batmancomicanalysis

[batmancomicanalysis]

"If they are to live, a people must have the will to fight and the will to hate. This is the incontrovertible truth of life in this world, made hideous in our eyes because it is viewed through the clouded lens of a false morality, that condemns as evil the demands that survival makes of us, and the very instincts that empower us to meet them. For as long as we despise those instincts, whether they reveal themselves in hatred, or in prejudice, or in anger, we despise an inalienable part of our own being, and this reviled inner nature will appear in our eyes as a monster to wreak a vengeance upon us. But if we embrace it without judgment or reproof, the veil will be lifted, and it will show itself as a friend once more. The beast within was only ever a monster to those who had cause to fear it."

[batmancomicanalysis]

Northern Ireland's riots destroy the "economic argument" for immigration

"A riot is the language of the unheard." - Michael King Jr.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

The economic costs of a riot, and by implication, of the more intense violence that will follow, are immense: infrastructure destroyed, commerce frozen, investment deterred or withdrawn. But far more significant is what the riots reveal: if every time a native child is brutally attacked by an outsider the streets erupt in violence, how can immigration be justified on any grounds, let alone economic ones? And this doesn't even begin to account for the psychological toll: terror, uncertainty and a collapse in public trust.

When riots are persistent they represent a form of collective survival instinct. This signals that the population no longer sees the regime as its protector but as an occupier. At this point the state’s legitimacy is no longer assumed; it is actively denied.

Further, the costs don't end with smashed windows, destroyed vehicles and torched hotels. The regime responds to unrest not by reversing its policies but by tightening control over the indigenous Irish: more police in native communities, more surveillance, harsher laws, anti-Irish economic discrimination, imprisoning more men and women, ideological propaganda, public scapegoating. The state turns its power inward, not against those who bring violence, but against those who refuse to submit to it.

The treasonous and genocidal government will continue to escalate its repression until it collapses.

The more openly corrupt, distant, and hostile the system becomes, the more the dispossessed White population will feel betrayed, enraged and cornered. They are confronted not only with foreign violence but with a political class that welcomes it. At some point the mask slips. The “economic argument” disintegrates. The promises of “cohesion” and "diversity" are revealed as intentionally destructive lies. And violent rupture becomes not unthinkable but inevitable.

[batmancomicanalysis]

The "Western" media’s response to Trump drawing attention to the brutal attacks on White South Africans was deeply revealing. If White South Africans are too wealthy, too safe from crime and not under any substantial political attack ("Kill the Boer! Shoot the Boer!"), then it follows that this demographically declining and intensely persecuted minority is still "privileged", still requiring more "equality". Thus it's clear that the media and affiliated institutions wish to impose South African conditions on Whites everywhere.

Whites are more successful than blacks due to genetic differences. In so far as Whites are safer (and official statistics likely downplay anti-White violence as it contradicts the "rainbow" narrative) it's because they use their resources to live away from blacks, invest heavily in private security and are compelled to reduce their mobility (avoiding public transport, not going out at certain times or to certain areas). Their wealth is in spite of anti-White South African race laws and quotas, as well as the general corruption and incompetence of South Africa's black government.

[batmancomicanalysis]

"Thought experiments"

I used to be enamoured with thought experiments to parse out truths which are otherwise difficult or impossible to ascertain but they can have severe weaknesses/deficits for the inquirer, beyond the obvious that people may act very differently in an existential situation to how they think they would. One is when it comes in the form of a question: for instance, asking a woman her preferences implies insecurity (reactiveness, dependence, psychological or practical subordination, uncertainty, even fetishism and masochism), as if her current and stated preferences have great inherent importance rather than value coming internally and this can subtly influence her feelings, resulting in an answer more distant from you or the symbol associated with you. The question may also degrade her, you or symbols associated with her/you, subconsciously or consciously priming her to give a particular answer. The asking of a question can easily poison the inquiry. Further, a thought experiment is answered by someone within the world as it exists, who has necessarily been deeply influenced by external factors, muddying the answer that they would "naturally" give in the absence of "external influence" (so far as that's possible). So the thought experiment is implicitly passive in accepting the implications of the existing order, thus not masculine and not attractive. This could easily distort the answer in a thought experiment about masculinity. Also, the framing is arbitrary (why is x scenario more valid than y scenario in terms of ascertaining truth?) and may distort key norms that are otherwise essential (“what if you grew up without your father?”; does this more get to the core of your nature or does it entirely distort it?) A thought experiment can justify anything by contrasting morality with (for example) supposed great or unlimited pleasure, juxtaposing our deepest values against each other, revealing what was formerly absolute to be relative. The immoral choice in the thought experiment can be associated with said pleasure which inherently heightens it, makes the formerly unthinkable thinkable and weakens aversion. "Let's say you were blind, trapped in a cell for the rest of your life and you could have your dick sucked by the best fellatio artist on the planet once a week? Would you? Yes? What if the best fellatio artist were a man? What if you weren't initially aware that he was a man? Would you request it stops after you found out?" Even if one said "I would stop/I wouldn't start", the mind wonders whether one would actually desist in such a situation or whether the pleasure/relief would break one's morals, especially in such a squalid, hopeless scenario. Thus after contemplating that thought experiment, homosexuality is more justified in one's mind, or at least less alien than it was in the beginning. And "If that's understandable, even acceptable, then what if..." etc. etc. "Thought experiment" also sounds nerdy, as if you exist in a sterile realm of voyeuristic "pure ideas" rather than physical reality, cucked by your own imagination. Perhaps philosophy inherently tends towards hedonism, nihilism and suicide.

Every physical "gender transition" starts with the thought experiment: "What would it like to be a woman?"

[batmancomicanalysis]

Wagie women are not serious romantic options

If she’s a wagie I just can’t see how it would work:

1. She has a wagie income, meaning no relative or absolute need for a NEET’s (likely more limited) income

2. She may well feel resentment (even disgust) for a man who doesn’t just get less money, he doesn't even “go on the hunt” while she does (her friends and family will also work to undermine you: “Why are you with that loser?”, “You can do better.” etc.)

3. I’d want to spend a lot of time together, not share her with a job, coworkers, customers and boss like a cuckold

4. A wagie woman is more integrated into the system and is more likely to have internalised the system’s values, whereas NEETs stand in opposition to them, creating a psychological and existential gap that is usually unbridgeable

[batmancomicanalysis]

The reasons for "two-tier"/anti-White policing by White cops

Every cop, especially every White cop, is terrified of being another Derek Chauvin (tried by the media, imprisoned and stabbed more times than Julius Caesar, despite evidence to pardon him) so they do not surveil or punish "minorities" effectively, whereas they can tyrannise Whites and not be accused of "racism" (and cops are trained to regard the public/non-system privileged criminals as the enemy, with fear being their primary means of control and the ethnocidal state as their master).

The repressed aggression that White cops feel towards non-Whites (who are far more hostile towards them on average) is redirected towards Whites as a politically correct target as well as being an extension of their own ethnomasochism (this also goes with the grain of their frequent bullying tendencies: cops are consistently among the worst offending occupations for domestic violence, if not the worst)

Cops are indoctrinated with implicitly genocidal anti-White "critical race theory", pro-black "systemic racism" narratives, Noel "destroy the White race" Ignatiev's "white skin privilege" etc. and that's after decades of anti-White/"leftist" school and media indoctrination as children/teenagers, neutering them in the face of non-White aggression and increasing hostility towards Whites.

Cops fear disproportionately criminal non-White groups (especially Muslims, Africans and Roma) but do not generally fear Whites (who have "too much to lose" economically, little to no institutional identity protection, an undue respect for the cops and, being atomised and emasculated, feel they need the cops for "protection" against the aforementioned ethnic aliens), increasing passivity towards non-Whites and aggression towards Whites.

In order to lessen complaints of "racial profiling" and to "counter far-right narratives", cops reduce their policing of non-Whites and increase their policing of Whites, facilitating non-White violence while artificially inflating the crime statistics, demonisation and gaslighting of Whites ("social justice" in action).

Bertrand de Jouvenel's theory of "high and low vs the middle" argues that it's a perennial elite strategy to empower and expand the underclass to attack and even ultimately destroy the middle. The underclass can never form a new elite but the middle can and the underclass is only a serious threat to the elite if it's allied with the middle. Cops are bribed, empowered (to an extent) and used as pawns by the elite, primarily to suppress the middle despite usually being from the middle/White themselves (at least currently, given their increasingly pronounced tendency to hire hostile, corrupt and incompetent "diversity").

Taken together these points are extremely effective in explaining why the police, including White cops, are so intensely anti-White on an institutional (though not necessarily on an individual) level.

[batmancomicanalysis]

I appreciate the effort, you are intelligent and I agree that ACAB but combine reason with emotion/intuition and you will understand more.

"and discover that I said mean things about a fictional cop and so they tell me they’re too offended and won’t be sending the cops after all"

This shows that you feel dependent on the police for your safety in real life, which you resent. It also implies that you don't have solid relationships with men, who will protect you if/when they love you. Unfortunately our collective symbols have been so degraded that the sexes have fallen out with each other horrifically.

Further, I do not mean that the cops will screw you over for attacking them on social media, I mean that your unrealistic worldview which opposes cops (good) but turns a blind eye to child killing rapist Fring and cartel hitmen is potentially extremely dangerous for you, as it will increase your chances of being victimised by ethnic criminals.

"I’m going to be real with you: that’s a terrible take that deserves a lot more unpacking than I’m willing to do, and I have a feeling it would be a waste of my time anyway."

That's not very convincing to me, if you could refute me you would. You sense what I'm saying is true and find at least some of Hank's violence and racism entertaining/enjoyable, despite your desire not to that has been indoctrinated into you since you were a baby. I watched Imon Snow's BB reaction videos and despite her and her African friend Abi being non-white, they low key loved Hank despite not wanting to.

You also proceeded to write another 128 lines (give or take one or two: I have barely slept in the last 8 days) and good (though misguided) lines at that, so clearly I'm more than worth your time. You are also worth mine because you are smart and compassionate.

Technically true but immaterial. This is because Breaking Bad is a story, a piece of entertainment a masterful propaganda narrative. This is the true meaning of Breaking Bad's symbolism:

"Also, like, I’m not going to get into it, but I think we can take it as a given that Batman is against racial profiling."

We certainly can't. Frank Miller and Grant Morrison wouldn't agree with you and they are the two greatest Batman writers. Miller's fascist Batman would call the "mutant" a "boy" and break his body to pieces. Morrison's Gothic Batman would spear animalistic psychopath "Waylon Jones" to death (as he did).

It's also wrong to assume that because I love Batman I do it uncritically. I also feel that The Joker's arguments have immense potency. Batman was my favourite hero as a small boy, along with Obi Wan Kenobi but the world is more complicated than these narratives suggest. There is no absolute division between the light and the dark, love and hatred. The villains we've been trained to hate were merely so often the kind of men who could have threatened the plans of our enemies.

"But Hank doesn’t see No-Doze and Gonzo as human."

For all intents and purposes, they aren't. Maybe you missed the episode when they helped Tuco beat Jesse half to death while smiling about it. If you don't hate those scumbags and the evolutionary pool which produces them you don't love Jesse.

It's also good to mock the deaths of your mortal enemies. For instance, I hope "Pope Francis", the communist former leader of a paedophile institution, is burning in hell right now.

"He’s rooting for her, because he views her as a human being worthy of a second chance."

That's a riot! How many "second chances" has the child raping, mass murdering Joker had? It's only in stories like TKJ and TDKR that he finally gets his just deserts from a wiser Batman who realises that his pseudo-Christian ethics are self-defeating.

"And again, Batman is not racist."

You know as well as I do that there are plenty of racist Batman stories. Wasn't there a Batman film about interning the Japanese? Wasn't Batman Returns a classic of "anti-Semitic" cinema?

"He’s a threat to public safety. He’s a criminal."

Don't talk about Jesse like that! Selling meth to kids isn't that bad!

"He recognizes that using violence to punish criminals would make him a criminal himself."

The strength of your arguments declined over the time of writing your essay, which I get because writing can get fatiguing. The problem here is Batman constantly beats the shit out of criminals and occasionally kills them. He's a brutal vigilante ffs, though he has a compassionate heart. So does Hank though, deep down. It's distorted by impulsivity and ego but he would, in a life threatening situation, take a bullet for Marie, Skylar, Walter Jr., Holly, pre-Heisenberg Walt and yes, even "latinx" Steve Gomez. You and Hank are more similar to each other than I am to him.

"So there you have it—I think you’ll agree I have used both facts AND logic to prove that Hank is a piece of shit and bad at his job, and that Batman, who is a real hero, would agree with my assessment."

Unfortunately not but to reiterate, great effort. You overlook that Hank had massive successes (killing Tuco while looking for his missing brother in law, killing two cartel hitmen with only a minute to react, dying with his pride and dignity utterly in tact etc.) and Batman's fight against crime in the animated series is one of consistent failure (The Joker best representing this: thankfully poor Tim Drake does what his impotent manchild costume wearing mentor could not).

"*animated series Batman, to be more specific. I haven't read the comics"

Oh dear...

I still love many of those old episodes and have four Batman comics in my bag right now (TDKR, Arkham Asylum, TKJ and TDKSA). But saying you understand Batman just from watching the animated series is like saying you understand Shakespeare after only watching The Lion King. What's more difficult, like me you loved animated Batman as a small child. He's daddy. He's God. At some point we must put away childish things and see reality for what it is, without losing our inner child in the process.

Have a great day.

Hank works in a violent racist criminal underworld dealing with cartel hitmen and child killing Fring. You are either a non or utterly naïve about the realities of life. I hope it doesn't come back to haunt you one day.

Obsessed with the implications of this – like I’m imagining that someone breaks into my house and I call 911, and before they dispatch the cops they run a check on my social media and discover that I said mean things about a fictional cop and so they tell me they’re too offended and won’t be sending the cops after all, and my last thoughts before I’m murdered are “If only I had expressed gratitude to Hank Schrader, the hero cop of AMC’s hit television program Breaking Bad, none of this would be happening!!!”

But I’m guessing you mean more generally that I should understand that it’s excusable/necessary for cops like Hank to be violent and racist because it makes them good at their jobs. I’m going to be real with you: that’s a terrible take that deserves a lot more unpacking than I’m willing to do, and I have a feeling it would be a waste of my time anyway.

However! You are in luck because I’d already planned a more analytical follow-up post to my Hank rant. And since you’re a Batman blog, I think it would be fun to use some Batman* examples to help make my points. So here are three instances where Hank’s most morally repulsive qualities made him worse at his job, and why Batman would agree with me:

1. In episode 1x06, Hank investigates the theft of lab equipment from the science lab at Walt’s high school. It doesn’t take the world’s greatest detective to solve this mystery: Walt should have been the prime suspect. Hank knows Walt has expressed a recent interest in the production of meth—in fact, he asked Hank to give him a tour of an illegal meth lab (which Hank gave him). He also knows that Walt is having serious money problems. Walt is one of the few people with a key to the science equipment lab, and he’s the one who uses it the most—shouldn’t he have already noticed the missing equipment? And Walt has the scientific expertise to cook meth. Like come on, this is super obvious.

However, Hank is blind to all of this because in his mind, Walt is not the sort of person who could be a criminal. Instead, he thinks Hugo the janitor “fits the profile” because Hank is a racist, and he invests his energy in investigating Hugo instead. Because Hank racially profiled the janitor and dismissed Walt as a suspect, Hank let the real criminal—Walt—get away.

Batman knows that anyone is capable of breaking bad, even people he considers friends. In the Justice League Unlimited series, Batman is known to have contingency plans in case any of his colleagues go evil, including keeping Kryptonite to use against Superman. He wouldn’t let his personal feelings blind him to potential criminal actions by those close to him.

Also, like, I’m not going to get into it, but I think we can take it as a given that Batman is against racial profiling.

2. In 2x01, Hank comes across the bodies of Gonzo and No-Doze in the junkyard. Hank is so tickled by the sight of these dead bodies that he takes a picture of them with his cellphone and sends them to Walt for a laugh (it should go without saying that it’s extremely unprofessional for a cop to send photos of active crime scenes to family members). As Hank and his colleagues investigate the crime scene, the junkyard cars collapse. To Hank’s apparent delight, Gonzo’s arm is torn from his body. He asks his friends to take a picture of him with Gonzo’s mutilated corpse. Here’s the face he’s making:

This is, quite frankly, Joker behavior. Hank’s reaction goes way beyond being desensitized to violence. The natural response to seeing human remains is horror and sorrow. But Hank doesn’t see No-Doze and Gonzo as human. Throughout the series, Hank repeatedly dehumanizes anyone he views as a criminal (and given his racism, particularly against Latinos, there are some extremely troubling implications to his attitude!) Batman, on the other hand, never loses sight of the humanity of the criminals he faces. In the B:tAS episode “Harley’s Holiday,” Harley Quinn is declared sane and released from Arkham Asylum. Batman gives her well wishes upon her release, although he warns her to keep clean. But when he’s in his Bruce persona and he sees Harley struggling to fit in with normal society at a clothing store, he steps in to help her out. He’s rooting for her, because he views her as a human being worthy of a second chance. Things go awry for Harley, but Batman repeatedly offers her compassion and help. When she’s back at Arkham, Harley asks why Batman was so nice to her. He explains he understands how hard it is to start a new life and that he also had a bad day once, and he still believes she can turn things around. Batman doesn’t think of criminals as subhuman. That makes him not only a better person than Hank, but also a better detective, because he isn’t blinded by prejudice and would never compromise an active investigation by sending gruesome crime scene photos to civilians because he thinks they're funny. And again, Batman is not racist. 3. In episode 3x07, Hank forces his way into Jesse’s house and beats him nearly to death. In the previous episode, Saul had his secretary call Hank and lie to him about Marie being in a car accident in order to distract him from pursuing Jesse. Hank knows that Jesse himself didn’t place the phone call. All he knows is that someone associated with Jesse likely placed the phone call. And Marie was never in any danger at all. But Hank is angry and feels entitled to administer his own justice. The beating he gives Jesse is extremely similar to the fatal beating Tuco gave No-Doze in the first season. Jesse’s beating was so bad that he was hospitalized. Here’s what his face looked like:

It’s really only a matter of luck that Jesse didn’t die. Hank broke the law here—it’s a matter of plot convenience that Jesse “doesn’t press charges” so Hank walks free (that’s not how that works—the law doesn’t need a victim’s consent to prosecute a crime). Hank really should have lost his job and gone to jail over this. There is no possible excuse—his actions were premeditated. He had plenty of time to think things over before he deliberately sought Jesse out and broke into his home with the intention of assaulting him. Hank is weak because he can’t control his emotions. He’s a threat to public safety. He’s a criminal.

And also, beating Jesse hugely sets back his case against him. Hank might have gotten information out of Jesse at some point, but now he can't even talk to him again. Because Hank was unable to control his temper, it jeopardized the investigation. It didn’t get him any information he could use.

In the B:tAS two-part episode “Two-Face,” Gotham’s district attorney Harvey Dent starts lashing violently at the criminals he’s prosecuting. Batman doesn’t cheer him on or excuse his behavior. Instead, he sees it as a huge red flag. As Bruce, he encourages his friend to get psychiatric help. But Harvey instead doubles down on his violent outbursts, eventually becoming the criminal Two-Face. Batman couldn’t excuse Harvey’s violent behavior, even when he was on the “right” side of the law. Batman doesn’t view himself as the judge, jury, and executioner of Gotham’s criminals. He recognizes that using violence to punish criminals would make him a criminal himself.

So there you have it—I think you’ll agree I have used both facts AND logic to prove that Hank is a piece of shit and bad at his job, and that Batman, who is a real hero, would agree with my assessment. *animated series Batman, to be more specific. I haven't read the comics

[batmancomicanalysis]

Michael Jackson's "Human Nature"

"Hear her voice Shake my window Sweet seducing sighs”

The song is immediately established as being about sex.

"Get me out Into the nighttime Four walls won't hold me tonight"

The "four walls" symbolism implies a prison break and a release of illicit desires.

"If this town Is just an apple Then let me take a bite"

Temptation, forbidden fruit, seduced by Satan. But also he's "taking a bite" out of "the big apple" and America/ethnic Europeans more broadly in a symbolic violent attack.

"If they say Why (why?), why (why?) Tell 'em that it's human nature"

This is a criminal's defence and a desire to normalise immorality or deviance ("It's not my fault, it's just human nature and we're all the same anyway"). This is the core of the song, the part you are most meant to internalise.

"Why (why?), why (why?) Does he do me that way?"

"Why does he do me that way?" depending on whether this is meant to be from his perspective or the "girl's", he's either playing the victim ("Why am I being persecuted for my natural desires?") or it strongly implies something unorthodox or abusive about his "love" ("why does Michael do me that way?")

"Reaching out To touch a stranger Electric eyes are everywhere"

"Stranger" implies casual sex and for Jackson, racial mixing ("Stranger in Moscow", stranger as a metaphor for "the other", the ethnicity of his victims). “Electric eyes are everywhere” implies he's under or feels he's under surveillance.

“See that girl She knows I'm watching She likes the way I stare”

The age of “that girl” is never specified but taken literally it means she hasn’t reached the maturity of womanhood. We also don’t know whether she genuinely likes the way Jackson is staring (itself evoking a predator anticipating devouring his prey) of if he is projecting his desire on to her (assuming the “girl” isn’t a boy).

“I like livin' this way I like lovin' this way

Why? Ho why? (That way) Why? Ho why?”

What "way" do you like “living” and “loving” Michael? What's so unusual about it?

“Why? Why? Ho why?” Jackson repeats this again and again and again. This could be a confused and anguished question from normal society about his behaviour or it could be Jackson questioning himself and self-flagellating, guilty over his perversion.

“Reaching out I touch her shoulder I'm dreaming of the street”

“The street” implies base and potentially criminal desires such as child prostitution.

It's a dreamy and ethereal song and one that can be read in more than one way which captures some profound truths about the human condition. However, there is no question that it is subversive in intent and effect.

[batmancomicanalysis]

A Staggian critique of The Killing Joke

The story is sexually perverse and demoralising, most notably when Barbara Gordon is crippled and sexually assaulted by The Joker (a psychopathic chalk-white clown), with her father forced to witness it. Symbolically she is "the daughter of justice", raped by The Devil. "Good" was thus impotent to prevent The Joker's evil, as it has virtually always been in the Batman-Joker conflict

The impression one gets from the narrative is that fighting evil with lethality is "immoral", contrary to Gordon's injunction to "bring him in by the book...to show him our way works!" Gordon's suicidal masochistic fanaticism is presented as the highest moral principle rather than the perverse lunacy it is. Moreover, Batman potentially killing The Joker is framed as a man at his wits' end snapping and abandoning (even betraying) his most sacred moral principles, rather than the hero affirming the moral order which the villain has egregiously violated. Batman's savage and vengeful impulses toward the explicitly irredeemable villain (and possibly his heroic wrath, though there is no definitive conclusion) are falsely equated with The Joker's "insane" nihilistic serial killing, with Moore presenting Batman as The Joker's doppelganger ("almost separated at birth") rather than his antithesis, potentially trapped in an endless codependent playfighting drama

It's a story where the heroes aren't heroes (or at least Jim Gordon certainly isn't), justice is raped and evil arguably wins (at least if Batman lets The Joker live).

[batmancomicanalysis]

Star Wars: the political subtext

Many criticise modern films such as Disney’s post-Lucas Star Wars sequels for their overt "leftist" political messaging, claiming that Hollywood has been "infiltrated" by “woke” ideologues. And there is no doubt that the Disney Star Wars films are thinly-veiled political allegory, regardless of what Bob Iger says:

“Please note that the Empire is a white supremacist (human) organization.” - Chris Weitz

“…Opposed by a multicultural group led by brave women.” - Gary Whitta

But from a pro-European perspective, the original Star Wars trilogy (1977-1983) was replete with ethno-suicidal themes; the symbolism was always much the same. This should not be surprising: George Lucas is one of Hollywood's most successful directors, he's been a "leftist" since his student days at the latest and has since married an African woman, with whom he had his first biological child.

The key collective conflict in Star Wars is between the Empire and the Rebel Alliance.

The Empire: totalitarian, inhuman (faceless "Stormtroopers", most iconic figure is a cyborg), homogeneous/uniform, cold/austere, dictatorial, ultra-technological, genocidal (the Imperial “Death Star” destroys the planet which looks most similar to Earth, Alderaan), exclusively patriarchal (women are never seen among its ranks) and Northern European at core, a hybrid of Nazi Germany and the British Empire (the nation which opposed Nazism the longest, making the Empire a stand-in for the traditional Western order generally)

The Rebels: multiracial (Lando Calrissian is African, Han and Leia are played by Jewish actors), multispecies (Chewbacca), droid-inclusive (C-3P0, R2-D2), gender egalitarian (founded and led by a woman Mon Mothma and Leia is one of the three biggest heroes, implied to have Jedi potential similar to Luke's: "There is another" - Yoda), third worldist-coded coalition, the Empire’s symbolic inversion and antithesis

The primary philosophical battle is between the Jedi and the Sith. The Jedi are a monastic order led by Yoda; a humanoid midget alien and Asian-coded sage, whereas the Sith are led by a grotesque and seemingly decrepit British-accented Emperor.

Jedi: Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism

Sith: Darwinism, Nietzscheanism, Machiavellianism, Sadism

The former is a universalist metaphysical syncretism broadly aligned with liberalism while the latter is linked to anti-Christian European philosophy and is intended to evoke Nazism. However, the Jedi philosophy, like liberalism itself, is deeply hypocritical: Obi Wan and Yoda deceive Luke with the intention of having him kill his father and sanction the killing of countless non-combatants in their war against the galactic sovereign. And the hatred which Jedi philosophy condemns is, in real life, repressed and transferred against illiberal/European symbols, despite Luke’s (inconsistent and suicidal) pacifism towards The Emperor (after his initial attempt to kill him in a moment of rage). Most crucially however, Star Wars utilises a false binary of light and dark, placing the forces of love and hatred in blanket opposition to each other, when in reality one cannot have love without hating that which threatens it.

"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." - Christ to Luke (Skywalker)

On the most personal symbolic level, the main conflict is between Aryan protagonist Luke Skywalker and his father Darth (a portmanteau of dark and death) Vader (an abbreviation of “invader”; a nod to Western colonialism). Jedi master and surrogate father figure Obi Wan lies to Luke, telling him that Vader “betrayed and murdered your father", manipulating “white saviour/white ally” Luke into fighting to destroy his father’s Empire. Ultimately, the corrupted chalk-white patriarch Vader finds redemption in death by destroying the Empire he built and lead with Palpatine (a transparent allegory for Hitler/Satan) and killing his master, resulting in Vader's ascension to immortality along with his former masters Obi Wan and Yoda.

While viewers (particularly in America) may feel that the Rebel Alliance solely represents America (the accents of the three primary heroes followed by the narrative are distinctly American, "The Empire" as Britain exclusively in their mind) based on a superficial reading which omits key facts (Lucas's claim that the primitive forest-dwelling indigenous Ewoks represent the Viet Cong, the heavy British-coded involvement in the Rebel Alliance), Star Wars trains the Western audience to see itself from the perspective of the third world, conditioned to feel exhilaration at their symbolic overthrowal and desiring to emulate Luke's example.

Had the Rebel Alliance been exclusively composed of European men, The Empire been a multicultural cesspool and the villain been a hooked-nosed Emperor with a Middle-Eastern accent, there would be no obscurantism about the political allegory.

[batmancomicanalysis]

Mountains dream

I am standing alone. 10-20 miles in the distance in front of me there are several mountains covering the landscape, with white-grey sky above composing the other two thirds of my vision. I think to myself that Satan will imminently appear in the sky. Lo and behold, the sky incinerates in red, grey and black flame with Satan materialising in the centre, stretching as far as the mountains across and filling the entire skyline, a terrifying vision of evil. My first instinct is to fight, flying toward the beast's head at high velocity with my right fist extended. However, halfway across and still in the ascendancy fear takes hold, my momentum ceases and I fail to confront him. Immediately the dream ends.

Analysis: the evening prior I had watched Wyatt Stagg's analysis of 28 Days Later, incisive and brilliant in deconstructing a deeply subversive film but which as usual left me with the feeling that a hostile, sadistic power holds great force over the world. This suggests that Satan in the dream is a metaphor for this seemingly quasi-omnipotent evil.

There are many impressions which may have influenced the dream. As I recall (my memory of the dream is imperfect), this incarnation of Satan looks most similar to The Beast from the Doctor Who episode The Satan Pit or The Balrog from The Fellowship of The Ring. The lone man facing mountains in the distance (a la Batman Begins) and the confrontation with ultimate evil bring to mind the concept of "the hero's journey" and other epic battles such as Batman vs Superman in Miller's TDKR, Batman vs Killer Croc in Morrison's Arkham Asylum, Jaden's Elemental Heroes vs Zane's Cyber End Dragon, Marv facing upwards toward a giant statue of Cardinal Rourke and Hartigan joking about "punching out God" when sardonically contemplating his chances of bringing senator Rourke down. The connection with Superman (flying at Satan with my right first extended) suggests that in my dream I am a potential ubermensch.

