Blog Archive

Monday, November 16, 2009

2012 Review

So I just watched the movie '2012.' It was entertaining, I suppose, but only in that morbid way that perhaps boys dissecting frogs and worms enjoy during science class.

The problem with the story was the number of unspoken assumptions that were extremely liberal and soul-destroying. The second problem was the number of spoken lines that endorsed liberal, soul-destroying values. Like, "We're all children of the earth." and "All religions share the same basic values." This God damned refrain about universality, sameness, one-ness, when obviously there are enormous differences between the peoples of the Earth and their beliefs, that have resulted in enormous differences in our living standards and culture, some of which are far superior to others. If we lose sight of that, we risk losing the Sistine Chapel and the Eiffel Tower to the mud hut and the shanty town. Why can't people recognize how important our DIFFERENCES are? Far more important than any similarities we might share? It is our differences that define us, that shape our identity. It is how we are different from inanimate matter, not what similarities we share, that makes us alive. It is how we are different form non-sentient beings, not what similarities we share, that make us human. And it is how we are different from primitives, not what similarities we share, that make us civilized.

Another basic problem with the movie was the main character was divorced. He had to compete for his ex-wife and children's love with an absolute nobody named Gordon. He barely got to see his family, and when he did, Gordon was jealous and constantly trying to interfere and minimize what contact he had. Jackson (the name of the main character) had already lost his son, who just called him by his name, Jackson, and said they weren't family anymore. His daughter still loved him, but she was obviously so traumatized by the divorce, that she still wet her bed every night, even at age 7.

Why had this woman, Kate, divorced him? Why had she destroyed the lives of her young son and daughter? Why had she abandoned her husband to the wolves of lonely bachelorhood, and heart-rending separation from his children who have been turned against him? Because, she says, "He had tunnel vision." He spent too much time on his work, writing, and didn't pay enough attention to her. That's right. He didn't cheat on her. He didn't beat her. He didn't have a drinking problem. He wasn't in jail. He didn't even call her a bad name. He had "tunnel vision." That's all it takes for a woman to destroy her family today, and guiltlessly, shamelessly, blame it on the man. I hate her and the world that made her. She is the source of 90% of all human misery on the earth today.

The movie conveniently kills off Gordon, letting Jackson reunite with his family. But that only happens in movies. In real life, the pain would have just gone on and on, forever. The children would have grown up, married, and divorced themselves, for equally specious reasons. As would their children, on and on. Each learning from their parents how to ruin their own lives, and not knowing any better than they had been taught. Furthermore, Kate never had to apologize, or even admit that what she had done had hurt anyone. Because Gordon conveniently died, she never had to face the fact that the true father of her kids was banished, even though he was infinitely superior both as a husband and a father than his replacement, and still loved them with all his heart -- and all because of her. Instead, the world just magically makes sure that the one person who deserves to be in pain, is the one person who never feels it. Jackson feels it, Gordon feels it, the kids feel it -- but she never does. She never has to answer for what her actions have caused. It's just a free ride from start to finish. No one even rebukes her for what she's done.

My next problem is the ending. The survivors of mankind are a complete mishmash of all races, languages, and cultures. They all connect together and decide to dock in South Africa, "humanity coming back to its cradle," and apparently will form a new, more perfect union of mankind as one nation. The christian, western calendar is erased and everything has started over at year 1. You get the feeling that the liberals want a disaster like this to occur. It killed two birds with one stone: First, it saved the environment by ridding the Earth of its pestilent overpopulation, reducing humanity from 7 billion to 400,000. Second, the 400,000 were from all peoples and places, forever eradicating all borders and conflicts between the survivors. It would be a one-world government in harmony with nature from here on.

Think how horrifying it would have been to the liberal mind if America had learned of this coming disaster, secretly built an 'ark' to preserve only high IQ white people, and had ridden out the storm whereas the rest of the world died. Then we could dock in Rome and declare, "At last the world belongs to us, clean of all mud people, forever." Then an inspirational Ride of the Valkyries by Wagner and eagle banners being unfurled and the closing credits. LOL. The howls of hatred and indignation. And yet, that would be a far better outcome than this global metissage the movie portrayed, which is just as horrifying to my eyes.

But there was another interesting choice made. At first we were told there were secret spaceships being built. If they had been space ships, then each spaceship, the Chinese, the Japanese, the European, the American, could have launched into space and separated, colonizing their own planet in some star far far away. It would have been an incredibly hopeful story, where people could finally separate and would never have to deal with diversity again. But the liberals hate that idea, they never want to leave the earth. Instead they force us to stay in 'arks' that are seaworthy, but not spaceworthy. Then when the crisis ends, they all dock together and unload their passengers in one spot, where they will be united forever as one nation, under Mud. What a revolting surprise twist. I suppose people could argue that we don't have the technology to build space ships yet, and this was more realistic. But when dealing with fantasy, people can craft whatever dreams they want. The fact is we were sold the liberal dream instead of the dreams of Heinlein, Asimov, and E.E Doc Smith.

All I can say is American media cannot give us good dreams, good inspirations, or good aspirations. We must either sink deep into our past to find literature and movies worth viewing, or we must look abroad, to the land of the Rising Sun (Code Geass comes to mind.) Or, you can read the Northwest Quartet by Harold Covington. In there you can find all the inspiration, family values, utopian future, and heroic white men AND women you couldn't find in 2012. How I'd love to see a movie made of THAT. Maybe once we've won. ^_^.

No comments: