So I made a review of that film Joker in the past. Like Star Wars: The Last Jedi, I thought that would be the end of my opinions on the film on this site. Like Star Wars: The Last Jedi, I thought wrong. Only this time, it’s not some SJW dumbshits that I’m responding to. This time, it’s white nationalist dumbshits. Sometimes a white nationalist needs to show another white nationalist his place. But unlike SJWs who only know how to do destructive responses, I am to do a constructive response. With some destructive tidbits thrown in here and there. Because, come on, we all love a little destruction in our lives. Life would be too bland otherwise.
I’ll basically just provide a quote (or a general context take-away) from one of their videos, and then respond to said quote. They both feel this is a film that some white nationalists and anti-SJWs love for the wrong reasons because it promotes the very thing they proclaim to hate under the guise of having elements they want to see in a film that is critical of current anti-white society. Problem with their take on it is that their specialized view of the world limits it from a general sense. They fail to see how this can be a film for them if they read between the lines. Considering they like to think of themselves as those who read between the lines when it comes to movies, and can pick up on subliminal messaging easily, I say they overestimate themselves, and it ruins films for them as a result. This is the sort of shit that pissed me off about SJWs in the first place. So I gotta respond to this.
First up, Way of the World.
“A movement of anti-white privilege has grown up around him, but he doesn’t realize he is a part of it. Joker doesn’t care about race. Joker doesn’t care about anything. His followers are reading their own agenda into what he represents. Perhaps that is what ‘we’ are all doing.”
With that in mind, I’ll deconstruct everything you’ve just said, about this film pushing an anti-white narrative, and show you the real meaning of art. To quote Neil Gaiman:
“If someone tells you what a story is about, they are probably right. If they tell you that that is all the story is about, they are very definitely wrong.”
And consider this quote by Todd Phillips (the film’s director), who has gone on record stating he created this film as a backlash against him being unable to make the types of comedies he used to (ever since Old School):
“Look at this as a way to sneak a real movie in the studio system under the guise of a comic book film.”
In other words, just as he opted to make a serious film under the guise of a comic book film (which isn’t loyal to the lore at all, and wasn’t ever intent on being so), one could say he opted to make a film that is intended to appeal to intelligent white critics under the guise of being just another film made under the SJW mindset of Hollywood. The only way he could succeed at doing this is by giving the impression he is following the SJW rulebook. And because of that, people like you Way of the World (let alone Devon Stack of Blackpilled) end up taking the wrong course of action, and fail to read between the lines. Noting the now stereotypical roles of non-straight-white people in these movies, and even the stereotypical white roles, isn’t reading into it enough for a film like this (see E;R’s review of Mad Max: Fury Road and how it may be an anti-feminist film in disguise for an example).
But assuming for a moment that is as far as Todd Phillips intended to go with this. Assuming he’s not as smart as I’m giving him (and the other writers) credit for, assuming I’m only able to interpret it this way just because it’s art and open to interpretation, why not use that tactic against them as a method to further ensure they are never satisfied and go about destroying themselves even faster? Making them unable to unsee this viewpoint of the film? Like how they try to ruin the past by remaking/rebooting/sequelizing other films that we once held dear as great movies that didn’t bash on white culture in any way shape or form (as I’m sure they intend to do with Home Alone, or even The Princess Bride). Why not use their methods against them in a more constructive manner that requires less effort and budget? After all, aren’t we supposed to be the smart intellectual ones who created a once great society, lest we fall into the “we wuz kangz” meme?
“Joker’s imaginary love interest is a black single mother; the main authority figure (psychologist) in his life is black a woman; he has a black woman psychologist at the end of the film.”
One could take this to mean that the film is pushing an agenda of blacks needing to be in a position of power/authority over whites, and be interbred with them. An agenda that I’m sure you believe the film is pushing. But that’s only one way of interpreting it. The other way is showcasing how having those of a different race so intermixed into our personal lives (those we are to love and start a family with, those whose advice we must take, those who wish to shape us mentally) is just one more societal element causing the downfall of the white race. That he is on this downward spiral because he lives in a society that pushes black people onto white people in that way. Nevermind that it is indicated blacks are the ones running the asylum, as shown with that other guy who the Joker steals the files from. Something else that is wrong with society instead of or in addition to the wealthy 1%.
