Mal Lokrano

You are on topic about the prequels... but I do not grant them the rank of masterpiece. Why not? Because, in the final analysis, they were written by a retarded boomerlib. And retarded boomerlibs have a perfectly inverted moral compass. Whatever they call good is actually evil. And they will call evil what is actually good. Millenials and GenZ are correct to identify in Anakin Skywalker what the boomers have done to them. But the films were not written to point this out. They were written, instead, as a defense of boomerlib morals and boomerlib theology. Consider the religion of the jedi. It is lifted, chapter and verse, from a bowdlerized versions of eastern religion sold to the flower children of the 60s by Indian grifters. Don't want things, do not work to achieve goals, do not have ambitions, do not desire. Instead, empty yourself, numb your passions, achieve nothing, move in no direction, simply exist where you are, content and at peace even if the world burns around you. Refer to all your responsibilities as "attachments" and seek to shed them. Be attached to nothing. Be an atomized individual with no sense of duty or loyalty. Your moral worth consists not of your deeds, but your inner feelings. This is chaos religion. It is religion for people for people in crapsack societies, where everyone is an 85 IQ retard, and the guy who happens to have a triple digit IQ, the guy who's smart enough to invent a religion, just looks around him and gives up. Fuck it, he says, there's no hope of ever fixing this, I'm just going to stop wanting things and veg out. The sith, by contrast, represent, not any Western religion in particular, but just vaguely Western values in general. Except they represent those values as seen through the eyes of someone who hates them. So, not just work, achieve, ascend, hone yourself, pursue excellence, be passionate about something, and gain power, but also kick some kittens along the way so George Lucas and his fellow retarded boomerlibs can feel good about hating you. See, that's the problem with the whole story. It's a story anti-trope called "debate and switch". A work of fiction sets up a moral dilemma or other painful choice, then finds a way to resolve it without actually addressing the issue it raised. In this case, the Star Wars prequels set up these two opposing philosophies, sith and jedi, but Lucas never actually makes any arguments about why the jedi are right. He just has it pre-inserted into the already-written story that the sith are gonna blow up a planet or two, slaughter some innocent kids, and kick a basket of kittens, therefore bad. And that is the big problem with the prequels. The underlying story, if it were tightened, purged of stupid cameos from characters who aren't supposed to be in it yet, had some plot holes patched, and was written by someone with better dialogue skills and without an inverted moral compass, could have been a good Greek-style tragedy. But the whole point of the story, the whole anvilicious point, inserted repeatedly with all the subtlety of a giraffe in dark glasses trying to get into a polar-bears-only nightclub, is that ANAKIN IS BAD, GUYS, MMKAY? What millenial viewers may not understand, and GenZ viewers certainly won't, is that a lot of the dialogue is actually an extremely hamfisted midwit commentary on the exact political climate of the time.... post 9/11, GWOT, Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. It's all George's stupid boomerlib sentiments that republicans are bad, and muzzie terrorists who blow up our people aren't. So, the movies sucked, and we all thought so at the time. The reason you find them relatable now, and you are right to do so, is that George's moral compass is so perfectly inverted that he accidentally wrote everything his generation was going to do to the young men, without even realizing it was a confession rather than a manifesto. He thought, he still thinks, that everything the Republic was doing was basically fine, with a little unfortunate collateral damage, and everything would have been great if Anakin had just played along. Just as he and his retarded boomerlib compatriots think that you and your entire generation are acceptable collateral damage in the hippie-Buddhist post-ethnic end-of-history world they wanted to build on the ashes of the West. The dead giveaway for this is how he models the sith... there are always two, the master and the apprentice. This models how Western civilization works. Elders train up youths and pass on their knowledge, skill, and power. Teacher to student, father to son. Except Lucas wrote this as the apprentice treacherously killing the master to usurp his place. In the story, it makes no sense. Why would sith Lords train apprentices, if sith history was one constant stream of murder-succession? But outside the story it makes perfect sense. To a healthy father, being succeeded, and then exceeded, by his son is the definition of victory. He is proud of his son, he loves his son, his son is the product not only of his hands and care, but of his very selfhood. Any victory of the child belongs also to the father, and there is no greater joy. But to the retarded boomerlib, such as Lucas, to be succeeded by your son is to be murdered and usurped. Why? Because he cannot stand to take pride in being part of something greater than himself... a lineage, a tribe, a nation, a heritage. He desires to remain forever the main character. It is not insignificant that George Lucas did not leave the Star Wars intellectual property as a legacy for his children to manage and develop, writing their own stories. Instead, he groomed a retarded midwit girlboss for the role, who did not rise even to his modest level of talent. Someone who would never exceed him, would never become more famous and loved for her Star Wars stories than Lucas was for his. And then he sold the whole thing to Disney to cash in. And it should not pass without notice that, while some boomers are out there being parents and grandparents, the majority are liquidating every system of prosperity they ever built or inherited, and spending all the money on an old person's definition of hedonism. Bumper stickers on luxury Airstreams that read "Spending the kids' inheritance". The Star Wars prequels are just the ravings of a delusional anti-civilization nutter who thinks all this is a good thing. So by all means deconstruct the prequels. By all means point out that the jedi are evil, because they are. By all means point out that the sith are good, because if the author wasn't making them kick the dog, they would be. I will cheer for all this. Hell, rewrite it with AI movie tools built for you by GenX techbros, to point out that Anakin and Palpatine are right all along. THAT will be a masterpiece if you do it well enough. But don't try to rehabilitate Lucas. He doesn't deserve it. Peace is a lie. There is only Passion. Through Passion, I gain Strength. Through Strength, I gain Power. Through Power, I gain Victory. Through Victory my chains are Broken. The Force shall free me.

