically going cold turkey just saying those words, thinking about letting loose his brand of justice on criminals whilst dressed as a symbol from his youth that helped him mentally & emotionally deal with the murder of his parents. Obviously he never does deal with this issue (according to the lore) but I thought that scene went over most viewer's heads since I've never heard anyone mention it, let alone emphasize it. But yeah, good point about these superheroes, they seem terrified at the thought of living life as a regular person. Even "Jessica Jones" couldn't & she consciously decided to leave that stuff to the famed heroes. Then she gave in to her addiction again - justifying it as helping people. Look how THAT turned out.

Oh one more thing. The upcoming "Dr Strange" movie (I swear Christopher Nolan ripped off the beginning of Dr strange - Tibet & the "ancient one" - & tacked it onto the "Batman Begins" origin "league of shadows" tale, "Raz Agul" being the "ancient one" I suppose) might need to get a thread because of all the metaphysical & invariably ponerological discourse that it's sure to contain. I know very little about the character but I've seen the teaser trailer & heard talk about it. Like a trippy "cloud atlas" meets "inception" superhero thing where a former pathological surgeon "awakens" & fights off beings from other dimensions. Sometimes you've just got to laugh!
 
The movie had some interesting twists already mentioned in the existing storyline.
I'd like to add that I liked Lex Luthor's change. He stops being a pure simplistic psychopath and instead seems to be more of a schizoidal type. He has valid points on the mythology of gods coming down in peace only to destroy/manipulate humanity and bravo for the analogy of "power/technology" as making people believe they are gods.

I don't understand when there are huge plot holes just to create drama. After Superman was blamed for the deaths in the desert country to save Lois, how come the investigation didn't see the obvious- that they were killed with weapons, which superman does not need to use? And even if they made it look like him, were there not journalists there? Sigh, I can never suspend my disbelief- a curse sometimes, lol.

I heard from friends that in an alternate future, Superman gets tricked to kill Lois, which begins his rampage and reign of terror. How would any of us react if that happened to us in that position? We can say we would be angry, but with his powers- would we not start having a more emotionally manipulated aim that leads astray? I can only say that he becomes more human for that. Every hero that we had/have in this world have some vices, because they too are human, they too bleed and cry. To have these superheros as perfect beings as was in the past, puts an unrealistic standard on us. I kind of think it breeds more narcissism when people can't match up, their subconscious tries to do it in a twisted way- as we have seen with even the start of the "noblest of religions".



I've always had this problem with superheros not killing at all-

For example, in the older Batman series cartoon and movies, the joker would always come back to cause more death and destruction of lives. Why doesn't he realize this, why does he accept it? In a way, if nobody can stop the joker but Batman, he is responsible for having a sacred cow to not do the right thing and nip it in the bud!

I'm reminded of how the C's said that one of the big lies told to us is "thou shalt not kill". The PTB didn't care that Malcolm X was violent. When X left the panthers and started to see that it wasn't black vs white, but us vs them- the PTB got scared. Imagine if instead of fighting for stupid things, people stood up to corruption that doesn't respond to "legal means"?

I think the video is interesting, but a bit simplified. What is good and what is bad in a backwards world? Killing Hitler for example in the early phase would be considered bad (at the early times), yet would have saved many. Of course there are other variables to account for. The psychopaths and narcissists use that logic to kill of anyone before they become a threat. However bad they use killing, doesn't make it a bad thing. That is a juvenile dictionary meaning of the dilemma soaked up by juvenile morality, IMHO.

Circumventing the legal system, the legal system that is run by the psychopaths/schizoidal types, is sometimes a good thing and required. If they have something to worry about, like vigilantes, then there is an incentive for their game theory thinking minds to change the system. As Malcolm X said, how do you try to communicate with a man who is going to lynch you? You speak his language, and sometimes that is violence. Same with Putin. As much as he wants no war, the only way he could stop the pillage of Syria is to "break some eggs".

Maybe some see it as a corruption, but I see that movies are becoming more realistic. Maybe like Thor's Pantheum- there is STS influence in the form of gore/violence, but the STO influence of fighting back STS instead of dreaming of some happy simplistic world.
 
Perhaps the goal in keeping these 'superhereos' naive and innocent in their lack of ability to see the obvious evil in our world is being done by the govts they are working with, cooperating with, even if only in not attacking them for what they are... not exposing them etc... thus, the PTB keep Hollywood on the leash working for them... to keep all the sheep in the pen, controlled and docile, like our 'superhereos'.. and showing this 'dark side' of them, might be an attempt to show the audience that yes, we are evil, and it's ok if we don't know better... sort of like our Pentagon's recent proclamation that bombing that Doctors Without Borders hospital for half an hour wasn't an act of war, simply bad intel, bad communication, not intentional, so not subject to being even considered an act of intent/evil... control of the message and the medium allows this to occur, same in our fantasy superhereos.... they simply don't have the awareness of the world, for whatever reason, to know better and even if a pact isn't signed with countries as our govt does to escape responsibility for 'evil', these superhereos can't be held responsible... this is sort of the same message everytime... wasn't it the jest of the plotline for that animated superhero film... The Incredibles?.. the 'supers' just can't help themselves... same message in that Will Smith film, Hancock... he later learns to act better, with more responsibility in the hands of a do-gooder, another idiot in the eyes of the establishment... used as tools to keep the masses quiescent... same thing every time.. to sell the product, the lie... the FBI's old "G-Men" films to sell that earlier version of a man with a badge, something the old westerns were selling for a long time. This seems to fall in line with the emire building... more and bigger LIES have to be setup to hide the truth, only this play gets old today, as technology has finally reached the point in recording the truth at least enough to point out these lies by our 'hereos' in one uniform or another.

These supehereos are just the latest version of the same ole lies... weren't some of the so-called 'saints' used in this manner in previous centuries? It's one do-gooder or another, rarely does the fake hero meet up with the real thing, which is why we have these propaganda stories to begin with, to setup the mental conditioning at a young, impressionable age, that will make them easier to program later... and perhaps forever.

It's always a matter of scapegoating in these 'dark' versions... or in the campy comedy versions, everyone's seen as simplistic childhood fantasies or simpletons, so they really can't be held responsible for their actions, be they cops, politicians, generals, bankers... everyone is an idiot, only us, the viewer seems to know what's going on.

But, like everything else, all of it can serve as a 'alarm clock'.

As for all of these movies/storylines becoming more realistic, is that true? Is that a measurement of the 'gore factor', another reflection of our lack of morality when it concerns anyone not considered a part of our 'family'? Out of sight, out of mind?.. thus control the medium to control the message.. completely.. and in the end, this 'realism' might just be another factor in the 'bidding process', to get control over our innate free will.... our wee little candles barely alight.... get us to approve of all of the torture, violence and mayhem in ignorance and as entertainment.... so that we too aren't held responsible for our actions... 'as above, so below' don't cha known? ;)
 
Superman and comics in general were used extensively as propaganda during WWII, with publishing paychecks drawn directly from defense budgets and nobody trying to hide the fact.

I think the same thing today is true, but through sneakier means.

The U.S. military, for instance, will provide film and TV companies with full, free access to their visually impressive hardware resources -if the scripts are approved first- to help create the desired impressions in the public mind.

But beyond such obvious tactics, the nature of the grand mind control operation through non-linear marketing has evolved dramatically. Rather than "Rah! Rah! Watch the All American Superman smash the Japanese and Nazis!", we instead suffer from the effects of decades of psychological and advertising research and fine-tuning.

Movies and Television have a huge impact on how populations view and then project reality. -Many films and TV shows since 9/11 have been selling three main concepts, either deliberately or through echo chamber writing:

1. "Radical Ideologies are Very Present and Very Scary" -We've had the Terrorist story shoved in front of our eyes so many times that it has become a defacto reality. -The TV and Movie versions are a big part of the media side of the physical on-the-ground operations, where Western-created nationless armies have been set up to accommodate war spending and population control. Movies and TV are a great method for punching the high anxiety Fear Button over and over, virtual 9/11 events every evening, which people eagerly tune into.

2. "Torture is a Necessary Evil" -Particularly after the Guantanamo Bay torture scandal, literally every action drama in the media presented a version of the "Ticking Time Bomb" argument, where the "Good Guys" go to extreme lengths to use non-violent means to trick a captured terrorist into giving up vital information to stop a bomb, fail, and finally have a hard-bitten leader/father figure step in past hand-wringing subordinates to break fingers and get results. There was only one popular TV show, (the sci-fi series Stargate) which turned this argument on its ear, demonstrating the fallacy behind it. -As the years progressed, I have noticed that in stories, fictionalized efforts to use non-violent questioning methods have been dialed down, replaced by straight out torture as the "obvious" solution and thus normalized behavior. In any given evening of television "entertainment" one can expect to see the icon of a restraining chair in the middle of a dark room with torture implements on a tray. Over and over and over we are attacked with this image and the ensuing drama. Why? This is straight up psychological programming, bending us away from a previous vibrational frequency where the public was once horrified to a new one where they accept, and often spiritually endorse psychopathy.

This should come as no surprise that so much energy is spent on selling the icon of Torture, as it represents the most pure form, the primary objective of the psychopath. To normalize torture is to create the most comfortable environment for psychopaths.

3. "Descent into Fear and Darkness" -When people are subjected over and over to violent fictional realities, where nobody knows who to trust, where friendships are seen as luxuries and radical self-interest is rewarded, populations model their behaviors accordingly. This speeds along the ponorization process, sculpting our collective reality in ways which favor psychopathic elites.

"TV programming" is such a baldfaced term! -People download their daily behavioral player-piano cards every evening, and reality becomes an expression of what we all collectively act like it is. Bit by bit, our neural pathways detour from their old patterns and grow into something new. No single media event will make a huge difference, but a regular diet laced with psychological poison will ultimately have a profound effect, creating a vibration suitable for the incarnation of a very STS species.

This latest Superman film, -I didn't see it, but I gather- is just more of the same.

What I find fascinating, however, is that this time around, people rejected it en masse. That is a new phenomenon, and it caused me to sit up and take note. I think it might be that the Bright and Good Superman represented a final bulwark against ponorized thought patterns, which was why the elites attacked it with such savagery and perhaps why people were reacting on a deep level to having this mythological icon of a former vibrational frequency surgically removed. The patient bucking on the table.

Though it clearly wasn't a strong enough buck. The success of the ultra violent and sick-sounding "Deadpool", (which to be fair, I also avoided like the plague, so cannot comment on directly), seems to indicate that people are still "on message" as it were.
 
true... and a recent interesting example of public manipulation is the whole Star Wars testing of the public's perception on C3P0's golden color... now they are digital inserting one bottom half of a leg in silver? Why? not sure... not really interested enough to follow the developing meme of crap development... it gets tediously boring... so much so, that I didn't bother to add an exclamation mark there. :lol: It's stupid, but does seem to be a test of how they can manipulate the 'past' into the present/future... 'as above, so below'... change the storyline, tell the big lie and keep doing it till everyone shifts to believe the lie is the truth of the situation... ala Roswell etc.
 
Just read this, thought I'd put it here as a comparison of 'superhero' types:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2016/05/04/films/film-reviews/hero-mania-japanese-heroes-keeping-real/

p9-schilling-heromania-a-20160505-870x620.jpg

Film / Reviews
Hero Mania: Japanese heroes are keeping it real
by Mark Schilling

May 4, 2016

Why don’t Japanese audiences turn up in big numbers for Hollywood superhero movies? The rare success in Japan of the Spider-Man series suggests one answer: Japanese like superheroes just fine, as long as they’re flawed humans as well as heroic fighters for justice.

Another case in point is “Hero Mania,” Keisuke Toyoshima’s black comedy about everyday heroes who are not just flawed, but also damaged and strange. And though they may have superior fighting skills, they are not super-powered.

Based on Shigeyuki Fukumitsu’s alternative manga “Seikatsu” (“Life”), the film is funny in smart off-kilter ways, while making astute observations about Japanese society in particular and human nature in general. Also, though produced by the major Japanese film companies — Nikkatsu and Toei — “Hero Mania” has an indie, even anarchic sensibility. It may look like a typical genre entertainment, action-comedy division, but it plays freely with the conventions. Instead of going from zero to hero, with the usual setbacks, the characters arrive at various destinations, not all of which are predictable — or perhaps even legal.

The film’s central “maniac” is Nakatsu (Masahiro Higashide), a former salaryman who is now an unhappy convenience-store clerk. He is dissatisfied with not only his lowly status, but also the lawless state of his provincial city, Dodo, where punks and criminals run rampant.

But Nakatsu, an easily intimidated wimp, can do nothing about this situation until he meets the beady-eyed, red-stocking-capped Toshida (Masataka Kubota). Using a wire he shoots from his wrist, Toshida does cool Spider-Man-like stunts with the uncool purpose of stealing women’s panties. By pairing up, Nakatsu tells him, they can battle the baddies infesting the town. “Only at night,” Toshida answers — and a fateful partnership is born.

Soon after they start their clean-up campaign (with surprising success given that only Toshida has any actual fighting skills), they are joined by Kaori (Nana Komatsu), a nerdy high school girl with a razor-sharp mind, and Kusaki (Tsurutaro Kataoka), a fierce little middle-aged guy who demolishes opponents with two hammers that pop out of his sleeves.

After this quartet strings up a gang of bikers like human Christmas-tree ornaments in one of the film’s more artfully choreographed action scenes, the media starts calling them the Phantom Hangers. Kusaki tells Nakatsu they are righting the local human ecosystem, which is out of whack due to an over-abundance of wild kids and an absence of scary adults. Whatever — Nakatsu is finally finding meaning in his once-drab existence.

