The Anti-Trump Joker Film: Todd Phillips activism will be rewarded by a Hollywood culture that wants terriorism

Now that I’ve seen the Joker there is no question in my mind that Todd Phillips made the film as an anti-Trump message and his anti-capitalist message will be rewarded with Oscar nominations, and awards. I’ve said it before in regard to how Hollywood operates and the kind of social activism they sponsor. Its not so much the box office that many actors regard as their highest honor, it’s the path to get an Academy Award. Most actors don’t think they can ever be taken seriously until they’ve won one and it is that yearning which keeps Hollywood marching along the lines of social activism. So when we talk about mass shootings and generally bad behavior that we see in society, yet no responsibility is ever placed at the feet of those who are actually responsible, the path to get there is just in the types of projects that brought Joker to be. For women in Hollywood, the message to them is that they must present themselves on screen in the nude, and it is then and only then that they will be taken seriously. For the men, they must show themselves to be disasters of imperfection and flawed to the core of their being. And that is why actors who have played the Joker in the various Batman movies have done so well with awards and this latest one starring Joaquin Phoenix is no different. It would not be surprising to see him get a best actor award for his performance in the Joker. He did a fabulous job, no question about that. But why we consider it fabulous is where the disagreements are and how actual terrorism is usually at the heart of that decision-making process.

Most of the actors in Hollywood have received awards of some kind for dressing as a terrorist clown and updating the mythology. Actors like Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, and even Luke Skywalker himself, Mark Hamill have all done praised work of the super villain of the DC Comic universe and that attention does not go unnoticed. The message clearly to actors is, especially white, male, actors is that if you want to get attention, you must do acting not in the moral stewardship of John Wayne, for which Hollywood was built, but on the deranged lunatic, like the Joker villain. This trend goes a long way in Hollywood including in one of the best westerns I think has ever been made in Once Upon a Time in the West. In that film, it was a big deal that Henry Fonda, the perpetual blue-eyed good guy, was the crazy killer and ultimate villain. Hollywood loves and always has loved, to make good people into bad people, even though box office numbers favor good guys who stay good guys. In this world of the “woke” it is the villains that are getting all the attention because to be entirely honest, the people who make movies in that culture want more people like themselves in the world so they don’t feel so lonely.

The giveaway to the Todd Phillips Joker is that it wasn’t the Joaquin Phoenix character who killed the future Batman’s parents, it was an inspired mob. And in the grandiose way that the film ended there was a quiet message to the masses to go out and conduct themselves as the Joker had because the world from the liberal eyes of Phillips is so unjust. But he’s not alone, most everyone working in Hollywood feels the same way, and so does the media. They would never admit in the light of day, but at the bars of Glendale under the warm night air with their arms around their dates, they will say quite openly, “F**k those Trump voters out there over the mountains, in that 2000 miles beyond to the shores of the Atlantic. Let’s kill them all the way good ol’ Charlie did. We won’t have the blood on our hands, and we’ll hide the terrorism behind free speech and destroy them all with their own Constitution since they love their guns so much.” But in their media events, on the show with Ellan, or The View, they will be called artists of great consequence and be told how compassionate they are for the plights of the poor and downtrodden. And after the next mass shooting, which they had inspired by their “artistic” work, they will be quoted for their positions on more gun control managed by the same government that caused all the tension.

It’s the same lunatics that have called Robert Mapplethorpe’s work “art,” while praising The Rocky Horror Picture Show as a true representation of the human soul. Most working in Hollywood are not good at anything else in life so they hate the good family man, the business leader, the titan of industry. Most of the rejects who fled to Hollywood the way gold panners headed west during the Gold Rush was to make money any way possible. They will prostitute themselves in any fashion to get a shot and their moral ethics is part of what ends up getting hired by studios built by the same types of people. People who left their families to make a lot of money in show business, to be whatever someone told them to be so they could get an invite to the nice parties of Los Angeles social life. It isn’t the clean-cut moralist who gets their script bought by a studio ran by people who would rather put hundred-dollar bills in the G-strings of strippers at gentlemen clubs than hang out around the house raising their children. Most producers want writers and actors around them who think the way they do, and much like the Joker played by Joaquin Phoenix they are lonely and would love more company. So they make movies to recruit more people to think the way they do and if it leads to killing people along the way, there is a secret little smile that they have in the back of their minds every time it happens, because for them its revenge.

To provoke that activism the Academy of Arts and Sciences gives out their Academy Awards to social activists and actors who help them sell degeneration to the masses, ultimately so that they don’t have to be alone in life. They truly do want a world like the end of the Joker where Antifa types are running around terrorizing those who want to hold onto that traditional idea of America. They of course don’t say they want to kill anybody, but look at the silence given to Antifa when they physically beat up Trump supporters just for wearing a red Make America Great Again hat in public. Where did that antagonism come from, that spark for violence? It came from Hollywood and its products, in attitudes evoked from the Academy of Arts and Sciences and from filmmakers like Todd Phillips.

Like Charlie Manson they don’t do the killings directly. But they inspire them and while Phillips was cutting together this Joker movie, you can almost hear his voice calling out for people other than him to go out into Trump country and do the work of the Joker. Recently Mark Hamill, the nice guy Luke from the Star Wars series but occasional Joker in the animated series put out a really ugly Tweet toward Ivanka Trump for letting her kid dress up as a stormtrooper. His hatred for the Trumps was truly remarkable and was insight into how these Hollywood types really think of the people who voted for Trump in the last election, and who continue to want an America built by the Constitution. Actors who play characters like the Joker get praise because Hollywood wants more of that type of character because deep down inside they want the school shootings, they want the violence in Chicago, and they want the destroyed families for all the same reasons that Arthur Fleck did. Because they are hurting and they don’t know how to articulate it, so they want to lash out at those they think have victimized them. And in Hollywood, that behavior gets awarded, so they get a lot more of it.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

‘Joker’ Movie Review: The best movie that should have never been made, Todd Phillips owns the next mass killing

My impression of the Joker film by Todd Phillips is that it is the best movie that should have never been made. It was brilliantly directed, edited, and written. The acting was fantastic. The cinematography, the soundtrack, all the technical parts of the movie were just superior. And from the vantage point of the Hollywood bubble it was an interesting insight into how they view the world, so its worth seeing. I think everyone should see the Joker, especially since it is now out there in the world. To put it mildly, I loved hating it. At the end of the film I felt as if Hollywood had slapped me in the face and tried to steal from me and I wanted to lash out at them. But I was grateful for the insight into their minds, because that was very valuable. Joker is that kind of film. It was the most articulate exploration in film of mental illness that I can think of in any movie, and it stacks up with some of the great movie classics in film quite boldly. But with all that effort to tell the story of a mentally ill person who has fallen through the cracks the way countless homeless people do in real life, the point of the movie was to insight revolution on the scale that launched communism in the streets of St. Petersburg in 1917. The film is quite bold in making that announcement and the way Todd Phillips presented the movie, it was a cry for action into other mentally ill people who are out there stuck between the cracks. He made this movie for the anti-Trump ANTIFA types and was trying to do nothing short of provoking an insurrection of anarchy in our city streets using this movie as the guidepost. The next mass shooting that happens I personally will place the blame at the feet of Todd Phillips, the writers and director of this masterpiece of chaos and destruction.

A few years ago, a movie like this would never have been made, and most studios would have inserted some logic into the director’s view of this story to protect the corporate image of Warner Bros. But in these Trump hating days of the Hollywood bubble, the producers and studio executives hate President Trump as much as Todd Phillips obviously does. When Madonna threatened to blow up the White House with Trump in it during her famous speech that got her into all kinds of trouble, Hollywood allowed Phillips, Joaquin Phoenix and Robert De Niro to make their anti-Trump films exactly the way they wanted to without restriction, and to make a splash around the world that would put an end to elections where people like Trump were getting elected. At the end of the Joker, Joaquin Phoenix is dancing on top of a police car as ANTIFA type terrorists dressed in Joker masks are burning everything in the city streets with a mob worshiping him while all the action was in slow motion and playing to a seventies inspired soundtrack trying to tap into the hippie days of that volatile period of American history. They weren’t shy about it, kill the rich, because they have it coming.

Yet I saw in it beyond the brilliance of the story to the real mental illness of the Democrat Party itself which was on full display. The story of the Joker complains about inequality and government funding for mental health to extreme degrees, and quite effective from their liberal perspective. I will say not to embarrass her, but my wife cried hard at the end of the movie and she spent a considerable amount of time talking to the theater attendants about how she couldn’t believe that people hated America so much as the filmmakers of the Joker. They of course were kids and had no idea what she was talking about. But she couldn’t stop herself. The hatred shown in this movie was just too much for her and she couldn’t believe people were so deranged from reality. Most people I observed left the theater not in such a state as they were better at concealing their feelings, but they weren’t happy. One of the best examples of that mentally ill view of the world was where Zazie Beetz’s character knocked on the door of Arthur Fleck’s apartment wanting to know if he was following her around the city stalking her. She was a very pretty woman and the fantasy of the left is that such a young lady would be in such a dire straight and even asking out such a loser as Fleck on a date. In the real-world Sophie Dumond would use her looks to land a nice mate with a good job, not some stringy haired loser without any money. In the real-world beautiful women like Zazie might care about people like Fleck, but they certainly wouldn’t date them. The movie Joker is filled with these little idealistic homages that if analyzed correctly show the true insanity of the movie’s viewpoint.

Every liberal assumption about the world was revealed, an extreme hatred of the rich, the need for social programs made by exploring not only the mind of Arthur Fleck but his tragic mother Penny Fleck. And the film goes on to essentially say, there are more crazy people in the world than the rich, contrite, sane, and we outnumber you. Only in reality the mob at the end of the movie comprised of thousands of protestors all dressed in clown masks and in real life, it would be a fraction of that amount. Most of those dumb kids would be home playing Playstation, not out performing Antifa violence. And that radicalism certainly doesn’t have any power to flood over into outside the city limits where space allows people to get away from the rats of mismanaged cities and liberal policy failures. Like the Joker’s girlfriend in the movie, the hope for a mob is just a fantasy, in real life only the real losers would be participating, which is the future of ANTIFA, the Trump impeachment attempts, and the election of 2020. It all makes sense to Todd Phillips and his filmmaker buddies from within the Hollywood bubble. Joker is for them the Democrat fantasy unleashed, and it is good for the rest of us to see it so that we can know how they think.

Even though much of what is in the Joker is interesting, and a fantasy from the liberal point of view, the call to hate filled action cannot be mistaken. To try to hide such intentions behind a comic book character and to call it as a “character study” is beyond reckless. I think people will die because of this movie and violence will become standardized, even justified by real life Arthur Flecks roaming around out there in the world who watch this movie, put on a clown mask and kill people by saying, “you have it coming.” Because you’re rich, beautiful, or even sane and that because they want a world of equally insane people, they have a right to kill you the way the Joker did. A movie like this is dangerous because there was no good guy there to stop the Joker the way that type of insanity is handled in a traditional Batman film, even as it was in Suicide Squad where Batman made a small appearance in the film. This movie had the future Batman only as a victimized little boy, the Joker was unchallenged, and presented in a very romantic fashion that mentally deranged people would certainly find attractive. And I felt it was all very intentional, and an attack on me personally as an American. And for that, I’m just a little pissed off. Yet, happy to see a truth through film that was not quite so obvious before I saw this movie. Its nice to see how the enemy thinks and by his own actions, Todd Phillips made himself an enemy of America with a sheer hatred that not even many terrorists would feel. Which made him the perfect director for this diabolical work of art that is even more vicious than maybe he even intended but was truthful in all its derangement. While its true this movie should have never seen the light of day, it ultimately has, and you should see it. It is what the political left has in mind for our world, and we should all know the truth of that ambition.

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

The Joker: Todd Phillips activism is obvious, the villians are not the 1%

Everyone is talking about the Joker, the new comic book movie from Todd Phillips who set out to shake up the world and lured the very good actor, Joaquin Phenix out of retirement to perform the role. Critics are crazy about it, and conservatives understandably are very concerned as the direction of the film is clearly justification for the type of violence that we are seeing currently out of Antifa. I have not yet seen the film, but know enough, especially after watching the review from a person I respect in Grace Randolph seen below to get a clear picture of what’s going on. The allegory is clear, the Joker was a victim of a cruel society who decided that he’d either kill himself or kill other people. And the main perpetrators of his victimization was the father of Batman himself Thomas Wayne. There are many other contributing factors but ultimately, it was Thomas Wayne who serves very much as the Trump-like villain from the perspective of the Joker and without question there are many millennials who are reacting to the film the way Grace has in her review, feeling quite a lot of sympathy for Arthur Fleck—the character who eventually becomes the Joker.

I think movies like this are always good to play with and I admire all the ambition. On the business side the movie is a brilliant strategy, they kept the cost down, but they have all the quality, and obviously they have great buzz. I’m sure when I do see it that I’ll like it. However, the tragedy is that it obviously is a story that is intent to explain away evil from the perspective of victimhood and will undoubtably inspire others to yield to their sorrows and behave poorly in real life becoming maybe not so much the Joker, but the parasites who follow him in the fictional context and who do eventually kill Thomas Wayne and his wife in the film, which gives birth to Batman through the son Bruce. From there we all know the story, but how it mimics real life is what has everyone talking and that is the concern of our topic here.

In yet another Hollywood example the story telling perspective coming from within their view of the world is that the rich should be taxed and are ultimately evil. As members of the top 1% of society if is people like Thomas Wayne who are ultimately out there hurting everyone with their greed and climbs for power with a ruthless view of the world they control, and in the wake of their existence creatures like the Joker are born. To interview any Antifa member or really any Democrat today—especially the writers of Saturday Night Live, this Joker film is the Hollywood protest to the Trump administration and what they perceive is created by wealthy billionaires who look down their noses at battered personalities like Arthur Fleck and eventually get what they have coming to them for their lack of compassion, therefor becoming the murderous thugs of terrorism.

And I have no doubt that was what drove actors like Joaquin Phoenix and Robert De Niro to this relatively small budget drama, was the political activism that would cascade off it. Todd Phillips as the director knew what he was doing, he has stated that he made the Joker film because this modern woke culture has spoiled comedy, and he’s not happy about it. As the maker of the Hangover films which I can’t stand, he feels he needs to address the situation and from his perspective within the Hollywood bubble he came at this subject with some interesting diatribes. However for many others working in and around the film, this is clearly and anti-Trump character study and a call out to what they are calling “the resistance” to put an end to his administration and to all those of us who elected him.

In the Batman mythology I have always liked the Wayne family and wanted to know more about Bruce Wayne’s parents. This version of the Joker villain from that mythology obviously turns that perspective on its head. Thomas Wayne is alluded to be the actual father of the Joker due to an illicit affair leaving the mother of Arthur to go insane with grief. And of course there is further evidence that money corrupts and has driven both Thomas Wayne and his wife to sheer evil due to their love of wealth sneering down their noses at the downtrodden. Given what Todd Phillips has said in public it is clear that what he is really feeling was illustrated in the film’s ending where it wasn’t the Joker who killed Thomas Wayne and his wife, it was the mob that he had inspired who did, and that is the dangerous message of this film.

Rich 1% types are all bad and need to be eradicated is the message. Thomas Wayne was originally supposed to be played by Alec Baldwin who has been playing a parody to Donald Trump on Saturday Night Live and Phillips wanted more of that in his film. Supposedly due to scheduling conflicts Baldwin didn’t make it, but the intention cannot be overlooked. Todd Phillips made a movie using the Joker as a character to inspire his own mob of anti-Trump troops and Hollywood quickly got behind the effort for the activism projected. They hope to do just as the Joker did, inspire the downtrodden to rise up and lash out against the corrupt politicians and their rich double lives, and to bring villainy to the American way of life using the excuse of victimization to drive their lust for revenge.

However, these kinds of stories never do the wealthy justice or truly grapple with the actual reality of these interactions. It is all too easy for those who are lazy in life to blame their circumstances for their predicament rather than overcome those oppositions with hard work and prudence. And that should be the story with the Joker, but as we all know, that character is the supervillain of Batman, so he was never supposed to be a good guy. But Hollywood is using that excuse to make an anti-capitalism film aimed squarely at the millennial generation and to put them into the streets as Antifia members, or whatever the latest version will be for the purpose of changing the political landscape. So people have a right to be angry at this film. But I would say that rather than be angry, make films of your own. The message can go both ways. Nobody should embrace their victimhood. They should instead seek to overcome that status for the benefit of all. Without question the new Joker film is an attack on the way of life that Trump voters support. But don’t do as they do and claim that it isn’t fair. Stories are perspectives and it doesn’t take much to tell a story that criticizes productions like this Joker. Who cares that Arthur Fleck was molded by a society that treated him poorly? The real story and the one that often doesn’t get told is that the 1% are in the extreme minority because they don’t accept their victimhood and that is how they get rich, because they don’t sit around crying about it. And they aren’t bad people as portrayed in the embodiment of Thomas Wayne but are elements that people should and could easily try to live up to. Because ultimately, the difference between Bruce Wayne and the Joker is that Batman sought to use his position to do good, and to be just, and to overcome his sorrow, not to yield to it. That is what makes him a member of the 1%, and that isn’t a bad thing, everyone should aspire to be thus.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Justice League was Phenomenal: Atlas Entertainment made a daring, and bold movie for Warner Bros., bravo!

The critic’s war with the DC movies produced by Atlas Entertainment and distributed rather boldly by Warner Bros. isn’t because the movies are bad.  Relative to film history, the Zach Snyder directed films with Christopher Nolan serving as executive producer are damn good movies.  Modern critics are suffering from the same problem news pundits and political hacks are in the Beltway industry, they are frustrated know-it all institutionally trained, and they want to make their big mark in life by tearing down other people—because they can’t do what they talk about.   I read several of the Rotten Tomatoes reviews by many smug newspaper reporters trying to save their dying industry by bitching about the new Justice League movie.  They couldn’t be more wrong, and there is no way any of them could ever produce such a magnificent movie. Justice League on many levels is a breathtaking film.  It is one of the greats directed with great love and epic vision and respect to film history.  I didn’t realize that Hans Zimmer wasn’t scoring this one until I heard the unmistakable soundtrack of Danny Elfman and the very intelligent resurrection of the 1989 Batman theme.  The music alone represented a kind of time capsule of all the great themes of these DC characters even going back to 1979’s Superman at one point.  Justice League paid great respect to the last century long love of these charters who are a massive part of our American mythology and the critics just don’t seem to understand what train they are on.  Their hatred can be summed up with two words……..Atlas Shrugged.

