Joker: a destructive review

If the media and Hollywood are in the hands of the Jewish quarter, it is only justified to watch television programs or movies to indicate where the bad messages are, which was what I did with Game of Thrones, in addition to using the TV series to change the subject and talk about matters that interest me.

Exactly the same can be said of Joker, a film I used in the previous week to talk about my subjects, such as a model of the trauma of mental disorders. Regarding a film review per se, there is not much to talk about Joker except to point out the bad messages.

The most conspicuous is that the white Arthur Fleck apparently fancies a mulatto woman: the worst possible bad message for a white audience. In fact, it is not even necessary to try to find another bad message in Joker since miscegenation is the greatest conceivable self-betrayal.

Moreover, Joker’s final scene is a sort of disclaimer, as Richard Spencer was told in this video. This means the movie is not even valiant, as they have been saying on social media. Remember what a commenter recently said here, that almost all movies after 1969 must be destroyed in the ethnostate.

I would include Joker among them.

Published in: on October 16, 2019 at 11:37 pm  Comments (4)  

‘That we won’t werewolf…’


Dr. Sally: Oh, no, no, no. No, you can’t joke about that.

Murray Franklin: Yeah, that’s not funny, Arthur. That’s not the kind of humor we do on this show.

Joker: Okay. Yeah, I’m sorry. It’s just, you know, it’s been a rough few weeks, Murray. Ever since I killed those three Wall Street guys.

[Pause.]

Murray Franklin: Okay, I’m waiting for the punchline.

Joker: There is no punchline. It’s not a joke.

Murray Franklin: You’re serious, aren’t you? You’re telling us you killed those three young men on the subway?

Joker: Mm-hmm.

Murray Franklin: And why should we believe you?

Joker: I’ve got nothing left to lose. Nothing can hurt me anymore.

[He smiles.]

Joker: My life is nothing but a comedy.

Murray Franklin: Let me get this straight, you think that killing those guys is funny?

Joker: I do. And I’m tired of pretending it’s not. Comedy is subjective, Murray. Isn’t that what they say? All of you, the System that knows so much, you decide what’s right or wrong. The same way that you decide what’s funny or not.

Audience Member: Get him off!

Murray Franklin: Okay, I think, my understanding, that you did this to start a movement to become a symbol?

Joker: Come on, Murray. Do I look like the kind of clown that could start a movement? I killed those guys because they were awful. Everybody is awful these days. It’s enough to make anyone crazy.

Murray Franklin: Okay, so that’s it. You’re crazy. That’s your defense for killing three young men?

Joker: No. They couldn’t carry a tune to save their lives.

[The audience starts booing.]

Joker: Oh, why is everybody so upset about these guys? If it was me dying on the sidewalk, you’d walk right over me. I pass you everyday and you don’t notice me! But these guys, what, because [the very wealthy] Thomas Wayne went and cried about them on TV?

Murray Franklin: Do you have a problem with Thomas Wayne?

Joker: Yes, I do. Have you seen what it’s like out there, Murray? Do you ever actually leave the studio? Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore! Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit down and take it like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!

Murray Franklin: You finished? I mean, there’s so much self-pity, Arthur, you sound like you’re making excuses for killing those young men.

Not everybody, and I’ll tell you this, not everyone is awful.

Joker: But you’re awful, Murray.

Murray Franklin: Me? I’m awful? Oh, yeah? How am I awful?

Joker: Playing my video. Inviting me on this show. You just wanted to make fun of me. You’re just like the rest of them.

Murray Franklin: You don’t know the first thing about me, pal. Look what happened because of what you did? What it led to. There are riots out there. Two policemen are in critical condition.

[Arthur starts to laugh.]

Murray Franklin: You’re laughing. You’re laughing. Someone was killed today because of what you did.

Joker: I know…

How about another joke, Murray?

Murray Franklin: No, I think we’ve had enough of your jokes.

Joker: What do you get…

Murray Franklin: I don’t think so.

Joker: …when you cross…

Murray Franklin: I think we’re done with the show. That’s it.

Joker: …a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash?!

Murray Franklin: Call the police, Gene. Call the police.

Joker: I’ll tell you what you get! You get what you fucking deserve!

[Suddenly Arthur Freck, the Joker, shoots Murray in the head and the audience starts running off in terror. After killing Murray, the Joker, goes to a camera and points it at himself.]

Joker: Goodnight. And always remember, that’s…

[He gets cut off as the show is cut. After Arthur murders Murray live on TV, as riots break out across Gotham, the Waynes leave a movie theater and a clown rioter follows them down an alley.]

Clown Rioter: Hey, Wayne. You get what you fucking deserve.

[Points his gun at Thomas…]

Thomas Wayne: No, pal!

[He shoots both Thomas and his wife, Martha, in front of young Bruce, the future Batman: protector of the System. LOL!]

Published in: on October 14, 2019 at 10:26 pm  Comments (5)  

Joker, Molyneux and CC

Or:

An opportunity to present the trauma model
 

In recent years I don’t usually go to the movies. If there is something I say to my nephews when I see them it is that, in the media and the cinema, all the messages are bad. But yesterday I broke my habit after watching Stefan Molyneux’s video about the Joker movie.

I am glad that, as Molyneux confessed in one of his latest videos, eighty percent of his audience dropped last year. Is it because of his dishonesty about the JQ? Whatever caused the drop, from alt-lite to neo-Nazism, passing through white nationalism, Molyneux is the only notable personality in our underworld who has consistently talked about child abuse.

As the visitors of this blogsite know, I spent more decades investigating child abuse than the single decade I’ve dedicated to investigating the darkest hour in the West: whose report, The Fair Race, now appears as a free PDF. Since my oldest specialty is the subject of child abuse I must say that what Molyneux tells us in his one-hour video is, in general terms, correct.

The video revolves around the character Arthur Fleck / Joker, a mentally-ill man who dreams to become a stand-up comedian but so disregarded by a hellish and diverse Gotham City that decides to become a criminal. Curiously, the actor Joaquin Phoenix did not look to previous Joker actors for inspiration: he simply read some reports about political assassinations.

Hollywood movies usually lack psychological realism. For example, in the 1989 Jack Nicholson movie the Joker origin story simply falls into a vat of acid. The 2019 movie, on the other hand, gives its central character a plausible origin. So plausible that the film has been described as reminiscent of mass shootings in the US, and the incel community loved it. What’s more, some people from the establishment have expressed concern that Joker could inspire real-world violence.

In a moment of the first minutes of his video, Molyneux confesses that he has received horrific verbal abuse just for mentioning the naked facts of his own childhood, and that hostility toward those who were abused as children or teenagers is not uncommon if the adult victim dares to open his mouth.

At this point I would like to distinguish between dysfunctional parents and schizogenic parents, that is, parents who literally murder their children’s souls. While almost everyone I know comes from family dysfunction in one way or another, the category of schizogenic parents simply does not exist in our society. Since the 1950s the Big Pharma has ensured that civil society does not find out that there is a trauma model to understand the mental disorder that competes with its profitable medical model.

But what does all this have to do with the recent film Joker? As can be deduced from Molyneux’s video, and regardless of the sinister motivation of its Jewish creators, the film could be used, by us, to present the trauma model to the public. I was the one who started this Wikipedia article on the trauma model, an academic text that appeals to the left hemisphere of our brains. He who wants to delve deeper into this research line, and in a more literary way, can read my book Day of Wrath. On the other hand, he who prefers a personal testimony that presents the trauma model appealing to our right hemisphere could read John Modrow’s touching autobiography, How to Become a Schizophrenic.

Furthermore, he who is unwilling even to read any the above literature, but willing to educate himself on the subject having some fun, could see the films Shine (1996), Monster (2003), The Piano Teacher (2001) and even Artificial Intelligence by Spielberg, which can be used to grasp what proponents of the trauma model call ‘the problem of attachment to the perpetrator’.

Although it may seem incredible, sometimes fairy tales portray the destructive interaction of parents with their children. In almost all fairy tales, including modern fairy tales like Kubrick/Spielberg’s A.I. or Harry Potter, the parental figure is substituted so as not to touch it directly. In the case of the Potter series the abusers are Harry’s uncle and aunt. As to David, the child robot in A.I., obviously he had no biological parents but Monica functions like a substitute mother. But sometimes the storyteller sneaks parents directly into the story as the villains who abandon their children (for example in Tom Thumb).

But there are more serious forms of abuse than abandoning your child in the woods, what also happened to David. What Molyneux says about not forgiving schizogenic parents is true. I would go as far as to claim that to forgive such parents is the most toxic thing for the mental health of the victim. Mine is an opposed claim to what the establishment wants us to believe.

Why is the forgiveness that religionists and therapists preach so toxic? Because it is the abusive parents and society the ones who are currently murdering young souls. As the Armenian lawyer said in Spotlight, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2015: ‘This city, these people [Boston people] are making the rest of us feel like we don’t belong. But they’re no better than us. Look at how they treat their children. Mark my words, Mr. Rezendes [another Armenian]: If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one’ (emphasis added).

For the victim, unilaterally forgiving the perpetrator or a society that never accepts its soul-murdering sins is simply a betrayal of oneself and the other adult victims, now suffering from mental stress and even disorders.

In addition to the first minutes of Molyneux’s video, using as a paradigm the Joker’s abusive interaction with his mother Penny in Gotham City, Molyneux advances ideas analogous to what I have known for a long time. Watch also the segments after minute 35 of his video: how female evil is still taboo in the film industry.

It is curious to note the chasm between those who, like Molyneux and I, have investigated child abuse due to our past, and those who did not have such destructive parenting.

Greg Johnson for example is a Batfan. In his recent review of Joker, which he writes under the penname of Trevor Lynch, Johnson prefers Heath Ledger’s Joker in the 2008 The Dark Knight than the Joker of the movie released this month. Johnson expresses very derogatory of this latest Joker: ‘You’d want to squash him like a bug’. ‘Ledger’s Joker launched a million memes, both because of his character and his lines. Phoenix’s Joker will have no such influence. He’s a pathetic nobody with nothing to say’. ‘Arthur [the Joker] is entirely absorbed in self-pity’. ‘Joker is a boring movie about a disgusting loser’.

Well, it didn’t look boring to me… But the commenters on Counter-Currents who opined about Johnson’s review said very similar things: ‘People like him deserve to get left behind by society, and the true tragedy of this movie is that successful, well-adjusted men like Thomas Wayne insist on trying to love the Arthur Flecks of the world and take care of them’. Really? The conservative commenter also said: ‘The defects like Arthur would be put in mental asylums and [eugenically] sterilized’. [1]

Such commenters remind me that, in the movie, Thomas Wayne, the billionaire father of the future Batman, labels those Gotham residents envious of the wealthy as ‘clowns’, not only the Joker. I don’t know how many viewers enjoyed the moment when, by the end of the movie, a rioter corners the Wayne family in an alley and murders Thomas and his wife sparing the child Bruce. Another commenter said: ‘One of the great things about Heath Ledger’s Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight is that he does not have an origin story’.

I dare not judge the Marvel universe as I feel deeply revolted by it. But in the real world, isn’t it good to know, say, the psychopathological motivations of those women in the Charles Manson family? But the commenters’ lack of elemental compassion is even noticeable about the previous Joker represented by Heath Ledger, an actor that incidentally has already passed away. In one of the dialogues the now dead Joker explains his scars. He said that his father ‘comes at me with a knife. “Why so serious?” He sticks a blade in my mouth. “Let’s put a smile on that face”.’

This father strikes me as ‘soul murderer’. Note this other phrase from the CC commenter: ‘Arthur [the Joker who’s alive] is far too damaged for any regular person to identify with him’.

How will a normie commenter identify with him if only one percent (or less) of Westerners have endured schizogenic parents?

Incidentally, last night, as I watched the psychological thriller, there were times when I laughed (as the character does in the film) when the audience was serious and nobody laughed. That happened to me, yesterday, in the climax of the film when the Joker kills the establishment character that Robert de Niro represented.

As I said, I usually don’t go to the movies now. But decades ago the same phenomenon occurred to me with some films by Luis Buñuel, whom I met personally, in which nobody laughed. It also happened to me when I watched Dr. Strangelove by Kubrick on the big screen. I laughed at the black humour in which the nuclear extermination of humanity was at stake while the hundreds of people watching the movie with me were quiet in the theatre. Only when I read a Kubrick biography by Vincent Lobrutto did I find out that Kubrick had a very black sense of humour. Then did I understand me and the non-laugher spectators of Dr. Strangelove!

Joker ends when Arthur laughs and tells a psychiatrist that she would not understand the joke…

_____________

[1] In the comments section on Joker in Counter-Currents Johnson shows how ignorant he is about psychiatry: a supposed branch of medicine with as little scientific basis as parapsychology or the study of UFOs, as shown in my writings (for example: here). Johnson wrote ‘If Arthur is adopted then his mental illness cannot be inherited from this mother’. This is a credulity stance regarding the psychiatric allegations that mental illness is genetic. Apparently, Johnson forgot what I said in one of my articles in which he himself corrected my syntax (see this piece which appears in my Hojas Susurrantes).

Zero-budget movies about the Gulag

From minute 40 to 43 Michael Kingsbury explains exactly what we have been saying this month: Whites need a very specific story, and Kingsbury wisely states which story should it be: a tragic story, like the Gulag that killed dozens of millions of whites.

Decades ago I was very naïve. I could not figure out why, in the middle of the Cold War, Kissinger and Nixon did not ask Hollywood to make films about the Gulag in order to win the cultural war that was already taking place in the West. I knew nothing about the Jewish question, let alone that whites were behaving like accomplices of the Jews. (Recall the phone call between Nixon and Billy Graham in which they worried that the media was controlled by Jewry but, from the presidential chair and the pulpit, they did nothing to solve the problem.)

Now I know that both Christians and secular whites are involved not only in the empowerment of Jewry, but in the internalisation of a foundation myth that diabolises the white race. What I did not understand in the past, times when I told people that the media feeds us with ‘a hundred films and documentaries about the Holocaust and zero about the Gulag’, I understand now.

Kingsbury is right in what he says, as I pointed out above, from the 40th to the 43rd minutes. That is why I place so much emphasis on Hellstorm, a true holocaust of Germans that even the so-called white nationalists in North America don’t want to see, apparently because those facts put their dear nation at the level of the USSR of Stalin.

The white man, compassionate by nature, must radically change the story he tells himself. And what better way that, instead of Game of Thrones fantasies, tell stories about real events of the 20th century: events that the System has been hiding for a century (according to Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag system started in 1918 and ended a couple of years before the year I was born).

No one wanted to sponsor Kingsbury for his Gulag films. The three films he made were practically zero-budget movies. It reminds me the conditions in which I am also forced to work.

Back to the Future

For years now I have been telling family members, on the rare occasions when I talk to them, that all films of the last decades have bad messages.

My late sister asked me some years ago, smiling triumphantly as if challenging me, what a bad message Back to the Future could have. I did not answer because I’d have had to speak in a big way on issues that she would not accept. But I do now, even though my sister can no longer read my answer.

The film begins with an experiment that Marty McFly (Michael Fox) makes with a huge speaker and his electric guitar. Well: the invention of the electric guitar alone was a blunder for Western culture. See, for example, this comment by the British Roger that we reproduced on this site six years ago.

So badly does Back to the Future initiate that the audience doesn’t disapprove of that experiment in which Marty harms his hearing with such decibels—something that, in the real world, many teenagers do with rock music.

Another bad message in the film occurs in the first scene inside the cafeteria of Hill Valley town, when Marty tells the humble black waiter that, in the future, he will be mayor of the town. The film implies that those changes from 1955 to 1985 would be seen as natural, that the inversion of values is perfectly okay.

I do not need to say more to show that even the funniest movie—Ronald Reagan himself loved Back to the Future when he saw it in the White House in 1985—may harbour a toxic message for the 14 words. But I could finish this brief review by pointing out that the film culminates with Marty playing the degenerate music of the future in the school dance of 1955: a time when the music for dancing was not so degenerating.

Published in: on April 5, 2019 at 9:07 pm  Comments (21)  

Toxic Oscar


Alfonso Cuarón won best director for his semi-autobiographical Roma. Yalitza Aparicio (pic) is the first indigenous Mexican woman to be nominated for best actress at the Oscars.

The movie, filmed not so far from my own district when I was a child and teenager, is plagued with toxic messages. This was expected, as Cuarón is openly anti-racist, as I informed last year.

Published in: on February 25, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments (7)  

Shane

Yesterday I watched again the 1953 film Shane (which I first saw in the mid-1970s).

Those who are home-schooling their kids and, at the same time, do not let them see the poisonous crap that comes from Hollywood or the MSM, should have the DVD of this movie in their homes. Unlike virtually everything we see today, the message of this movie by George Stevens cannot be more benign for an American white family.

Published in: on January 28, 2019 at 11:00 am  Comments (16)  

Roma (2018 film)

Yesterday and in the first hours of this day I watched, on Netflix, the latest film by the Mexican Alfonso Cuarón, Roma, which alludes to the Colonia Roma where Cuarón lived as a child, not very far from where I also lived as a child in Mexico City.

Surely some visitors of this site will wonder how a phenotypically Creole family looks like in Mexico; that is to say, a family with little or no Amerindian blood. The autobiographic Cuarón recreates, in a black-and-white film, the daily life of one of these families in the great Mexican capital of the late 1970 and 1971 (a period that I remember so well).

Before talking about the film, I must say that I feel outraged by the awards that the Mexicans Alfonso Cuarón, Alejandro González Iñárritu and Guillermo del Toro have received by cinematographic institutions and film critics. Although none is Jewish, their films navigate the same currents of the anti-white Zeitgeist of our time.

Of Cuarón, who has a huge talent for the seventh art, I would only recommend Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: the film with fewer bad messages for the Aryan cause. In Children of Men and Gravity the bad messages are more conspicuous, and let’s not talk about the 2015 film, The Revenant by González Iñárritu, which won three awards in a Hollywood dominated by Jews.

Exactly the same must be said of Guillermo del Toro, whose monstrous The Shape of Water gave him the Oscar for best director last year. Also, his 2006 Pan’s Labyrinth sides the wrong guys of the Spanish Civil War.

As I said, the film Roma portrays a white family in Mexico City (Cuarón and I even went to the same High School, the Colegio Madrid). As to the plot, I do not know a single father of any of these white Mexican families who, in addition to abandoning his young children and wife, has no intention of seeing them again! From this point of view, the message of Roma is analogous to del Toro’s The Shape of Water, where a typical American man of the 1950s, father of a white family, is the bad guy in the movie.

In Roma the heroine is a Mixtec Indian woman who, by at the end of the film, saves two children from drowning in the sea, putting her life at risk. This image represents the culmination of the Mexican movie with the white kids and the mother embracing the heroic Indian.

My mother has had a legion of Indian maids, and my dear grandmother was a great confidant of them who actually loved them. Needless to say, I never heard of a case in which an Indian maid risked her life to save a white child. Thus Cuarón’s heroine is the counterpart of which I’ve never heard: that a father of a white family in Colonia Roma, or another similar district in Mexico City, abandons his children to the degree of not wanting to see them again. Did Cuarón’s father did exactly this to his children? The autobiographic Cuarón doesn’t specify this in the interviews.

In both Hollywood and in art films, the cultural war against the Aryan is absolute. It bothers me that, in the white nationalist forums, these Mexican directors are not seen for what they are: little Jews even if they do not have a drop of Jewish blood. Even Greg Johnson under a penname recently wrote a review of Children of Men without fully understanding the toxicity of these acclaimed films directed by talented Mexicans.
 

Tuesday update:

Cuarón shows his true colours in this interview in Spanish, from which I translate the essential pronouncements:

To the liberal interviewer he said: ‘La perversa relación que existe en nuestro país entre raza y clase’ (‘The perverse relationship that exists in our country between race and class’) in a context in which Mexico’s poverty is blamed for this ‘perverse relationship’: a phrase that Cuarón repeats twice throughout the interview. On the second occasion, he says that ‘por el color de tu piel también estás determinado socialmente’ (‘by the colour of your skin you are also socially determined’ in Mexico).

He also said: ‘¡México es clasicista y bien racista!, y al mexicano le cuesta mucho trabajo aceptar eso… Si queremos una verdadera transformación, todo empieza con la autorreflexión’ (‘Mexico is classicist and very racist! And the Mexican has a hard time accepting that… If we want a true transformation, everything starts with self-reflection’).

Isn’t it crystal-clear now why the anti-white System has overfilled Cuarón with so many international awards?

Published in: on December 17, 2018 at 2:34 pm  Comments (7)  

On movies

The comments thread of ‘Post-1950s décadents’ inspired me to add this entry.

Given that the vast majority of films have been produced by companies run by Jews, at first glance it is inexplicable that white nationalists, and Alt-Right people who are aware of the JQ, watch those movies and even like them. The mystery is solved when we realise that even the pro-whites of our time clearly maintain suicidal features, as I have said so many times.

A month ago, in ‘The Last Jedi’ I said that it is time for introspection to fulfil the mandate of the Oracle of Delphi. But it is obvious that these people are not very interested in introspection by the reading of the ‘first Jedi texts’ so to speak. On the contrary: if one visits most of their sites, we see that they spend much time on the news of the day: the opposite of what an initiate would do.

But going back to the cinema and the non-initiate world. In ‘Post-1950s décadents’ I talked a little about the movie Shane, a classic of the Western genre. It makes me want to see the film again and offer my comments not only about it, but also about other of the few movies that are worth watching.

If white nationalists were not décadents, they would like no film that features any non-white as a hero or ‘good guy’ of the movie. They would not even recommend ‘good’ films like The Godfather for reasons explained, e.g., here.

Published in: on November 14, 2018 at 2:24 pm  Comments (18)  

Post-1950s décadents

In yesterday’s interview of Richard Spencer by JFG the audience asked Spencer, ‘Name some red-pill kids movies’ and Spencer mentioned a silly Disney film produced after the Jews had acquired Walt’s company.

Spencer’s response corroborated my observation that some pro-white Americans younger than me are alienated from their heritage. I watched many healthy American films on the big screen in the 1960s. They have not because they were not born.

As to the seventh art JFG is worse than Spencer. In other podcasts he reviewed The Godfather (filmed in 1972, the decade when the healthy movies fell out of fashion). Although I have not watched that JFG video, I doubt he said something akin to what I said about the Sicilian scum that plagued Nordish America. JFG and many white nationalists are also fans of a degenerate movie. In a 2012 a post I said:

Last January, in his [Counter-Currents] review of Fight Club Costello wanted us to believe that a film that starts with rock music, based upon a nihilistic novel authored by a homosexual author, Chuck Palahniuk, when properly interpreted it deals with rebellious, healthy fascist moods that could lead our young toward masculine identity.

The post got 41 comments and it still shocks me that people in the Alt-Right love this 1999 Hollywood trash produced by the subversive tribe. But as I said yesterday JFG is a degenerate.

As to Spencer, instead of recommending a movie filmed after the Jewish takeover of the Disney company, he could have recommended a healthy film for kids when Walt was still with us. (I remember so well the day Walt Disney died: precisely I went with my little sisters and cousins to watch a movie for kids when my blond cousin gave me the bad news.) A non-décadent man could have recommended Disney’s Sleeping Beauty, where the beauty of the white Aryan woman is introduced to a very young public with the music of Tchaikovsky and the background pictorial art of Eyvind Earle.

If I was asked which non-animated movie conveyed an inspiring message for American kids, I would have recommended Shane, also filmed in the 1950s. As an old reviewer put it, ‘it also contains a very wonderful understanding of the spirit of a little boy amid all the tensions and excitements and adventures of a frontier home’.

Published in: on November 12, 2018 at 12:01 pm  Comments (33)