Gryphons

 This is a story I wrote a while ago. I hope you enjoy it. 

The Gryphon of the Sun

High into the void of space, there dwells a powerful race...

They glide within the darkness, facing boldly into the sun. Their talons can't be stopped by man, their skin can't be pierced, but by the claws and beaks of their own kind... 

It is the Gryphons! 

Long ago, their folk inhabited earth, keeping their lairs in mountains and canyons. One of them rose above them all, and with his perfidy he changed for ever their destiny. 

Shamza was a stout and stubborn being. In Egypt, where his lair was laid, he spied upon the rising human race. 

Fascinated with their scientific progress, he went to study their cultures. His attempts were met with disdain from the people, who feared his intensity and power. 

But among the people of the river, the builders of Pyramids, he found his true companions. Obsessed with mankind, and mesmerized by their religions, Shamza took his family and lived within them. 

He and his son, whom he loved, studied the race of men with dedication, rejoicing at their advances and feeling compassion at their mistakes. 

But as time passed, Shamza lost peace. His curiosity quickly overpowered him. He could not stop; as the drunkard for the beer, and as the dog for the last bit of flesh, the more he got the more he wanted. 

 Concerned by his greedy approach to knowledge, they warned him about the darkest of human sciences: Magick! 

Stay away, they said, from the mysteries of entities, and from their deceitful caverns protect your mind. 

But curiosity kept rushing through his blood. One day, his son became deadly sick. Desperate and impatient, he  sought that which was forbidden to him. 

The Magick took over him, and its dark mysteries fascinated him more than anything else. But for his curiosity he paid a massive price. 

For within the books of magick he met beings more powerful than himself, spirits of fear and terror, and of madness...

... And indeed madness consumed him, for whom the demons wanted to destroy, they first drove mad.

Driven by his intense passion he directed himself to his people. Together with his son, he spoke. 

He called himself a god, a savior of mankind, and the gryphons, and a chosen one to the sun, whom he worshipped as prime being. 

But the gryphons rejected him, for they worshipped and feared exclusively one God, the God of all things. 

He said, proudly: Why do you fail to understand me? I will bring great glory to all beings. 

But the Gryphons replied: The warning has fallen in deaf ears: therefore with deaf ears we receive your message. 

And Shamza and his followers fought the other gryphons, and blood upon blood and claws upon claws he drove his enemies into the darkness of the skies.

Shamza glorified himself: "You have failed to destroy me! You have failed to bring me down! I am bright and my brightness has blinded you, submit or be exiled. 

But the monarch of the gryphons stood firm and said: The slave-master wants us to suffer, and wants us to go into the stars. But the sun you worship, will never bring you the omnipotence you crave for...

For behold, your son has died today, during the last battle! Behold his wounded ribs, and his twisted gaze. Indeed, he has died in the war of your own making! 

To the sight of the corpse the Gryphon of the Sun lost all hope, and the gryphons left him in the utmost of misery. 

See if the Sun can bring your son back to life. There we will see whose religion is stronger. 

Shamza had won the war, but he had lost his soul. Driven further into melancholy, he and his friends took a desperate choice. They travelled to the sun, gliding intensely into the ether.

One by one, his followers were dying, and their bones were cast upon the vacuum of space, but Shamza kept pushing. 

One by one, the followers famished, but Shamza kept gliding boldly into the sun. 

One by one, the followers left him alone, but Shamza never surrendered. 

He kept pushing forward, but the more he pushed, the sun kept pushing further, and he was always away from the star he dearly loved. 

But that was futile too. 

Viciously blinded, and greatly weakened, Shamza perished miserably as he prayed for the life of his son. 

Meanwhile, the Gryphons of space survived and thrived, feeding exclusively upon the fires of the mighty star. 

Disney World's Discordian Villains Rennivation

Disney Parks have been in a bit of a rough shape. Financial flops in the box office and the corona lockdowns have g reduced the power of the company, and while the damage might have been exaggerated by some anti-woke channels online, it is clear that they are having problems. 

My personal favorite is the creepy Walt Disney animatronic that malfunctioned in front of the audience a few days ago. 

In an attempt to save the Parks, Disney has taken into their hands to exploit their fan's pockets, charging a lot for often underwhelming products. This is not just the fault of Disney and the executives, it is also the responsibility of people who are willing to pay so much money just because something belongs to Disney. 

They are also planning plenty of renovations in their parks. One of them is the purpose of this post: Villains Land. 

You see, Magic Kingdom is divided in different areas, each themed to something. Disney executives decided to theme an entire new area of this park to none other than the Villainous miscreants of their movies. The area will have, under completion, stores, shows and two rides. 

There is nothing more discordian than gloryfing characters who represent evil. Some of these antagonists are especially vicious. From Mephistophelean figures like Ursula and Maleficent to sexual predators like Frollo, projects like this are really telling about the state of American nihilism. 