Just as they are enjoying their new-found camaraderie, a mysterious Mr. Uno (Funakoshi Eiichiro) enters their tight circle at Kusaki’s introduction. A slick talker with a smarmy smile, Uno persuades them to incorporate, and soon a horde of freshly hired justice fighters, wearing uniforms of the new Tomoshibi security company, are patrolling the streets of Dodo. Meanwhile, Kusaki, Toshida and Kaori join forces with Uno, who offers them the sort of status they could have never won as outlaw Phantom Hangers. Only Nakatsu resists — and he is soon proven prescient when Uno reveals his true, evil colors.

Toyoshima, who has made everything from low-budget horror to erotic-themed period drama, wisely steers “Hero Mania” from the extreme silliness of so many gag manga adaptations. His quirky characters, beginning with Nakatsu, have painful pasts and not-so-funny dark sides. Living in a declining, hoodlum-infested dump like Dodo is finally no joke, nor is serving a corrupt, psychopathic boss like Uno.

This contradicts the stereotyped image of Japan as a crime-free paradise where everyone is working (and over-working) in harmony. True, Dodo and Uno and the social pathologies they symbolize may not be everyday realities for many, but they are not comic-book fantasies either. And if you don’t believe me, I’ve got a certain convenience store I’d like to show you.
 
I just saw this, and thought it would provide an appropriate counterpoint to the problems in the film discussed in this thread.


Particularly, the parts about addressing the fundamental nature of reality; that it is fundamentally supposed to be good. -Whether that is true or not, or too simple a position, is open to debate, but the vibration such a broad belief can create is an idea which cuts to the core of most issues; the species-wide STS programming being foisted upon us.
 
Divide By Zero said:
The movie had some interesting twists already mentioned in the existing storyline.
I'd like to add that I liked Lex Luthor's change. He stops being a pure simplistic psychopath and instead seems to be more of a schizoidal type. He has valid points on the mythology of gods coming down in peace only to destroy/manipulate humanity and bravo for the analogy of "power/technology" as making people believe they are gods.

I don't understand when there are huge plot holes just to create drama. After Superman was blamed for the deaths in the desert country to save Lois, how come the investigation didn't see the obvious- that they were killed with weapons, which superman does not need to use? And even if they made it look like him, were there not journalists there? Sigh, I can never suspend my disbelief- a curse sometimes, lol.

I heard from friends that in an alternate future, Superman gets tricked to kill Lois, which begins his rampage and reign of terror. How would any of us react if that happened to us in that position? We can say we would be angry, but with his powers- would we not start having a more emotionally manipulated aim that leads astray? I can only say that he becomes more human for that. Every hero that we had/have in this world have some vices, because they too are human, they too bleed and cry. To have these superheros as perfect beings as was in the past, puts an unrealistic standard on us. I kind of think it breeds more narcissism when people can't match up, their subconscious tries to do it in a twisted way- as we have seen with even the start of the "noblest of religions".



I've always had this problem with superheros not killing at all-

For example, in the older Batman series cartoon and movies, the joker would always come back to cause more death and destruction of lives. Why doesn't he realize this, why does he accept it? In a way, if nobody can stop the joker but Batman, he is responsible for having a sacred cow to not do the right thing and nip it in the bud!

I'm reminded of how the C's said that one of the big lies told to us is "thou shalt not kill". The PTB didn't care that Malcolm X was violent. When X left the panthers and started to see that it wasn't black vs white, but us vs them- the PTB got scared. Imagine if instead of fighting for stupid things, people stood up to corruption that doesn't respond to "legal means"?

I think the video is interesting, but a bit simplified. What is good and what is bad in a backwards world? Killing Hitler for example in the early phase would be considered bad (at the early times), yet would have saved many. Of course there are other variables to account for. The psychopaths and narcissists use that logic to kill of anyone before they become a threat. However bad they use killing, doesn't make it a bad thing. That is a juvenile dictionary meaning of the dilemma soaked up by juvenile morality, IMHO.

Circumventing the legal system, the legal system that is run by the psychopaths/schizoidal types, is sometimes a good thing and required. If they have something to worry about, like vigilantes, then there is an incentive for their game theory thinking minds to change the system. As Malcolm X said, how do you try to communicate with a man who is going to lynch you? You speak his language, and sometimes that is violence. Same with Putin. As much as he wants no war, the only way he could stop the pillage of Syria is to "break some eggs".

Maybe some see it as a corruption, but I see that movies are becoming more realistic. Maybe like Thor's Pantheum- there is STS influence in the form of gore/violence, but the STO influence of fighting back STS instead of dreaming of some happy simplistic world.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of the Dark Knight Returns storyline where an old Batman finally admits that the blood of all the people the Joker's killed is on his hands for refusing to kill the joker.It also deals with themes of authoritarianism as Superman has become a servant to the U.S. Gov and is sent in to ''Take Care'' of the Batman because the established authorities feared the change to the social order he would bring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom