True Left

I had the opportunity to watch the new Superman movie, and I wanted to comment on it, since a lot of people online are making connections with how the main conflict in the movie is almost identical and directly parallels the Israel-Palestine conflict. Even though the director appears to be denying any connection to the Israel-Palestine conflict, I would have to agree with such people

Spoilers follow below, for anyone concerned:

The rumors are basically true. The plot centers around this country known as Boravia, a U.S. ally that receives military aid from the U.S., in order to conquer a country of poorer, weaker, mostly non-white people once and for all, and to take the territory for themselves. From what little we actually see of Jarhanpur, the country being invaded by Boravia, the Jarhanpurians are living in refugee camps. There's even subtle anti-Turanian messaging, if you pay attention to the language that the Boravians are speaking (it's not Hebrew)

So yeah. The movie is about Superman, who draws all his power from the Yellow Sun, stopping "Boravia" (Israel) from invading "Jarhanpur" (Palestine).

While the movie sticks with Superman's historical character of trying not to kill villains due to a no-kill code, the movie demonstrates in other ways that it has no qualms with villains dying. At the end of the movie, the Justice Gang stop the Boravian invasion in Superman's place, since Superman is busy dealing with a distraction set up by the villains. Hawkgirl picks up the leader of Boravia, flies into the sky, and drops him to his death. This is played for comedic effect, as right when the Boravian leader hits the ground, it cuts to an alka-seltzer tablet falling into a cup of water and dissolving

As you would expect, even though the director denies basing the movie off of any real events, this movie still has Zionists frothing at the mouth and calling the movie ****, because they know that even if the director didn't have ulterior motives, the subtext will make fans of the movie anti-Israel regardless, when they try to draw parallels between the injustices in the movie, and any real-life injustices

There are some false leftists trying to poison the discourse by pointing out that Superman was intended to allegorically represent Moses and his story. This may be true in a historic sense, since I have not read any of the Superman comics or paid attention to the movies, and the two original creators of Superman were both Jewish. But the fact is that this current iteration of Superman has Zionists annoyed for the right reasons. You have people countering the false leftists by pointing out that in this movie, Superman is essentially an anti-Moses, since it's later revealed that his biological parents sent him to earth not to protect life there, but to conquer it and establish a harem so that he can have his metahuman genes dominate and reign supreme (in other words, his biological parents are might-makes-right Yahwists). But Superman REJECTS the will of his biological parents, and sides with his adoptive parents and the earthlings that he felt he was meant to protect. Although Moses was also adopted, he, unlike Superman, would have always sided with the biological, Jewish side of himself

There are other interesting parallels as well. The leader of Boravia pulls a "We just want to get rid of Hamas!" by claiming that he's conquering Jarhanpur so that he can liberate them from their corrupt leadership. Superman says "You don't really believe that, do you"?

In another scene, you have Lex Luthor, portrayed as an Elon Musk-type character, showing a captured Superman his farm of monkeys that are hooked up to machines and forced to type internet comments that are anti-Superman and pro-Boravia, to sway public opinion (a direct jab at right wing bot farms)

You could also interpret the movie as having a secondary pro-immigrant message, since another idea promoted in the movie is that, despite being an alien, Superman is just as "human" as the rest of them, because he feels and suffers and loves, and because he represents the IDEAL human (in the mind of the director), because of his heart of gold, and his idealism and strong sense of justice that clashes with the cynicism and realism of the other characters in the movie who try to discourage him. It makes me think of the general Atlantean idea of "sometimes, immigrants are more truly American than those with families who have been here for generations",

Near the end of the movie, just before the Justice Gang come and stop the Boravian invasion and kill the leader, there was also this touching scene where a Jarhanpurian kid raises a Superman flag, and prays for Superman to save them all:



All in all, I would not consider this movie a masterpiece or anything, but it was enjoyable enough, and I appreciate it for sparking a lot of interesting discussion because of the political undertones. I think this movie will also revive the "What would Superman do?" ethos amongst both young and old superhero fans. And in an era of cynicism, we desperately need more role models, even if fictional

My only main criticism is casting a masculine mesomorph as Superman, once again. Although I guess it makes sense that Superman isn't ectomorphic, since his biological parents are clearly inferior. In that sense, maybe it's better to portray Superman as someone who has risen above their biology

@90sRetroFan To be honest, I don't think him being a registered Republican means all that much, since it appears that he's always been openly critical of Trump. He appears to resemble counterculture era Republicanism much more than the current, MAGA era Republicanism. I would maybe go so far as to place him on the left side of the political spectrum (although obviously just barely), considering his relatively compassionate stance towards immigrants and refugees, and his presumed lack of explicit ethnotribalism.

Obviously his stances on LGBT people and women aren't where they should be, but I would argue that this is actually strategically beneficial for us. If Leo XIV were to become fully and unambiguously pro-LGBT and anti-sexist, it would very clearly contradict the Old Testament, and the letters written by Paul in the New Testament. This flagrant contradiction could potentially turn many Catholic and non-Catholic Christians away from viewing Leo XIV as an authority on matters that actually DO align with the current iteration of the Bible, and that Leo XIV sincerely possesses, such as the New Testament stance on compassion, and its stance against tribalism. If he wanted to avoid contradictions surrounding LGBT people and women, he would have to discard the Old Testament and the letters from Paul entirely, essentially deconverting from Catholicism. So this is actually the best-case scenario for an authority figure who wishes to remain Catholic.

So seeing as how Leo XIV appears to be continuing Francis's surprisingly admirable legacy, I actually feel quite optimistic about Catholicism potentially being a positive force that can push Catholic Republicans, and Christian Republicans more generally, further back to the left. Leo XIV's exact position on the political spectrum is currently the best way that we can expect a pope to help us undo the MAGA era of Republicanism

@90sRetroFan What do you think of the Law of Attraction or manifestation? It’s a type of New Age thing that people do to make some of their desires a reality. My main criticism of it is that it might not work at all, and would therefore be bad in that it’s a complete waste of time. But if it DOES work, I feel like it still heavily depends on what the person is trying to manifest. For example, it’s shockingly (or not so shockingly…) common for people to try to manifest lighter skin, or a hypermasculine/hyperfeminine appearance according to current conventions of “beauty”. Or, disregarding aesthetics, just self-centered desires in general, like money/economic success, or to attract a particular person to you, etc.

But I guess it could still theoretically be used for utilitarian, or even selfless purposes. Like relieving oneself of some sort of ailment or predicament, or to relieve someone else of some ailment or predicament, or to manifest justice or victory in some form, or to change your personality for the better, etc. Even then, I think it would still depend on the actual mechanics. Who or what is interceding to make these manifestations happen? If manifestation/LoA is just an impersonal fact of how the universe works, is it simply the universe interceding? Because we obviously hate the universe/material world/nature, so maybe even in the case of wishing for something positive, it would still be wrong to do so. Or it could be God. But if that were the case, then one would expect the Devil to be the one interceding for negative or selfish desires. Or maybe the Devil intercedes for all of them, even the positive ones

I’m just curious on your perspective, because I can imagine three separate camps:

1. It doesn’t work at all, and is a waste of time.

2. It does work, and it’s a tool of the Devil.

3. It does work, but whether it’s good or bad depends on what the person is trying to manifest.

@90sRetroFan What do you think of the idea that Sodom and Gomorrah wasn’t about homosexuality? It seems common among left-leaning circles to interpret the story as being about r-pe and inhospitality instead:

https://reformationproject.org/case/sodom-and-gomorrah/amp/

https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/does-sodom-gomorrah-condemn-homosexuality/

And I’ve found a few left-leaning Muslims making similar arguments (since the story is also found in the current Quran), with an additional argument relating to translation of the Arabic word بل:

https://thefatalfeminist.com/2020/12/07/prophet-lut-a-s-and-bal-%D8%A8%D9%84-the-nahida-s-nisa-tafsir/

https://thefatalfeminist.com/2018/05/12/same-sex-love/

https://lampofislam.wordpress.com/category/same-sex-relationship/

Sorry for bombarding you with this many links at once. I’m just curious, because some of the arguments seem fairly convincing on the surface, but your current position is to simply agree that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is homophobic, since we have no allegiance to the Tanakh anyways

@90sRetroFan I’m hoping that with Americans getting increased exposure to China from China’s perspective on Chinese social media like RedNote, America will become a better friend of China in the future. You said that ideally, we should get China to side with America over Russia, and hence put a dent in the Arctic Alliance. So that’s why I see this as a good development. And it seems like the company behind RedNote is handling this well so far. They appear to be accepting the American TikTok refugees, and so are many of the app’s Chinese users

Why do you think it could potentially strengthen the Arctic Alliance? I’m curious

What are you even trying to say? The Western-looking anime school uniforms are obviously Western in origin. And the immodest clothing is the one that he’s criticizing, so I don’t know why you went off on a tangent on ghunghats. The trolling doesn’t even make sense anymore

@90sRetroFan Apparently the terms “left” and “right” in a political context, originate in the seating arrangements of the French National Assembly during the French Revolution. The pro-monarchy people were seated to the right, whereas the other camp was seated to the left. By that metric, wouldn’t we be “rightists”, since we’re anti-democratic and would therefore have principally opposed the anti-monarchy camp at that time? I obviously despise self-proclaimed rightists, but I’m just talking in terms of literal semantics