One of these villains is quite literally, the devil. His name is Chernabog, some sort of demon that appears in Fantasía's "Night on the Bald Mountain" scene. 

Chernabog (aka Czernobog) is originally some sort of evil god from Slavic mythology, albeit this claim is contested within the experts. Will Disney dare to dedicate a ride to this entity? Probably not, but he is part of the official Disney Villains list and receives his very own merchandising.

Ironically, some of this villains reflect values quote different from Disney's values. We have Gaston, a macho man who harasses women; Governor Ratcliffe, a british colonialist who loves gold and hates native Americans; and Dr. Facilier, whose crime is being an African-American antagonist in a post-George Floyd world. 

It is clear that the company never intended these people to be role models, only antagonists for their protagonists to overcome. However, when you covet upon a star, things happen. Disney exploits the popularity of these characters with multiple items like Board Games, merchandise, and now their own theme park region. 

I believe this is likely an attempt to pander to the alphabet crowd. You see, most of the male villains are effeminate and many homos identify with them. Other people think it's an attempt to compete with Universal, who recently opened a new park with a (similarly Discordian) area themed to classical Halloween monsters. 

Whatever their specific intentions were, I found it quite interesting how Disney and akin companies can influence the culture with their amusement parks, and this is but one example of cringe crony capitalism, Disney "storytelling" (aka cringe), and the state of judeo-american value$. 

Horror Movie Novus Ordo Priest Cringes his way to Hell 💀

 In the last News Digest published by Novus Ordo Watch a link was shared to an article on which a novus ordo jesuit priest claimed to examine the spiritual dimension of horror movies. A "theology of horror" if you will. 

It is always very interesting to me how some believers think they can find Jesus in pop culture. I wished to offer my thoughts on the article, and explain to you why I think "Fr." Roy Dun misses the mark. 

Horror Considered on Itself:

Horror is a genre for storytelling aimed at scaring people and/or make them feel uncomfortable. The buildup of intense feelings is relieved at the end and often leaves a pleasant sensation, known as catharsis. 

There are two aspects of consideration in horror: 

The horror aspect aims at making you feel disgust and abhorrence for what you see.

The terror aspect aims at raising your adrenaline levels and provoke the sensation of fear.

Having said this, it is important for our discussion to consider the effect of horror in the person. The greatest majority of people should be able to watch horror movies without endorsing anything of what they see. However, it is often forgotten that in fiction the writer might accidentally glorify something by the mere act of showing it on screen. 

This happens if you show people killing themselves: those vulnerable to despair of their own lives will often imitate what they see fictional characters do. I don't understand how anyone would want to play with a Ouija board after seeing The Exorcist or any possession movie, but they do it and experience suggests these stories are not helping. Exposing viewers to things that normally would not even cross their minds might help to dilute the lines of good and evil and turn you into a nihilist. 

Another thing to consider is the violence. While ridiculously over-the-top gory movies might not incite you to hurt other people, the unstable, the impressionable and the young might start believing violence is something to love. Even among those who do not develop the wish to harm others, the violence they have consumed might facilitate aggression against their very own selves. We should not forget those who learn to genuinely enjoy violence by exposing themselves to it. 

The final element I would like to mention is the morbidity element. It is the unspeakable feel that you need to know "how bad" something really is. This is dangerous because is a manifestation of risky curiosity; there are some things you really don't want to know and that are quite frankly useless. This is not to condemn the genre per se, only to point out its risks. 

Horror and "Conservative"

The jesuit "Fr." Dun attempts to defend horror movies by calling the genre itself "conservative"

Here, he is claiming the movies are conservative because they remind people that they are "small" (ie; there is something greater than themselves and their planet) but such doctrine is not unique to conservatism. The problem of calling something "conservative" is that this word is an umbrella term used to define people of radically different ideologies. Furthermore, even "leftists" can believe there is something greater than themselves, like new atheists for example. Have you never seen them talking about quantum? 

Furthermore, this idea can be found in some horror movies, but forgive me if I don't see the transcendental on a dude with a lame Halloween mask killing blonde girls. 

Dun also says horror movies are conservative because the protagonists have "shared values" with us and the viewers supports the victims, not the monsters. 

Claiming that this makes horror movies "conservative" is laughable, because even if you root for the victims you still see how they get mutilated or killed in ridiculous fashion. Some horror movies are so poorly acted / done that any feeling of empathy for the victims is null. 

This is even more insulting if you know anything about writing stories.

You see, the best horror movies are not the scariest or the darkest, they are the ones that are well written. And in order to have a well written movie, you need to help the audience to empathize with the characters. If you empathize with the characters, you will want to stay just to see how they survive the monster. One easy way of making this possible is to give the characters values similar to those of the audience. Plus, what "shared values" are we talking about? Killing innocent people is bad? Life is worth living? None of this values is strictly conservative. 