You can save Western Civilization, but this will require to be indifferent to the tears of women. And foreigners. And the Babylon Bee.

Humans are a pack animal. This may be hard to understand if you are evangelical and think the book of genesis is literal rather than allegorical, but humans are a pack animal. What this means is that the human desire for the acceptance and support of a tribe is as fundamental as the desire for food, for air, for water, for sex, for sunlight, for love. If you tell young men that they cannot have a tribe, they're not going to accept that. Ever. Especially if you tell that only to the young men of one tribe in particular. They're going to wonder why everybody gets to have a tribe and they don't. And they're eventually going to decide that you are the enemy. Because you are. Anyone who stands between young men and what they need for a healthy, fulfilled life is their enemy. That includes you. And if you manage to convince them that god doesn't want them to have a tribe, it will also include god. The more you push back against their healthy and natural desire for a tribe, a homeland, and a birthright, the more they will hate you, and the more exclusive their definition of that tribe will become. There is no way you can stop this. The only thing you can control is how far they have to go, how radical they have to become, in order to get it. Because this can go all the way from enforcing immigration law, and shutting down corrupt visa programs right now, to gangs of young White men in balaclavas with Ar15s going door to door ten years from now. We have to do something about the 14th amendment. I don't care if that makes you uncomfortable or unhappy. It's not a choice. The constitution exists to serve Americans, not the other way around. If that sentence confuses you, read the first paragraph of the constitution. If we do not, young men of the future, the same little boys who are being radicalized right now by your malicious indifference, will treat a piece of paper that says they cannot have a homeland the way they would treat a piece of paper that says that can't eat food, or a piece of paper that says they can't own a home, or have a wife and children. You may think that you offer them a tribe in the form of the universal kingdom of god, the community of all believers, but that's just a word game and you know it, which is why you are so defensive about the whole thing. Where was the universal community of believers when these young men needed help? When they needed not just the surface appearance of a tribe, but someone to do the things that tribes actually do for younger generations they care about? The pack serves a concrete set of functions in the life cycle of the human species, and you cannot perform those functions with a cardboard cutout. Young men are sick of religion that offers them responsibilities with no rights, lectures with no help, demands with no love or empathy. It's odd, in a way ironic, that, I, the man of zero faith, should have to be the one standing here telling self-styled religious leaders how they failed both their people and their god. But having no faith does give me one advantage. It frees me from the delusion that Jesus is a puppet that I can pull out of my pocket, slip over my right hand, move his mouth and make him say what I want. I used to wonder, as a child, what the phrase "taking the name of the lord in vain" actually meant. But I no longer wonder, because when I became a man, I looked around me and saw all these people who talk to god and somehow get told exactly what they want to hear. Then I understood that the key phrase here wasn't "in vain". It was "taking". Taking the name of god and using it as a tool for one's own goals. Joel, here, is sad that his friend is getting sent home. This personally inconveniences both him and his friend, which effects Joel in a way that young men being denied their birthright does not. So he finds an interpretation of scripture that says that god wants him, Joel Berry, to get his way, and that god wants all the young men who want a homeland and a birthright to go get fucked. I'm not terribly impressed.