I certainly didn’t miss it, and I wasn’t looking for what wasn’t there, but obviously Zach Snyder and the fine people at Atlas Entertainment are Ayn Rand  fans—and why shouldn’t they be?  Ayn Rand was a great American philosopher who made great arguments in defense of capitalism during the middle of the last century.  But Marxist supporters hate her.  They hate her great American novels—particularly Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead so any semblance to those literary references will draw the fangs of Marxists everywhere and it is that which has caused them to despise the work of Zach Snyder.  For example, let me provide some context.  Even though I was not a fan of another movie by Atlas Entertainment that was released last year, Suicide Squad, Steve Mnuchin was one of the producers and essentially went straight from that project to Donald Trump’s Treasury secretary.  I watched that film flying back from Europe earlier this year and I thought it was terrible, even though I like Mnuchin personally. The film for me really fell apart in third act, so the critics had something to pick on with that one.  But Dawn of Justice was pretty incredible and I simply love the R rated Zach Snyder director’s cut.  The people making these films look clearly to me to all be Ayn Rand fans which I share with them.  I wouldn’t say that is the only reason I love these Atlas Entertainment produced DC moves, but it’s a good place to start.  I would say that the dividing line between people who hate or love these new movies come down to whether the viewers are Marxists or capitalists.

As much as I loved Dawn of Justice, I did not like that Superman died at the end—and that clearly had an impact on the box office, which fell short of $1 billion dollars in worldwide revenue.  I could clearly see the frustration of Warner Bros. on the screen of Justice League.  The movie was only 2 hours long and it could have been four.  Warner Bros. from their perspective need billion dollar releases so they can compete with Disney’s Marvel universe—which is finally fading.  They obviously put down some creative clamps on Zach Snyder with Justice League to meddle in some of the creative input designed to maximize profit.  I was also worried that Snyder had to leave the film during post production due to a death in his family.  I wasn’t sure if that was going to show up in this movie, but it didn’t.  Josh Whedon stepped in to help finish the film and the results were impressive even with the pitfalls placed in front of it.  If this film is considered a trilogy of the new Superman movies starting with Man of Steel, then Dawn of Justice and finishing with this bold Superman who has come to his complete fulfillment in Justice League these films are some of the greatest work ever done in film—as a body of work. And I can tell you why critics didn’t like Justice League, because the point of the entire film was that Superman was dead and the world was afraid feeding the terrors from all over the universe to come to earth and destroy it as just another conquest.  Just like the hero of Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, Superman was referred to in Justice League as “the engine of the world” which is taken right off the pages respectfully of Ayn Rand’s great classic.

Marxists cannot come to grips of with the Ayn Rand concept of raw individualism.  You can see the hatred rather dramatically in the Hollywood Reporter review of Justice League.  Superman is the engine of the world and now that he’s gone the world is literally falling apart not just from aliens, but from internal philosophies that are all too similar to our current politics.  The failures of progressivism are on display in Justice League in not such a shy way, and industry critics are aware of it.  Here is a short clip from that THR review, notice how it ends.  It sounds an awful lot like a Washington Post article about Donald Trump—clearly there is a political element to the review process and Marxists don’t want the public to have their philosophy challenged in their movie industry.

“We’re not enough,” Bruce Wayne/Batman declares upon experiencing a setback with Steppenwolf. “The world needs Superman.” And so it gets him, well over halfway through the film. Suffering from psychological and memory issues, he needs to be reminded of who he is by the ever-earnest Lois Lane (Amy Adams) while he wanders around his native farmland, shirtless, until finally coming to his senses with the declaration, “I’m back now, and I’m gonna make things right.” Atta boy.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/justice-league-review-1057114

From there Superman pretty much goes and kicks serious ass in a very satisfying way—the way it has taken three movies to arrive at.  In Justice League Superman has his Indiana Jones moment from the great classic Temple of Doom when the hero is unleashed from a dark spell to just kick the crap out of the villains—and it was fun to watch. I think the notion that not even the great team work of the world’s lost gods left behind on earth from an era of greatness was enough really irritates Marxist film critics.  And I say that because if you were to go to dinner with any of them and get to know their personalities, I’m sure they are capitalist hating despots to their very core who are so consumed with Marxist fantasies, that they just don’t understand the rules of life.  Individuals make the world go, not collective group think.  We are not all better together; we are better when great personalities clear the way and make things possible.  Even though it was the team of the Justice League who all brought something to the table to resurrect Superman from his deathly slumber, it was out of their personal necessity to survive for which they had to do it—and that was something The Hollywood Reporter review just couldn’t stand.

As much as I am a Hans Zimmer fan the choice to put Danny Elfman at the helm of making music was a fantastic choice.  The way Elfman pulled together all the themes of the characters not just from the latest DC films, but from the last forty years was very cleaver—as if all these characters and their histories were converging on this very moment.  When you go see this movie be sure to stick around for the end credits—Lex Luther is putting together his Legion of Doom to combat the Justice League which can lead to a whole array of future films that gives all these great heroes something to do.  Wonder Woman was great in this movie, Batman was fabulous.  The Flash was extremely funny and brought a lot to the table. Cyborg, and Aquaman were also very good additions.  The plot to Justice League actually reminded me of the first Lord of the Rings film Fellowship, and everything was done on that type of scale.  It was just a wonderful movie going experience.  The film looks like it’s going to hit $110 million in spite of the Marxist reviews and that’s great.  Because Warner Bros. needs to be paid for their risk in letting Atlas Entertainment make such a great film that goes against the current Hollywood tide of Marxism.  There was a scene in the movie where the Flash asks Batman, “what’s your superpower.” Batman says, “I’m rich,” which was a very Ayn Rand thing to say, and it was appropriate, and true.  Justice League is not only fun, but I’d say it’s important to the mythology of our species and it’s about time that filmmakers tell such stories without apology and even a little boldness at what really constitutes the engine of the world.  Group think or individuals—and in Justice League the answer couldn’t be clearer.  On a scale of 1 to 10 I give Justice League a massive 100. If you want to send a message to the Marxist Hollywood critics, put a little money in the pocket of Warner Bros. and reward them for their ambition and stamina in bringing Justice League to life.  Because they deserve it, as do the fine people at Atlas Entertainment.

Now………bring on The Fountainhead the way it deserves.  I will be the first one in the theater when it’s released!  Go Zach, Go!

Additionally, to get insight into how the critics game works read this Variety article that was published early Saturday morning 11/18/2017 ahead of the box office takes from Saturday and Sunday.  They are clearly trying to shape the story instead of letting the market do what it needs to do because they don’t like the message–they are out to sink the film because of the content.  As of this writing, I think Saturday and Sunday word of mouth will show an uptick and will be well above Variety’s hit piece projections.  Read that article for yourself:

Box Office: ‘Justice League’ Heading for Disappointing $95 Million Opening

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

The Pussy Generation: A ‘Dawn of Justice’ that only Trump can unleash

It was refreshing to hear my favorite actor, Clint Eastwood say what many of us were already thinking.  That is why he has had such a successful career as an actor and director of motion pictures primarily for Warner Bros. Studios.  In his mid-80s, I admire him immensely and I relished it when in Variety magazine he stated when asked about why he was supporting Donald Trump for president that we are “living in the pussy generation.”  He’s right.  Millennials are a lost cause; many have grown up fatherless, or with step-parents raising them with guilt filled ambiguity.  Most if not all of them have been raised in a liberalized public education system, a communist oriented college experience, and a progressive media that has turned their minds to mush.  I feel so sorry for them—because I know many.

When I was a kid in the area of Liberty Township, Ohio it was rare to find a kid who went to my school who hadn’t had the experience of bailing hay for someone, grandparent, neighbor, friends parents—someone.  Now, it is extremely rare for a kid to even know someone who has a farm.  These kids of the pussy generation haven’t learned hard work from anybody, and it shows in their lives.  When they are in their thirties and forties we are in a lot of trouble not only in America, but around the world because those kids are not ready for life.  When people like Eastwood and Donald Trump—classic A Type “American bred men” are gone there won’t be anyone around to teach these kids and their kids anything—except old—outdated movies.  We are literally on a precipice and a lot really hinges on this upcoming election.  With Trump—there may be a chance to reverse course.  Without Trump in the White House, the type of American men who made America an exceptional country will be lost forever.

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/clint-eastwood-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-1201829966/

That isn’t to dismiss the contributions of women.  It’s just that the role a man plays in the raising of children and the nurturing they provide toward a positive society has been terribly neglected, and we are just beginning to see the horrendous cost to our society.  But it’s not all bad—there are a lot of things that give me hope, and I’ll talk about those things because a lot really hinges on the point of a needle regarding the philosophic approach we all take in just the next couple of months.  I just spent the night staying up and playing Uncharted 4’s multiplayer rounds with people around the world shooting guns and reeking havoc with glorious hoards of fantastic violence—and it was all great fun.  There were thousands of people playing and picking their ammunition and with each round I played I was quite sure that socially these people might support superficial ideas that Hillary Clinton proposes against guns—but guns are very much a part of the life of Millennials.  In spite of Apple’s desire to edit violence from their electronic devices, gun violence and play fighting has left the playgrounds of school yards and moved online much more furiously than I ever experienced as a kid.

I also watched secretly the Batman Versus Superman movie and I found I liked it a lot.  I say secretly because my wife can’t watch that movie until the new Justice League film comes out—for a lot of complicated reasons.  I find I understand those characters in that DC universe and ironically, I can relate to their “meta human” condition.  For instance, in regard to Wonder Woman—she turned away from mankind over a hundred years ago and she at the end of the film is contemplating if saving mankind is even worth it.  Believe me, I can relate.  I am on the same precipice right now.  If Trump gets elected, I may stick around, if not, I will likely do as she did and turn toward my own personal Amazonian paradise and let the world rot.  Like Batman, I find hope in the fight for mankind—but it’s an Ayn Rand destination with H.P. Lovecraft villains oozing from inter-dimensional space that is the threat.  For mankind to turn toward socialism I would have to say “see you later.” That’s just stupid.  I don’t want to live in that world.  With these movies, the various films entertaining these young people, there is some rather deep philosophy going on that the Millennials are getting exposed to that is more sophisticated than the days of Clint Eastwood—so there is some positive evolution going on that is worth noting.  It doesn’t get reported on the 24 hour news cycles, but it’s certainly obvious at 2:30 in the morning playing online games through PlayStation, that something special is going on.  Movie characters had a huge impact on my upbringing and Clint Eastwood led the way.

I have many Clint Eastwood looks that I do subconsciously, burned in my mind as a kid that come out everyday—so I understand how much movies can have an impact on the minds of young people.  Ultimately the people I looked up to as a kid were not the people who bailed hay, and worked on their own cars in the garage.  To me, they were so common that I wanted to be more than them.  So it was Hollywood heroes which I set my goals to.  I fully expected myself to be Christopher Reeve’s Superman.  My wife actually told me that after I proposed to her and I have expected myself to live up to that high image even today.  What you end up with might be more Indiana Jones, but you set the goal high and get the most that you can out of life.  That is the expectation anyway.  But at least I had a foundation of goodness to start with.  Most of these young people from the pussy generation don’t even have that—so all they get are images on a screen or in a video game—but they can’t easily apply those things to real life because the bar is now so low that everything good seems like just a fantasy to them.  So they don’t even try.  But I wouldn’t say they don’t strive for it—because honestly, they’d rather live in fantasy than reality for a reason—because reality has been taken from them by a political class hell-bent on global destruction.

I know young people have been taught socialism in school and in their political life— but when it comes to video games—they understand capitalism.  There is no better incubator anywhere that proves Adam Smith’s capitalism better than the video game industry.  Everything in video games is built on merit, individual gratification, and free market ideas—so the idea of capitalism is there—it will just take a special kind of person from the Executive Office to bring it out in our society.  In that regard, Trump is the perfect presidential candidate for the Millennial generation.  They just don’t know it yet.

I don’t know how long we get to have Clint Eastwood around, or even Donald Trump for that matter.  Trump is only 15 years younger than Eastwood, and when they were kids, most everyone thought the way they do now—and that’s not nearly as bad as the progressive media has attempted to paint it.  There is something special about men who know how to be men, and women who love them for it.  Families grow and prosper based on that necessary biological formula, and when Eastwood and Trump aren’t around anymore—people like me will be as rare in the world as the superheros of the DC comic universe.  Honestly, I don’t know many people in my age bracket who think the way I do about things and under me, there are even fewer more.  Eastwood is truly part of a dying culture and before he’s gone, we should seriously ask if that’s really what we want.  There are many days when I seriously wonder if it’s all worth it.  When I listen to Trump, I think maybe it is worth the fight.  But through a business day when I deal with people who are literally pussies—even though they may be male by sexual designation—the temptation to leave mankind to rot is quite strong.  It’s not because those people are stupid, or even not as smart as I am—it’s because they are just pussies and not worth the time to deal with.

Thank goodness for Clint Eastwood—like the expert in human endeavor that he is, he knew just what to say at just the right time.  Trump had been willing to fight everyone leaving Hillary out of the spotlight, which helped her a lot—because the less the pussy media talks about her, the better she does, which was always the strategy.  Trump quickly got back on message and the results will show quite dramatically from here on out.  It wasn’t Republicans like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich who helped Trump out—likely it was Clint Eastwood’s support through a Variety interview with some 86-year-old advice from Dirty Harry himself.  Trump, like me, has obviously had a lot of Clint Eastwood in his life, so I bet he did listened to the wise old director.  With that, there is still hope that mankind can be saved, and Trump is the special kind of person who could do it—because it will take someone like him to tap into those undiscovered wells of wealth within the population of Millennials.  For a campaign that was finding the Hillary Clinton Democratic Organized Crime racket hard to deal with, Eastwood may have saved mankind one last time with a derogatory word that made everyone look in the mirror—including Donald Trump.  And for that, I thank him immensely.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

Superman, Batman, Zach Snyder and ‘The Fountainhead’: How to define a Trump supporter

With all the press over the new Batman vs Superman movie the director, Zach Snyder told The Hollywood Reporter that one of the next projects he’s working on is an updated version of The Fountainhead.  The faces of nearly everyone in the liberal community of media and entertainment nearly melted off.  Snyder is a highly respected film director and is at the top of his game.  But it doesn’t surprise me that he and a growing contingent of Warner Bros. directors and screen writers are showing themselves as Objectivists—Ayn Rand’s philosophic dispute against Kantian collectivism.  It’s no secret that I was very supportive of the film makers of Atlas Shrugged, which I thought was a successful cliff note to the great American novel—Atlas Shrugged.  That book is what America is all about and could have only been written here by our culture.  Ayn Rand was onto something with her work and I personally think The Fountainhead is one of the greatest novels ever written and I’ve read Finnegan’s Wake—and I understand it—just for reference.  Finnegan’s Wake to me is probably the greatest novel in the history of mankind as far as its scope—but within it there are way too many Kantian limits.  Ayn Rand takes away those limits and delivers us to a time before Plato and Aristotle’s great debate—to a time when mankind was contemplating that it was not the gods of Mt. Olympus who ruled the universe, it was the minds of mankind.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/batman-v-superman-married-creative-874799?utm_source=twitter

This is extremely important to understand because the candidacy and potential presidency of Donald Trump is the kind of story which might be a sequel to one of those Ayn Rand classics—he is a clear combination of characters from both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.  Trump’s popularity is very similar to the popularity of Ayn Rand’s novels even to this day nearly 60 and 70 years after their release.  Atlas Shrugged is the most reviewed book in the Library of Congress behind only the Bible for a reason—people are curious—but the life around them built largely in the summation of Kantian philosophy doesn’t assimilate well to what they feel in their heart and souls.

I know people from every side of the argument regarding Donald Trump.  I know the Glenn Beck Tea Party types, I know hard-core Objectivists, and I know traditional Republicans and I see their difficulty in understanding Donald Trump and his supporters.  Some of them like Glenn Beck and even Ted Cruz are staunch Atlas Shrugged supporters—they love Ayn Rand—yet they don’t understand her—because religion clouds their thinking on the philosophy of the matter.  Ironically, that is their same aversion to Donald Trump—that he’s a godless heathen who lives for himself counseling only himself not seeking the advice of God in times of crises.  Trump declares that he relies on his own mind to make decisions—which is a very Ayn Rand type of thing to say—and Beck along with Cruz followed by a contingent of Tea Party supporters are frazzled by such a proclamation.  Establishment Republicans hate Trump because he isn’t Kantian enough—meaning he doesn’t think in a Platonic fashion deep enough for them.  (If you don’t know what I’m talking about CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES)  Then of course Objectivists aren’t sure what to think.

Not long ago I compared Donald Trump to Howard Roark from The Fountainhead and Objectivists sent me private messages concerned about my sanity.  They declared that Trump was not ideologically pure enough to be an “Objectivist,” and he certainly wasn’t the hero Howard Roark.  But a real life examination into the way that Trump has lived proposes a direct comparison.  Trump has always had a very Roark-like certainty about hm.  I don’t claim to be an Objectivist.  Personally, I think mankind is at a stage where we need to deep dive Rand’s thoughts expanding on Aristotle’s original concepts—but perhaps either going back to a time well before Greek philosophy or into a new period that mankind has never been before.  I am personally concerned with flushing out these kinds of thoughts over my years.  I see Objectivism as a first step in that process and Ayn Rand was certainly onto the scent.  However, Rand’s books were relatively simple-because they are exploring complex concepts and needed a host of adult characters to drape those concepts off of—for instance, there are no children in Rand’s books, The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged—which makes it easy for the characters to act on their authentic natures.  The world is neatly aligned in a way that represented Ayn Rand’s time period and her personal decisions which was to not have children with her husband and to carry on lavish affairs of her own with other men and force her husband to watch essentially.  In the end Rand was a bit broken-hearted with some of her decisions and it hurt her following regarding Objectivism.  That doesn’t mean she was wrong—it just means she wasn’t completely right.

I think the life of Donald Trump would be a sequel to Ayn Rand’s classics—and I think his third wife Melania is the key to his present success.  I think Donald Trump fits right into the pages of Rand’s heroes with John Galt and Howard Roark and that is essentially why people are so bothered with his presidential candidacy.  Objectivists would obviously disagree, but they share with most religions an almost sanctimonious relationship with the purity of Ayn Rand’s characters that they have become Holy figures to them similar to religious fanatics who insist that the life of Jesus Christ as it was written in a book 1700 years ago is testament to the precise way that we must all live today—and that the interpretation provided over the years and nurtured along by Immanuel Kant followed by many others—like Karl Marx would formulate political philosophy around the values of altruism.  Donald Trump was a great person before he met Melania—but after she became his Lady of Tubber Tintye.  CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.  She was his hero’s journey much the way Dagney was brought to such a figure in John Galt in Atlas Shrugged.  In that case Galt was the type of treasure found in the classic story of The King of Erin and the Queen of the Lonesome Island.  In real life, Melania was the treasure that Donald Trump found and what we have today is a presidential candidate who has successfully completed a hero’s journey equivalent to a classic novel and he is here to bestow upon mankind the boons of his adventure.

While many people think their version of reality is the correct one, the established political people have their Kant, while Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and their Tea Party followers have their Bibles and the Ayn Rand at war within their very souls trying to fit a square peg into a circular entrance.  Conservatism to many of these people means “obedience to God.” The education class has their Marxism—which was formed by Kant to proclaim that Trump is too stupid for the right to “rule” because that is how archaic they still think of mankind—as a species that needs to be ruled over by an aristocratic elite.  And Objectivists hate all of the above, but they don’t think of Trump as equivalent to John Galt or Howard Roark.  Yet to know Trump through his many years of work, he is clearly willing to stand his ground for the authenticity of his creations, like Roark did at the end of The Fountainhead.  There aren’t any other people on earth in any positions of authority or wealth that have ever done as Trump is doing now—and that is to risk it all for a chance to fix everything for the sake of American authenticity.  He’s not retreating from the world the way that John Galt did to let the system collapse on itself the way that Ayn Rand suggested.  His stand is a much more masculine one—and one not yet defined by any art or literature—at least those known in establishment circles.  Donald Trump is the next step in that eventual evolution.

Trump supporters have been lied to and manipulated by all the groups mentioned above, religious groups, political groups, activism groups—everyone, and they still see things sliding into an abyss.  They have been told that they are bad because they are a particular color, that they are bad if they think well of American sovereignty, and that they are bad if they aren’t willing to give the skin off their very backs to those too lazy to make their own way in life—and they are the majority.  People like Trump were allowed to the table of power so long as they brought their check book, but they weren’t invited to help fix anything.  For Donald Trump I think love brought him full circle and into this political theater and the instincts of the American people understand it in spite of what everyone is telling them.  Trump has great love for his wife, his children, and of course himself.  People don’t comprehend it yet, but they know to trust it because literally everyone else has let them down.

From what I know of the new Superman movie with Batman, the debate is going to be precisely what I have been talking about.  Superman represents the type of Ayn Rand hero that evolved under American philosophy—essentially Objectivism.  Batman represents the law and order of a Platonic society—which migrated from Kant to Marxism riding on the back of organized religion—all denominations.  Can Batman simply let society fall in line behind a man who is superior in every fashion—and could destroy the world if he cared to in a moment?  That is the theme of the new Zach Snyder version of Batman vs. Superman—arriving in theaters soon as of this writing.  But filmmakers must make their livings looking five years into the future to anticipate the trends of that future time.  Given Trump’s impact on the world of politics it does not surprise me that Warner Brothers is looking to Snyder to provide an update to The Fountainhead.  Even though many might fight the words I’m saying about Trump today, our civilization will be looking for answers in the years to come and only Ayn Rand has offered a plausible explanation into the nature of Donald Trump so far in the entire history of the world. 

 Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None by Friedrich Nietzsche before Ayn Rand likely started the chain reaction—but prior to them in all of known history only gods of some mystic realm held such power of mankind.  It was the job of human beings to appeal to the egos of their deities.  Trump is not that kind of offering.  He is something else that nobody has ever seen before in politics—or philosophy—and Trump supporters feel innately that they can trust it—because they still hope that its possible in America to step beyond the shackles of Immanuel Kant—even if they’ve never heard the name before—and live their lives as free people for the purposes ascribed in Ayn Rand’s classic American novels.  Zach Snyder as a filmmaker has his hands on that pulse—and is working on The Fountainhead to show it to us for later analysis.  For decades in the future we will still be coming to terms with this time period—and it will be through our art that we understand what has happened.  In hindsight, we’ll be glad that it did.  But we will rely on art—as we always do—to define it in our lives—even if the Trump train is moving too fast now to do anything but vote in favor of that gut we have in our stomachs.  That is the very definition of a Trump supporter.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.

‘Batman Versus Superman: The Dawn of Justice’ from the lens of Ayn Rand

Essentially the argument in question revolving around the new Batman Versus Superman: The Dawn of Justice movie is a philosophic argument between Plato/Aristotle and Nietzsche/Ayn Rand. Batman represents the old human concept of law and order whereas Superman represents the overman.   It is a compelling argument and one that I didn’t entirely expect to be conveyed so openly in a comic book movie—but here it is.

Of course it should be expected where my sentiments fall. And I’m sure Ayn Rand would be aghast that I compared her to Frederick Nietzsche. She would break things down by stating that she is more like Aristotle whereas Nietzsche is aligned more properly with the sentimental mysticism of Plato—but for this line of thought I’m breaking down philosophic development into the boundaries of western civilization itself. The minds of man have brought us into the modern age on the philosophy established in Greece. Ayn Rand and the concept of the overman is the future—it is the graduation of mankind from the boundaries of intellectual confinement driven by thousands of years of madness.