“Joker is the victim of a beatdown by 3 white rich-boy bankers; who were harassing a Chinese woman.”
Even though he is shown to be hallucinatory and could be overexaggerating visually what is actually happening in reality. That these 3 white boys aren’t being as mean and terrible as we, as an audience seeing things through Joker’s eyes, are seeing. No more than viewing the mainstream news today is as accurate to what is going on as what is being left out.
“At the theater with Wayne and all the others, they are all old white rich privileged males, the message being white privilege is poisoning society.”
“He (Joker) is cast out of his this place and finds his home among the diverse masses protesting outside the theater (noticeably more racially diverse than those inside the theater).”
Don’t you find it strange that they are protesting outside of a movie theater of all places (though I say this trying to ignore the irony of people protesting this very movie upon its release)? In fact, don’t you find it ironic that these clown mask people started to spawn seemingly out of nowhere from what was a garbage strike mentioned earlier in the movie? Don’t you find it strange that they’re wearing clown masks, similar to the job Joker holds? Don’t you find it strange how easily the Joker was able to sneak into the theater, considering the types of people attending? And most significant of all, don’t you find the scene transition from the end of the theater/bathroom setting back to the apartment just a bit awkward? In other words, hallucinations again. The idea being Fletcher is hallucinating the very thing people like you (Way of the World) warn us about when it comes to subliminal messaging? The very thing mainstream media pushes on us both subtly and bluntly?
“Race doesn’t matter to him. The Joker has nothing other than a world in which he has no State. He has no particular cause other than the destruction of the world that gave him nothing but aggravation and heartbreak. You can apply this sentiment to virtually every group in society.”
Don’t you find it strange that the first instance of hallucinations we clearly see, and are clearly shown to be a false reality, is when Joker watches a talk show, one of the biggest mainstream media platforms that pushes such agendas nowadays? How do we know Joker’s hallucinations aren’t heavily influenced from such messages? These subliminal messages he’s been getting from both those talk shows, news programs, and the black people that serve an all-too significant and influential role in his life made him this way. As a white man without a world, without a State, without the ability of making and maintaining other white friends, and of wanting to seek the destruction of the world along with his own self-destruction (hence his suicidal thoughts at one or two points in the film). A man who has become so mentally abused by his single white mother unfit to care for him, by the media, and by the black people in his life, that he can’t tell reality from fiction anymore, and who is set on an inevitable downward spiral he can’t escape from because he has become manufactured to hate himself and people of a similar race to him (let alone the upper class).
The joke is on you for not seeing these little nuggets of subliminal messaging in this film.
“It’s a rehash of Taxi Driver, and King of Comedy, for a new generation.”
Not such a simple rehash if the response I’ve given is a valid one. I guarantee you that both those movies didn’t have any of those elements I pointed out that Joker has. And even if they did, they are downplayed considerably compared to Joker. Calling this film a “rehash” is doing it a disservice. Don’t let your white nationalist tendencies cloud your mind to much. And I’m saying this as one who is a white nationalist himself. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Either learn how to weaponize it better, or learn to be more like water my friend.
Regardless, keep up the good fight, and I’ll be sure to check out Ford Vs. Ferrari at some point.
Edit (2-3-2020): When he’s on that train with all those rich white guys reading the newspaper with the headline, “Kill the rich!” Don’t you notice any problems with that? First, that a mainstream newspaper would have that headline. Second, that these people would be reading it (all of them, everyone, on that train, in that demographic). Third, that he would be on the same train as those privileged people (ticket prices and whatnot)? I see it as his subconscious thoughts taking over reality for him and making hi delusional. He subconsciously hates Wayne and blames him for much of his troubles (along with the rich); note that this is subconscious and not conscious. A delusion set about from how his mother raised him, what she taught him, and what the talk shows and news media teach him subliminal message-wise.
Therefore, what could be taken to be an attack on the rich ends up being an attack on the media and those who (over)villianize the (white) rich.
You leave out the fact that Joker’s laughter is agonized, pained, something he desperately tries to turn off, but cannot. It is a twisted way of him trying to cry the agony of his childhood. It is night and day different with the maniacal laughter you keep playing. From Cape Fear, or whatever.
Next up, Black Pilled. I’ll try to avoid going over the same stuff I did with Way of the World above.
“I don’t believe in giving money to my enemies.”
Regarding him not seeing the film in the theater for this reason. Problem with this is that this also doesn’t give money to potential allies. Assuming that some of the writers/actors/directors/etc, anybody who worked on the film in any way shape or form, who has no dog in this race when it comes to SJW subliminal messaging in films. Then again, maybe they don’t receive a percentage from the film’s success either way.
Plus there is that whole thing about the film being owned by Time Warner, who owns CNN, who degrades white people (let alone Trump supporters) on a daily basis. Yet ironically, they bashed this film before it was released, proclaiming it contributes to the white problem. It’s worth noting that Devon is likely right in proclaiming this to be controlled opposition, getting people to see the film by pretending to be against it. Perhaps also to encourage violence at the screenings, which never happened.
It’s a complicated situation with some grey areas in it. Generally, I agree with him on this, in that we shouldn’t be supportive of Time Warner. On the other hand, there’s the whole “film as an art form” thing going on here, with letting the art suffer due to political beliefs that are outside the scope of the film itself. Granted, part of his critique on the film relates to the alleged themes in the film itself. But then there’s the whole issue of where your priorities should lie. Personally, as one who loves film as an art form, I’ll take the art over the political motivation in this context. I may be in the wrong for this, but that’s my current stance.
“It’s the same film as Taxi Driver and King of Comedy mashed together, and they included Robert DeNiro in the film because they paralleled those movies so much. If they didn’t, people would bitch even more about this being so similar to those movies. There is nothing original about this movie.”
I did point out in my original review that I believed DeNiro wasn’t just included just for the sake of paying tribute to the films that inspired this movie. Rather, it seemed like it was satire of Robert DeNiro. That it seems to be bashing him for becoming the very thing he hated in the other two films, for acting like that very same person in reality, attacking those MAGA-like people in his Hollywood award ceremony speeches and whatnot. Even suggesting that this may not be really him, but him parroting what the higher ups are telling him to say. The parallels are there to mock him. That seems like something you would be all for, and yet you bash this film for being unoriginal. Right, like we were expecting yet another film with the Joker as a central character to be original, like the other half dozen times it happened in cinema history. Fuck off. I already went over the originality aspect at an earlier point in this post.
“I’ve heard people say that this movie is an indictment of single mothers. And as with all the other ‘good things’ people say are in this movie, this film is not an indictment of single mothers. It’s just that, for the first time in a long time for these gullible people, it’s not portraying single mothers as strong independent women. There’s no commentary, it’s just because of the absence of leftist propaganda, the absence of the thing we’ve been conditioned to be used to hearing, that they think it’s a message in their direction. But obviously that’s not true at all.
In a later scene, we learn that his nervous laughter is a result of childhood abuse and trauma he suffered due in-part to his mother’s negligence. But the film doesn’t persecute the mother for her crimes. It doesn’t even show the violence against him. It’s a throwaway flashback scene that we spend less time with than the three rich white guys on the train.”
True, the film doesn’t actually show him ever getting physically abused. It primarily mentions it while he’s reading through his files. But that’s the thing. We are seeing virtually the entire movie from his point of view. He doesn’t remember the abuse because he mentally blocked out the traumatic experience within his memory. We are left to question just how bad that abuse was, if his mother actually took part in it or if it was just the boyfriend, how much at fault the mother is, whether Wayne played any part in this or not, etc. The whole point is to leave an element of mystery to the past so that the viewer can make up their own mind on it. Multiple ways to perceive and interpret the film and all. The past is kept mysterious, the present less so, but still mysterious, as we know this is not a reliable narrator we have here (something both you and Way of the World seem to miss, even though this is spelled out to the viewer early on). So of course more time should be spent in present events than in past events, as the present events are shaping the Joker’s character and descent into madness more rapidly than the past did. And that moment with the three white bankers is supposed to be the moment he does start to really go over the edge. And even then, we can’t be sure how those events actually went down prior to him shooting at those guys on the subway (see above regarding unreliable narrative, and the film American Psycho).
Regardless of how you feel about the rich white guys on the subway, even if we are to assume they were assholes (and not exaggerated with how they acted), you should keep in mind that one of the reasons you have the position you do, about white nationalists, jews, and Time Warner, is because much of the problems in society spawned from rich corporate assholes. So it’s a bit hypocritical for you to bash Time Warner, yet let these three guys off because of how the writers/director chose to portray just those three. I know I’m playing devil’s advocate here on this particular subject, and I know it’s not fair that the movie doesn’t exactly portray any nonwhites as assholes, save for the small gang early in the movie that beat the Joker up, prior to the white guys doing it. But like I said, there’s no way a movie in this day and age is going to be made by Hollywood showing this in the way you want to show it. It’s going to take another 5-10 years before this fad goes away (though likely society will crumble before that happens, then we’ll have bigger problems). Until then, the underhanded stuff, or forceful interpretations of films in a way (that may have been) unintended is the best we’re going to get outside of revisiting (or discovering) past films from pre-2012.
Actually, that does make for an interesting point, that there is an instance of minorities directly harming the Joker, but it’s only on the white people that he takes his anger out upon. And that’s assuming he didn’t murder the black “girlfriend” off-camera (siren lights make it a toss-up as to whether he killed her, or if she called the police after he left; either way they didn’t come to his apartment room to arrest him, just to the apartment).
The only way the film was going to get in any semblance of an indictment on single motherhood is by doing it underhandedly, let alone without commentary. I mean think about it, the only kid in this movie who actually has a father figure is Bruce Wayne; and he gets “touched” by the Joker, in the mouth, in a manner seemingly reminiscent of a pedophile. Kind of significant to bring that up since you seem to bring up the whole tranny issue later on (which I’ll get to next). Bruce Wayne seems like a relatively normal, albeit privileged (because he lives in a rich mansion with rich people) kid, who becomes left without a father by the end of the film (if we are to believe his parents got shot at the end, and that this wasn’t another thing the Joker just imagined). But let’s go along with the idea that his parents were killed at the end for now, and take into account the original Batman lore. He still grows up into a relatively decent guy who tries to do good in society, and he had another father figure who raised him, the Butler (and we do see a sort of Butler, albeit briefly, in this film, who is protective of Bruce, but not too protective). A more positive person who doesn’t seek the destruction of society. Reading into it in that way, it’s yet another way of saying the film does act as a condemnation of single motherhood, as it acts in contrast to the Joker being raised by a single mother. That’s reading into it too much I’m sure, more-so than reading into the mental asylums only having white patients while having black people in positions of authority over the inmates, because there’ no way the minorities would ever be criminally insane, let alone criminal or insane.
“There’s something decidedly feminine about this new Joker that’s in his full makeup that’s on the show about to go on stage in front of the crowd. I get it, he’s Joker, he’s supposed to wear makeup. But he’s exaggeratedly feminine with how he acts on stage, with a Joaquin lisp. I couldn’t help but see him as a sort of trans Joker. He tells a joke with the most feminine voice he could muster. With the gayest cadence possible, he launches into this speech about how people are awful. He even prances around on camera like a little girl.”
I’ll let some other youtube commenters take this one.
What you took as his being feminine when Joker is on the late night show, I took as more of an inner child coming out. The voice reminded me of a little kid, same with some of the mannerisms.