Unlike these stories, where the hero overcomes the villain or at least takes decisive action to foil him, I fail to confront my antagonist in the dream despite having the will to do so initially. This suggests that I do not yet feel I am the finished article, the hero of my story. Yet if I had had this dream in the past while severely depressed, I doubt I would have been able to fly at all, let alone with velocity and I would have likely been consumed by Satan, representing total spiritual surrender to the forces of evil.

If I had the strength and self-belief that I currently lack I would have made direct contact, dealing him a blow to the head (whether it had any effect or was purely symbolic). I believe that had I stayed the course, the most likely outcome is that I would have passed through Satan, revealing his image to be an illusion. For if he largely represents the subversive power of media as the impression of Stagg's 28 Days Later analysis the evening before would suggest, his power is largely based on illusions/images and fear, which can paralyse the will to fight without direct action (as it did in the dream).

Alternatively, the dream could represent an internal struggle rather than an external one. Satan is the archetypal transgressor and seducer, so it makes sense that he could represent pornography and the crippling power of addiction, with the mountains representing my struggle to overcome it and become a better man. My failure when halfway to meet the challenge symbolises that I am still in recovery and do not yet feel that I have overcome the worst effects even though huge progress has been made, or that I am ready but I am hesitating unnecessarily, paralysed by fear and inertia.

[batmancomicanalysis]

Wings of Redemption: a case study in addiction and the commercialisation of self-destruction

Wings of Redemption/Jordie Jordan: a 38 year old 500+ lbs gaming video content creator. When Jordie started Youtube in 2007/2008 at 22/23 he was apparently 330 lbs, at the beginning of his transition from being an unemployed former steel company worker to a sedentary gaming content creator.

Jordie has unsuccessfully battled obesity since he was a child. Now at middle age (or advanced age given his extremely unhealthy lifestyle) he has failed to overcome his vices (junk food addiction, gaming addiction, internet addiction and porn addiction).

To my knowledge as an on-again, off-again long term observer, his most successful run of weight loss was not the period immediately following his bariatric surgery but the "FPS Bootcamp" which lasted about a month, hosted by his former friend FPS Kyle. This was made into a series of videos posted on Wings' channel. Kyle arranged a workout routine, had Wings' meals prepared for him, recorded him, socialised with him and limited his gaming/internet time. Over this period Wings lost about 40-50 lbs. However, after the bootcamp ended Wings went back to his old ways either immediately or almost immediately.

This proves that some people cannot run their lives without destroying themselves, they require strong external control and can barely function without it if at all. Wings either needs a paid professional, a competent family member, close friend or romantic partner to effectively control his life for him but given his relative lack of money, paucity of valuable skills (further eroded by his years of being an online Jerry Springer-esque freakshow) and toxic traits this seems impossible. He can't own a car (or he'll drive to buy junk food: Wings describes driving 30 minutes to McDonalds late at night, consuming his meal, getting home and immediately feeling hungry again) or a smartphone or a computer (or he will succumb to internet and porn addiction) without doing serious harm to himself. Which means he can't continue to be a gaming streamer and social media personality without remaining morbidly obese and depressed. But giving this up would mean sacrificing his "job" and his "identity" as an internet personality and notorious "lolcow", which he has been unwilling to do.

Making things yet more difficult Wings is simultaneously self-loathing (thus unwilling to make any sacrifices for his long-term benefit, with no belief that anything will work based on decades of failure), highly averse to labour or struggle (breaking easily when the going gets tough, partly due to the severe physical and psychological deterioration that comes with having various addictions for years or decades) and egomaniacal (he feels validated by the fact that so many people pay attention to him as a niche internet figure, even though most of the attention is negative and he intentionally courts controversy to attain it, often saying things which are absurd or repugnant). He is also pathologically opposed to taking any responsibility for his circumstances, blaming his genetics, his parents, his trolls, sugar ("sugar controls my life 110%") or simply Call of Duty for his circumstances ("Call of Duty ruined my life"). This further diminishes any sense of agency and willpower.

The case of Jordie Jordan is a cautionary tale for those struggling with addiction, a reductio ad absurdum of what are very common problems. He is also to some extent a mirror for our society. A culture which produces the likes of Wings of Redemption and worse, turns his life into a grotesque spectacle and psychodrama for the amusement and demoralisation of a sadistic voyeuristic mob, is rife with sickness.

[batmancomicanalysis]

Saw: the underlying racial themes

The villain protagonist John (archetypal everyman European name, John Q. Public, like fellow bald reactionary European moralist "John Doe" from Se7en) Kramer/Jigsaw: a charismatic cult leader, highly intelligent (formerly a middle-class civil engineer), bitterly resentful, not married/divorced, morally self-righteous, reactionary, control freak, skinhead (in Saw 1), social Darwinist/eugenicist and hypocritical sadistic psychopath of German ethnic origin.

The villain protagonist in the second half of the Saw series (2007-2010) is detective turned sociopathic Jigsaw apprentice Mark Hoffman, another ethnic German.

The ageing Kramer is diagnosed with the Walter White/Walt Kowalski special: terminal cancer (a metaphor for "inevitable racial decline and death") and proceeds to lash out by going on a pronged killing spree (commit genocide), with a bathroom (traditionally a place of cleansing, "shower" parallels, but also a place of filth and waste removal) being the series' central location (incidentally, the central location of Saw 2 is the "nerve gas house" and one of its traps is an oven, with the house containing a hidden basement door to the bathroom).

The five most prominent ethnic European characters in Saw 1 are supposed archetypes of "white America's" moral degeneracy (“we arrested a dentist last week who liked to play with kids a bit too much. He lived two blocks from here. The sewer lines run under this neighbourhood too, doctor.” - Tapp to pre-trap Jigsaw suspect Gordon). They are morally compromised at best, evil at worst and evil more often than not:

Kramer (the Jigsaw killer)

Dr. Gordon (arrogant, largely absent and emotionally unavailable as a husband and father, correspondingly fails to protect his family from Jigsaw/Zep, meets an East Asian student doctor in a hotel room for an affair, future Jigsaw apprentice with shades of Dr. Mengele)

Adam (vulgar dirtbag freelance photographer, "voyeur", dies in the bathroom)

Amanda (heroin addict, cutter, explicit Stockholm syndrome, future Jigsaw apprentice and surrogate daughter)

Zep (subservient and downtrodden hospital orderly, incel-coded, deranged psychopath, dies in the bathroom)

Jigsaw and his apprentices intimidate their victims with a grotesque white doll and dress up in (decidedly non-kosher) pig costumes when kidnapping them; a nod to their shared colour, animalistic brutality and moral corruption. Notably, Kramer never recruits a non-European apprentice and we are nine Saw films in at this point, with it being a very racially diverse franchise.

By radical contrast, the multiracial and sex egalitarian police are framed as America's heroes in opposition to patriarchal ethnic European moral degeneracy and evil; the three most prominent in Saw 1 being detective Tapp (African, meticulous, obsessively devoted to bringing Jigsaw down, self-sacrificial, saves Dr. Gordon’s all-American family from Zep, played by Danny Glover of Lethal Weapon and Predator 2 hero cop fame), detective Sing (Chinese) and detective Kerry (tough, no-nonsense, "the voice of reason", played by a Jewish woman).

More policemen are added in the 2nd film to replace Jigsaw victims Tapp and Sing: officer Rigg (African, idealistic hero cop, name almost identical to Danny Glover’s heroic buddy cop partner in Lethal Weapon) and detective Matthews (European, adulterer, bad father, divorced, pig cop, the first unambiguously European-American cop and the first seriously corrupt cop, his rage and lack of composure enable Jigsaw to escape). The second major European male cop we're introduced to is the aforementioned detective Hoffman in Saw 3.

In this regard and others, Saw is similar to "Nazi exploitation" torture porn films like Eli Roth's Hostel and The Human Centipede, which have the effect of traumatising the audience and make a spectacle of brutal violence against Europeans in particular, desensitising us to it and degrading our avatars.

Saw also shares strong thematic parallels with Breaking Bad, a subtle example of this being that Art Blank and Declan (minor characters and business partners of Jigsaw and Heisenberg respectively) are played by the same actor. The casting process in these productions is meticulous: did they HAVE to cast Louis Ferreira in that seemingly insignificant but very specific and identical role? It's there to make the connection subconsciously: Jigsaw and Heisenberg represent the same archetypes ("the regular white man", "the evil white man", "Hitler", "Satan"), as do Jigsaw and fellow European intellectual social Darwinist psychopath Hannibal Lecter (which the final scene in Saw 1 makes clear, evoking a parallel with Hannibal's false-face removal in The Silence of the Lambs). Jigsaw is part of a vast post-war genealogy of authoritarian European villains.

Let's say John Kramer had instead been named John Finkelstein or John Goldberg. Would that fact have been seen as unremarkable by Western critics? Would the film have ever been distributed by a "big six" Hollywood studio? If it had been made it would have been labelled "anti-Jewish hate propaganda", with significant career and social repercussions for those involved in its production. By contrast, Hollywood is more than happy to give the green light to the production and distribution of ethnocidal anti-European hate propaganda.

Saw is fundamentally a��loose roman à clef of WW2 with Jigsaw as Hitler, his Mansonian cult as the Nazi party and his campaign of torture-murder as the holocaust.

[batmancomicanalysis]

Jane was initially in a casual relationship with Jesse for the following reasons primarily:

His boyish good looks

He's a successful drug dealer (rebellion against her straight-laced, "overprotective", "controlling" father)

His infatuation with her boosted her ego and made him easier to control (he's also a bit younger and less conventionally intelligent than she is)

She likes Jesse but she certainly doesn't love him. "Whose you and me?" sums it up, brutal. While Jane is clearly overgrown teenager, impulsive drug addict and newly fairly well-off Jesse's "first love" (Jesse's feelings are based on superficial qualities rather than a deep emotional connection, like Jane's beauty and "coolness", as well as Jesse's desire to escape the ruthless drug world that just claimed the life of one of his best friends due mainly to Walt's greed, ignorance and aggression), Jesse isn't former heroin addict, go-with-the-flow goth tattoo artist, closer to 30 than 20 Jane's; she's almost certainly had a number of (tumultuous) relationships and endured more than her fair share of heartbreak, hence her detachment. He's just the guy she's sleeping with right now, given her current circumstances.

Further, him being a drug dealer means 1. she couldn't commit to him even if she wanted to without fouling her relationship with her dad, who economically and emotionally supports her the most by far 2. Jesse could be arrested and thrown in prison at any time or seriously hurt/killed. It would actually be unwise for her to form an emotional connection with him, which she effectively articulates: "What am I supposed to say? Hey dad, meet my stoner tenant and by the way I'm sleeping with him?"

However, when she finds out Jesse potentially has close to half a million dollars in cash, her attitude changes radically. She's almost breathless, intoxicated at the thought of leaving with the money, primarily to escape the control of her loving but deeply resented father: "This (cash) is freedom!"

It was never going to end well: Jesse was the catalyst for her getting back on drugs after 18+ months sober and she then introduced him to heroin. They resolved to quit the night they got the money from Walt but couldn't stop themselves shooting up. They were junkies who didn't show any serious sign of quitting (and Jesse continued to relapse for the remainder of the show). One way or another it was going to end in heartbreak, whether it was an overdose or them being imprisoned/robbed/killed or Jane betraying him (she blackmailed it from Walt and took control from Jesse as Walt scornfully, sarcastically acknowledged to Jesse: "Nice job wearing the pants.") or general instability causing a breakup. It was doomed to last days, weeks or months at most before some calamity struck.

