Prozo

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.

Women are demanding the unquestioned right to kill their infant children because they are having sex with men they do not respect. This is not a matter of poor moral character, as if all women of a several generations had suddenly been born depraved all at once. It's a matter of instinct. A woman is instinctively programmed not to mate with a man unless she sees him as superior to her. Not just equal. Superior. This ensures she will have the best children she can. A woman is instinctively programmed to conform to the wishes and opinions of her tribe. This ensures that her children will be cared for and survive. A woman is instinctively programmed to crave sex, just as men do. This ensures that she will have children at all. All of these instincts are paleolithic, genetic, hardwired, and immutable. But what happens when these instincts are pitted against each other? What happens when the very social matrix, which she is programmed to obey, insists to each and every woman that no man is her superior, and she can do anything he can do, not only backwards and in heels, but with far better result? She is now programmed to refuse every potential mate. Oh, she won't be celibate, of course. But sex will be social, casual, or downright recreational, and she will want double, triple, and quadruple assurances that she will never become pregnant, or if she does, that pregnancy will never lead to her raising the child of an "unworthy" man. We have socially engineered our entire civilization into a state where all men give women the ick. Every single one. Even the wealthiest, most powerful, and most accomplished men in the world are getting divorces... or, if they are smart enough not to get legally married, they are getting publicly dragged by their baby-mommas in the press. I won't go into how or why this was done, not right here today. It's enough that we all know that it was done, and anyone who says different isn't confused, he's just lying. When a modern day Amelia Earhart is given a five million dollar Lear Jet with fifteen lives aboard to crash and destroy, before she is even old enough to have a beer, just so we can all sprain a shoulder patting ourselves on the back... well, then you all know what the problem is. We all know that matriarchies go extinct because women with political power immediate steer their society into the nearest iceberg. But do we really? Perhaps now we find out that wasn't even the problem, at least not immediately, and possibly far less than we thought. Matriarchies go extinct because they don't breed. If you give women power over men, they start to find men disgusting. How dare they? How dare those men be so weak that women actually be able to influence or hurt them in any way? To a woman's basic, paleolithic mating instincts, this is unforgivable. Men can forgive weakness, but never cruelty. Women can forgive cruelty, but never weakness. But this means we are left with a dilemma, a choice of two unacceptable alternatives we cannot avoid. Either we stop propping up women into a forced social and political equality with men, which is unacceptable because every civilized Westerner, including me, was brought up to think of this as morally imperative... ... or, by doing nothing, we allow society to collapse back into a more desperate state where this will happen automatically. I don't have a third, easy offramp to offer you. Pornographic films can comfort young men who have been shut out of any chance at success, power, and respect by social engineering. And pornographic books can comfort girls who have been rendered unable to feel anything for an any man who isn't an immortal billionaire vampire warlord. But porn can't love anyone, and it can't get married and raise children. We need to stop this nonsense, not because we have gleefully become bigots suddenly and for no reason at all, but because we need to be smart enough to recognize an existential crisis when we spot one. Otherwise, what good is it to even be an intelligent species?