I have stated my love for both film franchises, of course the Batman films of Christopher Nolan and the Man of Steel film by the same producer. Both Christopher Nolan renditions of the comic legends have heavy doses of Ayn Rand in them—collectivism versus the individual. Yet Hollywood is directly opposed to Ayn Rand currently favoring heavily the Kantian philosophy of collectivism, altruism, and human depravity. The director of the Man of Steel films and the upcoming Dawn of Justice is Zach Snyder who obviously like Christopher Nolan, prefers Ayn Rand and even though Hollywood may not like it—the hot handed director is at the helm and is poised to deliver a powerful money-making franchise to Warner Bros that will compete directly with the wonderful Marvel Avengers films from Disney.

I’m actually going deeper into this line of thought with my Cliffhanger project, but for the masses right now at the start of the 21st century this Batman versus Superman battle needs to happen, and the trailer captured the essence of it very well. All through human history mankind has fallen in love with power and it has corrupted their minds. An overman on the other hand has no such love for power, because they understand the nature of it. Power is not given to other people through democratic measures. Just because one person can command hundreds, perhaps thousands from the lofty perches of a social title of some kind—there is no real power there—just an acknowledgment of collective will. Real power comes from an individual and will remain no matter what circumstances emerge.

In many ways in a modern since the director Ridley Scott surprisingly grasped this concept in his 2000 release of Gladiator, which won best picture that year along with a best actor award for Russel Crowe. Scott isn’t typically an Ayn Rand fan, but he did grasp the power of the individual in that film where Maximus—the protagonist had been the favored general of Marcus Aurelius due to his skill on the battlefield, but once the Emperor died, his son Commodus, deeply jealous of Maximus sought to put the general to death and kill his family. Maximus escaped, but not in time to save his family. The great man lost everything and is captured and toured around as a gladiator—one step always from death. Yet Maximus is so skilled at fighting that he quickly rose back to the top and eventually challenged again the Emperor of Rome as a masterful tactician. It is clearly one of the best films of its kind and is oozing with Ayn Rand strength centering on the individual over the collective. There is a truth in that particular film that Ridley Scott unintentionally released. I have put that truth to test many times and have discovered that it’s immensely accurate. You can take a great man and cast him onto a remote island in the middle of nowhere and he or she—will succeed in spite of the collective efforts to hold them down. Great people are not driven by collective salvation or sacrifice—they are creators of their own fates and can make success out of any situation—because success is an act of creation—not something granted by luck or the “gods.” A great person will always rise back to the top by default and there is a science to it that is predictable.

Zach Snyder seems compelled by this same resiliency and all the characters in his films embody some aspect of this. So it’s no accident that Christopher Nolan put Snyder in charge of the Superman franchise. There really is no better director today who knows how to handle the Man of Steel mythology. Superman is a superior being from another planet who simply wanted to help mankind become greater. He has absolute power, and came from a planet that collapsed under that power—not by his hand, but those of his people. Superman’s job is to ensure that the same thing doesn’t happen to earth. Batman on the other hand is a broken man who lost his parents at a young age and has spent his life righting wrongs essentially out of a vigilante need to rectify justice. But that justice is very terrestrial as it has been formulated around human perception. Batman is a second generation man of wealth meaning he inherited much of what his father made for him, but he is competent enough to sustain that wealth and apply it to fighting crime. Batman is always one step away from falling off the cliff whereas there is never any real danger that Superman would or could fall. Because no matter what happens Superman will always rise back to the top just like Maximus did from the Gladiator. So Snyder in the second film of his Man of Steel series is pitting these two heroes of entirely different philosophies against each other which is essentially the debate of our day.

The essential suspicion is that no man can resist the temptation toward corruption if given the opportunity. So Superman is a threat to the world even though all his efforts have been in trying to save it. But Superman is not a man of this world; he is essentially an alien functioning from an inner self-assurance that is a graduation of mankind’s limits. Yes, he has absolute power, but he also is immune to the desire to abuse it for the sake of social adornment. An overman knows where their power comes from so the appeasement of the masses does nothing for them. The only measure they have is themselves for success. Whereas the traditional western perspective is that if the masses support the power and authority of an individual that power is thus provided to control those people. This ultimately leads to a collapse of the individual ego upon itself because power is not generated from within, but from without.

It was the Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw who termed the name “overman” or otherwise “superman” in his 1902 play Man and the Superman which would later inspire the comic. In the play established in Act 1 is the concept that the more things a man is ashamed of, the more respectable he is. This of course leads to a disastrous life making men miserable for most of their existence. As Shaw states in his play, “A lifetime of happiness! No man alive could bear it: it would be hell on earth.” This is the world of Batman—he’s never really happy and feels he is a Dark Night that stands in the shade between right and wrong. However Shaw was a socialist who did not believe in the abilities of mankind to overcome such faults so he regulated his sentiments toward collectivism being lead by the elite in charge—which of course took Nietzsche’s work and perverted it into the Nazi regime. A couple of high school kids from Cleveland, Ohio inspired by many science fiction writers from the early 20s—inspired by Shaw’s play—invented the comic Superman to fight for the rights of left-leaning causes during the Red Decade coming out in 1933. The big difference between Nietzsche’s overman and Siegel and Shuster’s “superman” was that one transcended the limitations of society, religion, and conventional morality while still being fundamentally human. The other was alien and gifted with incredible powers choosing honorable human moral codes, holding himself to a higher standard of adherence to them, purposely. Over time Superman has evolved ending up in the middle of those two viewpoints under Zach Snyder’s care. And that is a good and healthy thing.

So Batman versus Superman is more than another popcorn movie about superheroes. It’s a philosophy for our age that needs articulation. A lot of history has passed since Shaw wrote his play but what has come out in the end is a fully fleshed out philosophy that works. That philosophy is what the theme of this upcoming movie is between two of the most well-known and loved superheroes of our modern mythology. Under Zach Snyder’s care I think he’s going to produce something revolutionary and I’m very excited about it. But in that battle I know already who will win. The overman always comes out on top—because it’s in their nature to always do so.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.