Print this post Print this post

Man of Steel

manofsteel1,128 words

I have never liked the character of Superman. He is not a man who has transcended humanity toward something higher. He is simply an alien, who looks like one of us, and who comes equipped with a whole array of superpowers. From a Nietzschean and Faustian standpoint, that translates to zero appeal. I am not interested in being rescued by a superior being. I am interested in becoming a superior being. Furthermore, none of the Superman movies or TV shows ever managed to make this character compelling to me (although I love the John Williams score for Richard Donner’s 1978 film).

But when I went to see Man of Steel, I was prepared to be sold, for this movie is a team-up of two of Hollywood’s leading young goy geniuses: director Zack Snyder (Watchmen) and Christopher Nolan, director of the Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception, who co-wrote the script with long-time Jewish collaborator David Goyer.

But Man of Steel is a deeply disappointing movie. Compared to Watchmen and the Dark Knight Trilogy, which are intellectually and emotionally deep, complex, and involving, Man of Steel is pretty much a brainless, soulless spectacle.

The underlying problem seems to be that Snyder and Nolan just aren’t that crazy about the character of Superman either. Hence they have delivered an uninspired, by-the-numbers, would-be “Summer Blockbuster.” (Aren’t blockbusters also a kind of bomb?) Man of Steel even stoops to the last refuge of bad scripts: the movie is swarming with cameos. (“Look, it’s Kevin Costner!” “Look, it’s Morpheus!” “Look, it’s that wog from Battlestar Galactica!”) After this film and Sucker Punch, it is time to put Zack Snyder on artistic probation. Watchmen may have been just a fluke. This whole movie reeks of cynicism and greed.

But there is also a deeper, older stench underneath. As I have argued in my reviews of Hellboy and Hellboy II: The Golden Army, comic-book superheroes largely function as symbolic proxies for Jews, who virtually created the genre. Superheroes, like Jews, are always outsiders and “freaks.” They are, moreover, immensely powerful outsiders who must engage in crypsis to blend in, lest they incite the fear and ire of their host populations.

The superhero genre also plays an indispensible apologetic role for Jewry. For in the case of superheroes, these immensely powerful and secretive aliens are benevolently disposed to their host populations, magnanimously enduring the fears and suspicions of their narrow-minded and xenophobic inferiors whose interests they serve out of a commitment to the morality of egalitarian humanism.

Jews, of course, use their superpowers and knack for crypsis to rather different ends, ceaselessly scourging the goyim with plagues like Bolshevism, free market capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, pornography, psychoanalysis, non-white immigration, Zionism, endless wars, and, to top it all off, the ongoing genocide of the white race.

This, of course, is supervillain behavior, but the superhero genre inoculates us from drawing that conclusion by making supervillains into perpetual Nazis, or symbolic proxies for Nazis and other nationalistic, anti-egalitarian, xenophobic, and traditional-minded whites (but never nationalistic, anti-egalitarian, xenophobic, traditional-minded Jews).

Superman is, of course, one of the most explicitly Jewish superheroes. Superman was created in 1933 by two Ashkenazic Jews, Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster, and from the beginning he was cast as an “American” antipode to the German “supermen” who rose to power in 1933. Like Moses, Superman was set adrift in an ark and found and adopted by an alien family. Superman’s original name is Kal-El, and his father was named Jor-El, “El” being a Hebrew word for “God” and a root of such names as Israel and Elizabeth.

In Man of Steel, the supervillain is General Zod. We learn that Krypton is a planet that practices eugenics, has a caste system, and has engaged in colonization of the cosmos, creating giant machines that transform other planets into environments like Krypton, obliterating whatever creatures lived there before them.

After a 100,000 year Reich, however, Krypton is in deep decline. Its colonies have failed, and the planet itself is in danger of implosion due to mining its core for energy. Two men, Jor-El and General Zod, wish to save Krypton.

Jor-El is the far-sighted scientist who warned the Kryptonians of the folly of mining their planet’s core (how enlightened). Jor-El and his wife Lara have created a natural child, Kal-El, a child of choice and chance (how liberal). Jor-El then somehow hides in the genetic codes of other, as yet unborn Kryptonians (whatever that means) in the body of Kal-El. Then Jor-El launches the child into space in a tiny capsule. This, somehow, will save the Kryptonian race. Sounds like a plan!

General Zod, the leader of the warrior caste, attempts to restore Krypton by launching a military coup. He wishes to extinguish the bloodlines of the rulers who have brought Krypton to its sorry state. But he is captured and exiled with his followers. But when Krypton finally implodes, they are freed. They then search the universe for Jor-El’s child to recover their genetic database. They track him to Earth, which they wish to seize and “terraform” into another Krypton, so they can begin their race anew. Humanity, needless to say, will be exterminated. (Inequality + eugenics + Lebensraum + genocide = “Nazis.”)

Superman rejects Zod’s proposal in the name of egalitarian humanism. A believer in diversity and open borders, he suggests that the Kryptonians share the planet. One Kryptonian tells Superman that his morality is an evolutionary disadvantage. Kryptonians have no morality and believe only in evolution. Of course Superman’s egalitarianism is not the same as “morality” as such. The Kryptonians also have a moral code, namely a kind of social Darwinism, which means that they feel no obligation to any weaker species, particularly when the very survival of their race is in peril.