Dun also attempts to claim horror movies for the right by claiming that horror movies are about the restoration of order. However, this belief is not unique to conservatives either! Does anyone think this idea would be repudiated by the Chinese Communist Party? Also, has this guy never heard of Stephen King? To say that man hates religion and conservatives is an understatement. 

You see, the movie gives the message the writers want to give; if the writers are progressivists, the movie will have this elements therein. 

+ Carrie, for example, implies the disturbing behavior of the titular character is partially caused by her religious mom.

+ A movie was recently released about a gay kid with homophobic parents who is haunted by an entity.

+ The lore of Jurassic Park is rooted in a naturalistic setting. No one condemns the dinosaurs because of the laws of God, but because of the laws of nature, which wasn't necessarily created. 

+ In The Exorcist we see a profaned image of Mary. No real conservative catholic would do this. 

+ In Alien Prometheus, we are told that humans were created by an alien bodybuilder who drank black fungi and disintegrated into the water bodies of earth. 

+ Let us also not forget those movies were scary nuns kill people

He also failed to consider that just because the characters are trying to restore order doesn't mean they will get it. In some horror movies, the story is centered on a world where rules are only an illusion and nothing ever matters. Blurring the lines of reality does bring unspeakable terror but I fail to see how it could teach to people that we should try to order our lives. 

Here are some examples of horror movies were "order" doesn't exist: 

+ In "Mouth of Madness" (1994), a writer somehow makes his horror entities become alive and they take over the universe, driving everyone to madness. 

+ In "Annihilation", a group of explorers visit a shimmering mist were nothing makes sense and that is why it's scary

+ In the urban legend known as "The Backrooms", a mysterious labyrinth similar to human habitations dwells "outside of reality", were plenty of rules we are used to are non-existent. 

+ The SCP foundation, an urban legend co-written by multiple people, is an organization tasked with containing anomalies who break laws of reality. (eg., The concrete statue that breaks your neck if you blink, the white man who kills anyone who sees him no matter the obstacles). A similar concept can be found in the multiplayer Lethal Company and in the Trevor Henderson creatures. 

+ In "Scream" (2006) we follow teenagers who live inside a serial killer horror movie 

+ What exactly drove Jack Nicholson to madness in "The Shining?" One of the reasons why that movie is unsettling, is because reality seems broken in Hotel Overlook. 

+ The clown Pennywise twists reality in order to scare children with their greatest fears. A similar concept happens in Event Horizon and Silent Hill. 

+ In the Lovecraft stories (and the movie adaptation), the universe was created by a massive meatball thing with eyes everywhere. It dreams reality into existence, and when it wakes up, it will be all over. The gods? All of them are like Satan. 

+ And Freddy Kruger somehow kills people in their dreams.  

There are other movies that deal less with relativism, but still order is never restored. Whether it is because of a final jumpscare or because Hollywood wants to make more money from a franchise, order barely ever returns, at least for our plucky protagonists. 

Conclusion.

Attempting to claim an entire genre of writing for a particular political group is absurd, because the writer can do whatever he wants with his stories. It is equally absurd to claim that undefined ideas of "order" "shared values" and "transcendence" make a movie worth watching. If anyone gets a good message from this movies that is fine, but let it come naturally to the normies. Forcing a "christian" message into a movie is more likely to arouse mockery rather than serious meditation. 

This will be part 1 of our critique. Stay tuned if you want to see me analyze the rest of the article.

The Zack Snyder DCEU Trilogy (Part 3)

 Before we proceed with our discussion, let me clarify something. There are two movies with the title Justice League: 

This is because while filming his version of the movie, Zack Snyder's daughter died a terrible death and he had to stop filming. The footage was given to Joss Whedon and he decided the movie was terrible, so he made some mutations before releasing his version in 2017.

However, this movie was universally hated, specially by Snyder fans who thought it didn't had the "depth" the other movies had. Whedon had attempted to make the movie more light hearted, colorful and funny, something the Snyder Bros didn't like, so they begged Warner Brothers to release the version of the movie made by Snyder, which is 4 hours long, R-rated and can be found in HBO MAX. 

In this post we are talking about both movies, because they are extremely similar and have pretty much the same plot. Snyder added more scenes, but we do not find them to be relevant to the plot so we will not talk about them. 

Josstice League and Zack Snyder's Justice League

The Whedon cut begins with some kids asking Superman what he likes about people, and Superman smiles awkwardly. He is probably thinking about the humanist subtext of this movies and how he is supposed to be a Jesus figure. 

Then we see Batman killing a parademon, an ugly entity that feeds on the fears of people, which leaves a drawing of three boxes in the wall with its remains. 

The Snyder Cut begins telling us the lore of this rather complex movie: 

Once upon a time, there was an evil space nazi who wanted to be omnipotent and was called Darkseid. 

Darkseid and his slave Steppenwolf conquered planets by terraforming them with 3 boxes, the mother boxes. This 3 boxes would join each other, make a "Unity" and terraform the entire planet, turning it into a hellscape for Darkseid to enjoy, while the people had their fears turn against them and became parademons. 

However, when he tried to do this on earth, the tribes of men, the atlanteans (ie., the tribe of Aquaman) and the amazonians (ie., the tribe of Wonder Woman), with some little help from pagan entities like Iupiter, Ares and Artemis, (yes, they are DC characters) defeated this Sauron wanna be and sent him crying back to space.

Despite the fact that earth contained the anti-life equation, a scary mathematical thing that would help him conquer the universe, Darkseid forgot about it and didn't return until the events of this movie. This happens only in the Snyder Cut.   

The Mommy boxes were separated and sent to each tribe to protect, but then the tribes separated from each other and the story was forgotten.

 But when Superman died, he cried really hard and this awakened the mommy boxes, which in turn called to Darkseid to come back for them. 

As the invasion gets prepared, we see Wonder Woman smashing a bunch of "reactionary terrorists" who want to blow up stuff. She defeats them, and when they ask her who she is, she replies "A Believer". A believer on what? Humanity? We will never know. 

What is sure is that this terrorists wanted to go "back to the dark ages, and the safety of holy fear". I suppose they were anglicans. If they wanted to refute the people who insisted on calling superman "a god", they didn't need to explode 4 blocks of London. If they were just tired of the degeneracy, why didn't they blow up Davos or Bohemian Grove instead of 4 random blocks? We will never know. 

Then, the rest of the Justice League gets assembled. We see Barry Allen aka Flash, an awkward kid who makes hilariously bad jokes, and his father is on jail because the feds insist he killed Flash's mother. 

Then we see Aquaman, a motorcycle bro who drinks and is angry with the atlanteans and his mother who abandoned him. 

Finally, we met Cyborg, a teenager whose sporting career got interrupted by a deadly car accident after which his dad turned him into a Cyborg and he is angry. 

This collection of angry people get summoned by Bruce Wayne and Wonder Woman, who warn them of the impending threat and prepare to stop Steppenwolf. However they fail to defeat Steppenwolf and as 2 out of three boxes are now in the power of the villain, they decide to elevate another character into the state of complete Jesus-Christ rip-off. 

We learn that somehow by putting Superman's corpse in a water tank and charging the mother box that is left, he will return to life. Why? Don't know. So Ezra Miller runs very fast, charges the box and Supie is back with us. 

After feeling threatened by Cyborg, Superman, out of his mind by the resurrection proceeds to attack the Justice League. However, Lois Lane appears and takes him to Kansas so he remembers who he was. 

The final battle is different in both movies. In Josstice League, Batman distracts the parademons with the Batmobile while Flash kills them and saves civilians. Cyborg connects himself to the boxes to destroy the "Unity", and Wonder Woman and Aquaman fight Steppenwolf. Superman comes later but he saves the day once again. Steppenwolf is defeated, and all is well.  

In the Snyder Cut, The Justice League distract the Parademons while Flash runs around in circles to get enough energy to charge Cyborg so he can disintegrate the boxes. Superman arrives late too but his participation is crucial to save the day. It is longer and more violent, and it does not have the hilariously bad jokes of he 2017 cut. 

The Resupesrrection 

Lex Luthor would say that "man" brought "god" back to life. The resupesrrection is probably the worst thing about the trilogy. From a religious perspective, because it completes the process of turning Superman into yet another Christ rip-off. This seeds were already planted in Man of Steel, but Justice League confirmed our concerns. 

In my opinion it is bad from a writing perspective too, because it takes away the weight of Kent's death in Batman V Superman, the best scene in the movie. Had Clark Kent remained 3 meters under the earth, his story would have still be moving, without giving to Ezra Miller the power to resurrect people. This would make the movies darker and less marketable, but it is not like if Warner Brothers cared about making money so they might as well give us better movies. 

Plus, it suggests that "man" is the one responsible and capable for resurrecting superman, which was symbollically linked to God in previous films. Such nonsense is what happens when you insist that "god" is anything that can resist a nuke. 

Darkseid Works Better as a Demiurg Figure than Captain Zod

In the first part of the articles we discussed an article that claimed Captain Zod was a demiurg. This was not the case with him, but with Darkseid it fits better. 

For this we will focus on the Snyder cut because in the Whedon cut Darkseid is mentioned only in passing and the Anti-Life equation is (pun intended) taken out of the equation. 

Unlike a proper Demiurg figure, like the Architect in The Matrix, Darkseid never created the universe. But if he gets access to the anti-life equation, he will get able to conquer the whole of existence AND the minds of its inhabitants. Is this not a power that only the One true God can have? 

While Darkseid in this movie is not a proper demiurg figure, he is an imperfect demiurg figure whose fight for godhood is improbable but not impossible. 

According to the reasoning behind the article that inspired this investigation; Darkseid would be the demiurg figure, an evil creator entity often associated with the God of the Old Testament, and Supie would be the antichrist figure. 

Antichrist-Superman would be a rather weak entity, and he would need a little help from his friends: the humans. 

While this theory makes sense, especially with the Snyder Cut, I would like to remark both the villain and the hero are imperfect analogies for the beings they are likely to represent. 

Conclusion

Personally I am rather offended by the Resupesrrection, and I think it is better if families and children don't see this movies, specially if they have no good knowledge of theology. 

Since this might have been a tough read for some of you, I would like to finish with a positive note by answering an interesting question for myself and yourself alike: 

How could this movies be improved? They are not entirely unredeemable. I like to imagine myself as a censor in control of remaking this movies in a way that would satisfy both the audiences and the religion.  

FIRSTLY; I would make the Jesus references less on the nose. This Clark Kent can follow the imitation of Christ, but without becoming a cheap imitation of Christ. We could even be self-aware: Clark knows that people think he is like Jesus but he never lets them go too far with the comparison. Considering that normies thought this references were cringe too, Warner has nothing to lose if they follow this thoughtline. 

After dying for people in Batman V Superman, he would never be able to come back. The permanence of his death would be tonaly consistent with the darkness of the movies, as well as avoiding the cringe Jesus analogy. It would also teach people that you can't have your cake and eat it too, something you usually don't see in Hollywood movies. 

SECONDLY; I would totally change the mentality of Lex Luthor. Instead of treating "god", "man" and "the devil" as action figures, he could be a person who has good intentions but wants to get there with evil actions, perhaps contrasting him with a Batman who is more cautious and doesn't want to kill a mostly good-willed Superman if there is a better way of protecting people from his unstability. 

The reason for this is that psychotic Luthor is broadly considered a bad villain by audiences, and that this warped worldview becomes an excuse to write blasphemies in the script. 

THIRDLY; I would make every superhero dress modestly, and I would get rid of Ares, Artemis and Iupiter.  

Good Riddance

Of course this would mean the remakes would be much different, and we will never get to do them, but I will not let this jam my creative juices and rewrite movies that already exist just to make a more positive article. Until next time. 

Independence Day and the Blue Beam Project

The 1997 movie Independence Day has a very interesting story to tell, and today we will analyze some of its messages. We will also get into hidden history and conspiracy theories, so get ready, block your seatbelts and prepare for this new interesting article. 

NPC People Love Aliens

The first half of the movie revolves about some different characters. We have a redneck who claims to have been abducted, a hacker protestor who loves the planet and dislikes people who is played by Jeff Goldblum, a funny black american who is on the military and is played by Will Smith and a president of the United States who actually cares about the United States. 

A series of massive spaceships approach the earth and it is unknown whether they come in peace or with the intention of destroying humanity. This ignorance doesn't prevent people from stacking below the doors of the spaceship and dancing excitedly below them, with the equivalent of "Refugees Welcome" cartels in their hands, begging E.T. to take them to their planet. 

When the establishment has found out the intentions of the spaceships, they warn people to leave, but they are so fascinated by the aliens that they never leave.

And the result? They get smothered by blue lasers and die. 

The moral is that you should not be a pijama person who gets so excited about something new or unexpected and forgets self preservation and situational awareness. Stay away from what the NPC masses do if you do not want to be like the people in this movie. 

América! Woo!

As the movie progressed, I realized it was propaganda for the American people, in favor of the government and military. 

For example, many of the battles are protagonized by very cool pilots riding very cool planes and fighting against evil psychic squid alien demons. The president isn't the Mascot of an evil deep state looking for excuses to abuse its own people and people from overseas, but a highly-likable character, a good father who deeply cares about people and blames himself for not stopping the first invasion.  

Let us not forget that this is the movie where america saves the entirety of the world from an alien invasion; for they are the ones who figure out how to destroy the aliens and their spaceships. The movie is full of patriotic scenes that I actually found hilarious. 

 They are also the ones who inspire the entire world to ignore their differences and get together to stop the greater menace; something that brings us to the next question. 

America bringing forth the New World Order? 

It seems that while for the people this is a fun popcorn movie with destruction, action, tender moments and Will Smith, for the establishment (at least, the establishment of 1997) the story is quite different.

As they prepare to fight against the evil psychic squid conquerors, the president clears his throat and gives as speech, suggesting people should forever ignore their "petty differences" because for one moment they had to unite and fight extraterrestrials. 

This theme is central to the movie: We see different americans all over the country uniting against the treat: the president, the crazy redneck, the military black american (presumably a reference to the so-called right wing) the protestor hacker who does science (a reference to the so-called left), the stripper, the rabbi and the female politician all play the role of representing different americans from all walks of life. 

Later, when America passes the cheat-code to other countries to defeat the aliens, we see countries that fought the United States somewhere in time. I recognized Japan, Russia and Britain. This movie was intended to tell Americans they would be responsible for uniting the whole world under the New World Order. 