This isn't to excuse Walt letting Jane die as this decision caused immense emotional damage to Jesse and it meant that from that point on, Walt and Jesse's relationship was based on a fundamental lie.

thinking about jane and jesse makes me sad because it's probably true that it wouldn't have been smooth sailing between them even if walt had never withheld jesse's share of the money, starting the chain of events that led to jane's death. jesse was at a super rocky place in his life that wouldn't have been conducive to a healthy relationship, and i kinda think that he latched onto her so quickly because she represented a sort of coolness and self-confidence that he subconsciously felt he was missing. jane had stabilized somewhat (she was over a YEAR clean!!!!! agh), but she was definitely still going through some shit, struggling with her choices in life and feeling dissatisfied enough to turn back to drugs. neither of them were very mature. since she was the first person we see jesse dating, i feel like a lot of fans think she and him were "soulmates" or something like that, and i honestly don't think that's the case. if she hadn't died, i think they would've had a super tumultuous and unstable relationship, maybe even breaking up and getting back together multiple times. but that doesn't discount how important the brief love they shared was; if anything, it makes it more poignant than if they were just your typical "lost first love" case that you see in a lot of stories.

[batmancomicanalysis]

Gale was a company man, loyal to his longstanding employer Gus. He liked and respected Walt but as soon as Gus said Walt had to go due to his "health problems", Gale accepted it without much persuasion.

Jesse is Walt's brother in arms. Despite their frequent bickering and occasional explosive arguments, they will kill and die for each other if it comes to it. Jesse has no loyalty to Gus, who he knows wouldn't be employing him if not for Walt's influence. Jesse does not have Gale's versatility as a chemist and is an "untrustworthy junkie".

Walt feels that he needs an ally in Gus's organisation otherwise he will be isolated, powerless. He can't allow Gale to gain the skills to be a perfect replacement for him otherwise he will be expendable. Walt realises this subconsciously and instinctively before he becomes fully aware of his total antagonism with Gus.

There's also the fact that Jesse is looking to wage a legal war against Walt's dirty cop brother-in-law Hank for beating him half to death. Walt needs to pacify Jesse in order to prevent there being blowback against his family and himself (Jesse says that after bankrupting Hank he'll give Walt up if the DEA take him down). Giving Jesse Gale's job and 50-50 partner status again is the perfect way to get him back on side and Jesse quickly drops the charges against Hank.

It's true that Walt prefers cooking with Jesse and finds Gale boring by comparison. But as I've outlined there were key strategic reasons for replacing Gale with Jesse. My main criticism of this is it's unrealistic that Gus agreed to Walt's proposal, given his strategic mind and desire for Walt to mentor Gale in order to give him a more reliable long-term chemist who could cook the 99%+ meth.

Walter standing there like an idiot while Jesse stomps through Gus's lab hooting and hollering and screaming obscenities just as Walt is trying to fire Gale for not matching his vibe is CRAZY LOL. He can't say "oh yeah, honestly I just prefer the mouthy little twink with addiction and daddy issues over your flavorless beige good guy aura, sorry." For someone who is very consumed with what others think of him, Walt sure is always willing to risk his personal and professional reputation to remedy his relationship issues with Jesse lol

[batmancomicanalysis]

The plot implies that in his areas of greatest expertise (particularly x ray crystallography), Walt was once among the best chemists in the world (if not the best, able to solve complex problems that stumped other top young chemists with ease, could have won the Nobel Prize) and through his success in the criminal underworld (particularly in immediately creating the purest meth ever in a bootleg RV and overcoming fellow criminal mastermind, organisational genius Gus Fring), he's shown to be a versatile, unique genius.

The fact that Gretchen was drawn to him over her fellow Ashkenazi Jew Elliot Schwarz further implies that Walt was the primary brain behind Grey Matter early on. Also, a young Skylar being drawn to him over the likes of Beneke further suggests he had a lot going for him in a relationship.

So he's a titanic genius who on scientific and organisational talent should have been the billionaire head of a major corporation, a Nobel Laureate and recognised as one of the best scientists in the world. But instead he's a beaten-down 50 year old high school chemistry teacher teaching disinterested students, working a menial second job for an obnoxious immigrant boss, has an emasculating asshole hero cop brother in law, a disabled but otherwise average son and a bossy, condescending wife, having been cuckolded by his less talented now billionaire former business partner who in large part piggybacked on his research.

Given this context; the dichotomy of what he could have been and what he is pre-Heisenberg, it's hard to see how this man wouldn't burn with resentment, even to the point of suicide or going on a killing spree.

it's crazy ppl pretend that Walt was EVER a good person. like pre-cancer, pre-heisenberg, whatever. there is absolutely no way he wasn't literally always the most toxic bitch in the room at any given moment. major mommy issues. major abusive husband vibes. superiority complex. abandonment issues. compulsive overachiever. sexual deviant. selfish elitist. snob. know it all. honestly Walt has serious main character syndrome and he spent his entire adulthood fuming over an injustice that he very much consented to (leaving grey matter bc his hot science girlfriend's family....was rich? or something?) idk. I just know you couldn't pay me enough to spend any substantial amount of time with ANY iteration of Walter White from all eras of his life bc I know a petty insecure bitch boy when I see one and that's exactly who he is lmao

[batmancomicanalysis]

The Dark Knight Returns' villainous archetypes

Two-Face/Man: chance/fate, duality, trauma, identity, the failure of rehabilitation, personal loss, justice corrupted, death drive

Mutant Leader/Nature: the anarchic vacuum, cult of personality, exploitation of youth, animalistic savagery vs intelligent brutality, youth vs experience, modernity vs tradition, ego

Joker/Satan: evil, homoerotic obsession, nihilistic chaos, crossing the line, concluding and transcending the defining rivalry, id

Superman/God: America, omnipotence, idealistic/naïve submission to "legitimate" authority, superego

All are dualistic with Batman, either as reflections/doppelgangers or opposites/antitheses (the first two are more similar, the last two more distinct, suggesting that Batman must overcome his internal demons before he can impose order on a grand scale) and represent a battle between order and chaos, with the Superman case being nuanced. He blindly supports the ruling class of an anarchic, post-EMP, morally bankrupt America and thus opposes Batman's revolutionary order in Gotham, though he previously supported a Latin American "fascist" dictatorship at Reagan's behest. The narrative positions Superman as the ultimate villain and the most symbolically distinct: "liberal democratic" America is the "final boss" that Nietzschean hero Batman must overcome.