I saw it that way too. Joker is the inversion of everything. Normal birth starts from a minimal self and accumulates identity over time. Arthur tries to analyse and emulate the society he sees, he takes notes such as ‘You have to behave as if you don’t’.Joker is born when Arthur has all these accumulated narratives of his identity stripped away, leaving only the chaos at the centre. He literally holds a sign saying ‘Everything must go’. The dance/tai chi scene in the toilet after the first murders seemed to me to be the birthing of Joker. The character of Joker has never to me been masculine or feminine, he can wear either mask and is both and neither. Does that make him trans? Yes and no.
The way I interpreted the Joker’s feminine mannerisms/speech was a reflection of the guests he watched on the talk show. Celebrities, especially male celebrities, act like cucked little soyboys on live shows typically. I’ve seen Joaquin Phoenix on talk shows and he’s often reserved and masculine when being interviewed, saying as little as he possibly can to the interviewee. Taking this into consideration, I thought it may have been him criticizing the medium of talk shows and how disgustingly feminine male celebrities act, using the Joker as a vehicle to parody this behavior. Immediately upon turning violent he seems to sober up and go all-in on his masculinity by screaming in a low register and laughing genuinely for one of the first times in the movie.
“It’s an accellerationist movie. The only solution is to just start murdering people, and then you’ll be hailed as a hero.”
Or it’s a movie showcasing how society, in all it’s classes which have become corrupt with SJW views, multi-culturalism, diversity-quotas, feminism, anti-masculine, etc, is what is responsible for bringing white people down which will inevitably result in chaos and society’s downfall. Besides, I thought people like you wanted some accelerationism. Don’t we want a revolution now and not later before it’s too late, like what The Camp of Saints prophesied?
The first movie I thought about when seeing Joker was Cable Guy. It was another man “raised” by a single mother however he was actually raised by the television that his mother sat him in front of. They both were taught empty platitudes, empty “principles” and adopted a personality that mirrored the entertainment that they saw on the TV; the men on TV were their fathers. Joker, just like Cable Guy, was desperately searching for a father figure the entire movie. Only when both Joker and the Cable Guy was rejected by the father figure they idolized, did they truly “snap” from the good boy, socially neutered weirdo into a truly delusional psychopath. Their delusional mothers projected their delusion on them their entire lives as if a prisoner. But when they finally tapped into their masculine side, there were no positive masculine principles ingrained in them because they had no fathers. So instead of them sublimating their masculinity into something productive, it manifested as violence. Gotham also suffered from the same malady and that manifested in the clown riots. Joker along with the clown rioters, projected their shortcomings onto others (rich, powerful, famous) probably like their mothers. Nothing is their fault, its always someone else. Moreover, in Joker, the society was an empty pit, wherein no value, principles, and virtues were displayed. The social worker women in the state were the “mothers” and the authoritarian cops were the “fathers” of society. All that was offered to the people in Gotham were “bread and circuses”; the two ingredients needed to keep a populace self-enslaved. There are no chains needed when a population enslaves itself.
At the end of the day, it’s important not to forget the most important thing about a film. Because with all these mind games, political games, money games, film’s intentions, director’s intentions, corporate intentions, jew intentions, SJW intentions, white nationalist intentions, whatever intentions, reverse psychology or not, the most important thing to ask about a film is: was it entertaining? Did you get anything out of it that was worthwhile? Is it worth revisiting? For me, personally, when it coems to the Joker, I’d say yes. Because regardless of intentions, I find it thought-provoking (I mean, Jesus, you see the discussions that can be brought up from this film?), I found it well made, well paced, well directed, and overall solid. It’s not perfect, and it may not be perfect because there may be some things that were done underhandedly or too subtly or forced to be left on the cutting room floor that couldn’t be put into a mainstream film nowadays because the corporate Hollywood overlords won’t currently allow it. Or maybe because the director/writer never intended them to be in it and I’m just reading too much into it. Regardless, I find its strengths outweigh its faults, and I find it to be a worthwhile watch. But that’s just me. And I find hypocrisy and double standards everywhere on all sides. Sometimes you just gotta live with a little of it while standing by what principles you wish to remain true to.