Israel makes an appearance too, of course. They probably identify with the aliens a bit too much, as they love smashing buildings, people, and symbolic locations.

It also has a bit of religious ecumenism, for example, when the rabbi guy prays with people of all so-called faith traditions. 

The Blue Beam Project 

This consists on a possible false flag made by the establishment. By faking an alien invasion (presumably, using CGI, directed energy weapons and the media), they could send the people into a panic and force them to accept dictatorial mandates they would never consider otherwise. 

Consider for example, how much the US government tried to hide (or pretended to try to hide) information about UFOs, and extraterrestrials; but in 2021 they suddenly were showing off their footage and driving attention to the topic like if it were very important. 

The mexican government followed suit, of course, with some cheap imitation of a psychological operation.

Some people have suggested too, that some "alien abductions"  have actually been mind control experiments by the government who then blamed it on E.T. This distracts the population and prevents people who suffered the trauma from being taken seriously, because they remember it as an alien abduction and not a government experiment. 

An even scarier Blue Beam project could involve not only extraterrestrials, but interdimensional beings. The reason for this is that movies like Event Horizon and Hellraiser have already presented demons and/or ghost as entities from other dimensions, rather than biological beings from other planets. 

The idea that humans should unite is not bad in itself, it is just that I do not want it to happen by the hand of neocons, Israel or freemasons. Neither do we want it to happen by the hand of the people who would lie to us about an alien invasion. 

The Soulless Remake for Modern Audiences

In 2015 a "sequel" for Independence Day was released, albeit it kind of works like a remake. It is almost like if the directors had a checklist for things that worked in the original movie and just remade them for Independence Day Resurgence. 

+ Funny pilot gets inside Alien spaceship? Check

+ Psychic Alien Squid strangles a man and uses it to communicate its plans to the audience? Check

+ Massive destruction of well-known locations? Check 

+ The cheesy musical theme from the original movie? Check

+ New World Order Message? Check 

+ Ecumenism? Check

+ Area 51? Check

+ Angry military man who needs to sit down? Check

+ A character sacrifices himself to defeat the aliens? Check

Except that this time it falls flat and nobody cares. 

The only thing missing was the cheesy american patriotism that gave me so much cringe and made me laugh so hard. Perhaps the current establishment doesn't like America as much as they used to do.  

The movie actually seems to suggest President Whitner as some sort of antichrist or messianic world leader because after the invasion of the last movie, they reverse engineered the alien spaceships and used them to improve their technology. There had been no sign of wars or division since the last alien invasion, meaning President Whitner actually managed to unite the whole world and bring some sort of an utopia. 

Eventually he sacrifices himself. Will they resurrect him on a sequel soon?  

There is also a white sphere who speaks like a female and is a member of a different alien species. It is a transhumanist thing that transferred its conscience to a computer. She explains she is holding a "resistance" against the squid people and she might consider humans to join them. There is some cheap teasing for a sequel and the movie ends without shame or glory. 

Conclusion

Independence Day is a new world order movie that doesn't care if people accuse it of being propaganda. In fact, it is a masterpiece on propaganda, something that isn't hidden but doesn't prevent you from having fun. 

If you disagree with my interpretation of the movie, come and tell me your own opinion. Just make sure to avoid CGI deceptions anyways, whether they come from "the right" or "the left". 

The Zack Snyder DC Trilogy. (Part 2)

Superman and Batman are cultural symbols; however, despite their importance they had never been seen together in a major Hollywood production.

This changed in 2016, where Warner released Batman V Superman as part of the DCEU (DC extended universe). The hype for this movie was high, but once it came out many felt heavily disappointed. It was a dark and boring movie, well-filmed but insufficiently written, with some hilariously bad moments here and there. 

Last article we discussed whether Man of Steel, its predecessor, could be a movie about Antichrist vs the God of the Bible. However, today we will only focus on analysing some of the themes of this movie, specially those that are a continuation for the themes of Man of Steel:

Batman v Superman continues expanding on two of the messages of the last movie: Superman being a humanist "Jesus", and hope in humanity. Zack Snyder also wrote an allegory for God, man and the devil in this movie, which we will certainly analize here. However, before we get there, let me describe the movie: 

Batman vs Superman

After the events on Man of Steel public opinion on Superman is heavily divided. For example, we see some Mexicans treating Superman like if he were John Paul II while he looks uncomfortable. 

On the other hand, people still remember how Superman destroyed Metropolis and see him as a treat. This will retcon Supie's arc in Man of Steel where he learns to have "faith in humanity".

Snyder's Batman considers Supie to be a treat, especially since the dark knight was present in Metropolis during its destruction by Kal-El. 

The villain for this movie is a mentally-unwell version of Lex Luthor. He is an idiot atheist who is somehow convinced that Superman is some sort of symbol for god, whom he despises. This premise will allow Zack Snyder to tell us something. 

 He wants Superman to fight Batman, whom he sees as a representation of the best of mankind - presumably, not because he is virtuous but because he is powerful - . In short, Luthor read too much Nietzsche and wants "god" (superman) to fight "man" (batman), because he is mentally ill and this is what mentally ill people do in DC movies. 

To achieve his dream of treating "god" and "man" like action figures, Luthor kidnaps Superman's mother Martha Kent and tells Superman that if he doesn't bring him Batman's head, he will kill Martha. Therefore, the o-so-powerful Kal-El succumbs to the requests of a millionaire with psychosis and the battle begins. 

Superman keeps his stand, but Batman had planned this confrontation before. He brings a kryptonite lance and prepares to impale the alien man. 

However, Clark begs Wayne to "save Martha", and this is enough for Bruce to feel that Supie is worth sparing and even becomes his friend.

 You see, both character's mothers share the same name, and this is enough for Batsy to spare the man he desperately wanted to kill some seconds before. 

Later on, Batman saves Martha and Supie goes to confront Lex Luthor. However, all this time, Luthor was mixing his DNA with the corpse of Captain Zod to create an ugly orc thing called Doomsday, whom he claims to be "the devil". So in case you missed this, "man" could not defeat "god" because "save Martha", and therefore "the devil" has to kill "god". 

Supie and Batman are joined by Lois Lane and Wonder Woman to defeat this creature. Superman takes him to space and the americans nuke them. The monster survives the impact and Clark is left in space, seemingly dead. However, the sun shines on him, so he is reanimated and returns to fight. 

With the help of his friends and girlfriend Superman grabs the kryptonite lance that Batsy had manufactured and stabs Doomsday with it; but as the creature dies Superman himself gets stabbed in the chest. Since he was being weakened by the kryptonite lance, he perishes. 

Then we have a sad scene where the first krypto bro dies in front of his friends. This is actually a very moving scene: the idea of an alien thing dying for people who don't like him is not bad on itself.  

Let us not forget, however, that Zack Snyder managed to snuck in some stick crosses because he loves subtlety.  

Lex Luthor would think that "god" died "to the devil" for "man", in what is yet another similarity to Jesus. 

The movie ends with a reference to the upcoming sequel, with Bruce Wayne resenting himself for not giving a chance to Superman; Lex Luthor becoming the evil bald man he was meant to be; and a very long funeral sequence with Amazing Grace playing on the background. 

No, Zack Snyder, Superman is not God

First, let us correct Zack Snyder (and some DC fans out there) and his idea that Superman was some sort of "God". 

Superman is not eternal: he has a beginning and an end. Even if he is immortal, his existence does not transcend all limits. 

Superman is not omnipotent: the very fact that he had to talk about "Martha" to save his life from kryptonite proves this 

Superman is not the creator of the planet earth and let alone the universe, as well as both things visible and invisible. 

Superman is not the ruler of the Universe: he is just a very strong humanoid who flies and destroys things.  

In short, Zack Snyder is ignorant, and we invite anyone who would say Superman is a god to stop imitating him. 

However, this action-figure behavior on the part of Luthor offers some interesting questions. Is Zack Snyder suggesting that the he (Lex) hates God for sparing humanity? ¿Or that he hates humanity for sparing religion? 

Luthor is an atheist because his father was abusive. Since Batman spared Supes, Luthor decided to punish humanity by releasing Doomsday. Or, since Superman spared Batman, he punished him anyways by releasing Doomsday. 

It also suggests that Luthor's original plan consisted in "god" (superman) killing "man" (batman), and his concoction "the devil" (doomsday) would avenge "man", in a luciferian way. 

The "save Martha" moment is also relevant here because by having a mom, "god" has made a communion with man. Humanity realizes this and decides to spare religion, causing the devil to attack them both. 

To think that random individuals represent the relationship between God, humanity and satan is cringe  but this is likely what Zack Snyder wanted to display. 

The Sacrifice

Perhaps the only good scene is when Superman decides to die for people. However, we never really get to see Superman loving people in most of this trilogy. 

It is true that he destroyed the nazi kryptonians, but not without causing the equivalent of a dozen of 9-11 attacks in Metropolis. It is true he dies fighting Doomsday, but only after some people decided to show him respect and two people (one of whom had tried to kill him) showed him kindness and love, even if his reputation was in a bad place.    

It is much more likely that he decided to risk his life for the only 2 women who ever loved him: Martha and Lois. Understanding but not as moving as dying for people who distrust you because it is the right thing to do. 

Nevertheless, this would be a moving moment if it were not because of the possibility that this movies are about antichrist. 

The Theme of "Hope on Humanity" in this Movie

Unlike the normal adaptations of the Batman, this movie shows us a Batman who brutally kills people. This is a direct contrast with the character as we see on the majority of his media. 

The reasons Batman does not kill are plenty. The death of his parents is enough to traumatize him in such a way that he can't kill but wants to be a crime fighter anyway. Furthermore, he believes that everyone can be redeemed; which is true of most of his villains except Joker. 

Unlike his counterparts, "Batfleck" kills because he no longer believes this redemption is possible. He has lost "hope in humanity". 

He is desperate to kill Superman because he considers him as a treat. He thinks that since the alien has power, this power will corrupt him and only Batsy can stop him.  

When Superman says "Save Martha" this somehow makes Batman think that some people are worth sparing. I believe the "Save Martha" scene is more than just an hilariously bad plot point. It is there because by learning that Superman has a mom, Batman remembers that he became a crimefighter not because he hates killers, but because he wanted humanity to become the best version of itself, with Martha Wayne symbolizing the best of humanity. It is poorly written but, I think this is what Snyder was looking for.

As  Superman decides to die for people, Batman remembers the power of love and this incites him to have more hope, and probably hope in humanity.

Do you see the humanism? Do you see?  

Conclusion

Batman V Superman is the movie in which Zack Snyder's cringe analogy for Christ continues as Superman dies to Doomsday for humanity. 

It is also the movie in which Lex Luthor is mentally ill and thinks that Superman is "god", Batman is "man" and Doomsday is "the devil". 

It is also the movie in which Batman remembers humanity is redeemable and spares the alien who destroyed Metropolis because Superman's mother is named like his late mother.

However, just because this movie is hilariously bad doesn't mean it didn't have a thought process behind it, and we are happy to analyze it for you. 

Unlike Man of Steel, I don't actually believe this movie could be interpreted in a different manner to what has been written, but maybe I am wrong. Feed my your insights in the comments below. 

SUPERMAN IS NOT MOSES

 While researching about the Zack Snyder Trilogy, I come across a video that explained that Superman shouldn't be a Jesus rip-off. This video was released by the channel Pillar of Garbage, and this name is quite accurate to the mess I found. 

Pillar of Garbage is a filo-jewish critical theorist channel that discusses entertainment products. Therefore, the reason they opposed to the ridiculous Hollywood tendency to make Superman into a Jesus rip-off wasn't based on respect for the Christ but on whiny woke nonsense. 

Garbage explained that turning Superman into an allegory for Jesus deleted the "jewish roots" of the character. The creator for the character, Jerry Siegel, wanted Superman to stand up for the oppressed. He claimed Siegel and Schuster wanted to make some sort of communist hero with strong political inclinations, but after the cold war the establishment chose to make him more agreeable to the mostly-protestant masses of America and the non-communist.  

He disrespected Jesus Christ, in typical jewish fashion and then said that Superman (at least originally) was not, or should not be, a symbol for Jesus, but for Moses.   

However, to say that Superman is Moses is ignorant and stupid. While many Superman writers have gone too far to turn the kryptonian into a fake messias, no such thing has ever been done with Moses. 

Whoever says that Superman is Moses is ignorant of both Moses and Superman.  

Superman's most consistent value is humanism, and his motivation is love of humanity. This love comes from the gratitude he feels for Jonathan and Martha Kent. In contrast, the motivation of Moses is love for God, and it is only through his love of God that he loves the Hebrews. 

Such difference should be sufficient, because means that Moses and Superman have a different religion and they see the world in starkly contrasting ways. 

However, there is more. 

Moses is the liberator of his own people, the hebrews. However, how can Superman be a liberator of his people if the kryptonians are dead? Their civilization is gone. Krypton had its chance. 

Someone would argue that the people of Superman are not the kryptonians but the humans, whom he loves intensely because they adopted him as his own. If we translate this to Moses, wouldn't it mean that he would love the Egyptians because they adopted him for a while? 

It is clear that Moses experience with those who adopted him is different from Clark Kent.

Pillar of Garbage seems to think that Jesus only acted out of self-interest but Moses acted out of a desire to the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Such nonsense is what comes across as media commentary in this days. As if Moses didn't act because God made the burning bush miracle and presented himself as the commander of all things, the king of the universe and the slavemaster of the galaxies. 

His whole religion is centered around one principal commandment: You Will Love God above all things and follow his rules, not "you will do the right thing because the right thing is good and the not-right thing is bad because your conscience". It is the God who decides what is right or wrong, not the general consensus of the majority of mankind, and it is not your heart.  

Pillar of Garbage seems to think Moses is some sort of worldly liberator, unlike Jesus. This is not the case. Moses was a prophet, a slave of God who incites other people to be slaves of God too. This is different from Superman who comes to preach no religion. Moses's mission is imposed from beyond and supernatural, while Superman has no mission but he took the personal choice to use his powers for the material benefit of the people. 

What I understood is that Jews hate Jesus so much that when one of their products gets compared to the Messias, they immediately deny this, blame capitalism and proceed to say their product is closer to someone they actually like: Moses. To think this idea is defended by anyone is disturbing and should humiliate anyone who has an exceedingly high idea of human intelligence.