Well you can’t bargain with Nazis. Remember Munich, 1938? So rayguns and bullets are discharged, blows are traded, spaceships and airplanes and Kryptonians whoosh around, and Metropolis is pretty much reduced to rubble, all to another thundering, tuneless, dreary Hans Zimmer score. In the end, General Zod is killed and his followers are poofed into another dimension where they will be held in suspended animation until Alan Smithee’s Man of Steel II comes out next summer.

The lesson of Man of Steel is the same lesson as practically any other superhero movie: white Americans must never dream of controlling our own destiny. Instead, we must trust in the benevolent hegemony of superheroes: a tiny, hidden minority of powerful aliens and freaks. Superheroes are the only thing that can save us from supervillains and all the evils for which they stand: inequality, eugenics, hierarchy, xenophobia, etc. In short, everything practiced by Jews to preserve their race, and everything which, if practiced by whites, would secure us against Jewish subversion, domination, and ultimately genocide.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)

42 Comments

  1. Stubbs
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 3:38 am | Permalink

    but never nationalistic, anti-egalitarian, xenophobic, traditional-minded Jews

    Well I guess they do have Magneto.

  2. Robert Pinkerton
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 7:22 am | Permalink

    “Superman” is a secularized messiah-figure. Speaking as one of those white heathens that Matthew Heimbach so despises, I call the very concept of “messiah” nothing less than pernicious.

  3. Count Cagliostro
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    I have not yet seen the flick, but intend to do so. However, there are a bunch of liberal online reviews complaining about the oh-so-obvious Christian overtones and allegories spread within the Man of Steel?

    How is there even possible a Christ-like figure in a Universe made by the Ashenazi Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster?

    Just askin’…

    • Jack Laurence
      Posted June 22, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

      They think it’s christian…?!

      I think that’s actually those guys reacting to the tiggerwords where Russel Crowe says “he (superman) will be a god to them”, of course they clearly missed a scene 20 minutes after that where a christian neighbor lady visited the Kent family to tell them how their son has performed a “jesus miracle” and has her claim rebuffed in an “inside joke” manner. The scene was saying that christians see something unusual and foolishly interpret it as something divine, and that’s pretty far from something I would enjoy seeing if I was a christian.

      I think people who can see that film and come away from it thinking it has a christian overtone says more about the way the pavlovian manner in which their brains function (or dysfunction) than anything else…

      …but that’s modern man for ya.

      • M.W.
        Posted June 22, 2013 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

        No need to be so snyde to people who might actually agree with you on many, perhaps most, political positions. Would it not be better to save the snark for the Cultural Marxists, who actually deserve it?

        As I suggest below, the scene in the Roman Catholic church (not a synagogue), with a favourably presented priest, huge cross looming above him, and a large stained-glass window of Jesus looming right in the frame with Kal-El, is not even subtle; the Christ parallel is blatant.

        The director even states, point blank, that this was his intention:

        http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/14/showbiz/zack-snyder-man-of-steel

      • Jack Laurence
        Posted June 24, 2013 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

        (sorry, I meant to reply to this yesterday)

        The add-on of “El” isn’t Jewish (or that far back it’d be legitimate to say Hebrew) by itself, the word goes back to Babylon and Ancient Egypt- two places that i’m aware of with definite certainty, and I’m fairly sure that the Phoenicians used it too, so there’s a long history behind it before the “Kingdom” of David appeared.

        If I can imagine a possible christian perspective for the usage of it in the film, I would say that they might be taking a sort of eclectic spiritualist view; El in their mind being the original word for the character of a god. Again, I don’t know whether that was in the original comicbook or whether that’s something they just made up for the new franchise but there’s nothing “jewish” in an academic sense in using the word El; maybe they were trying to tie the story in with the ancient alien theories? More likely they were climbing on the back of the people who talk about the 2012 Illuminati Lizard New Age Crystal Skulls because they can’t talk about jews.

  4. M.W.
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    Interesting. I had the opposite reaction to this film: I went in expecting to hate it but ended up enjoying it. I too never liked Superman in his previous incarnations, but I enjoyed this one.

    If anything, I think the film goes out of its way to de-Judify Superman (as much as is possible, within the parameters of the character).

    -in the scenes in the Roman Catholic church, the cross and the stained-glass window of Jesus are blatantly included in the shot, and of course later Superman raises his arms in a cross pose. This is the most Christ-ified Superman ever — which basically constitutes a raised middle finger to the Sanhedrin critics and to the Hollywood establishment, and, I’m sure, accounts for most of the film’s negative reviews

    -It’s hard not to read Zod as a fanatical Zionist, wanting to turn other nations (the U.S., Palestine, take your pick) into a new Jewish homeland. And he’s the bad guy! (Having said that, I’m glad, from an artistic standpoint, that the film made him a fully rounded character with a comprehensible goal, and not just an “insane” bad guy or a Dr. Evil pantomime villain.)

    -Lois Lane is usually a very Jewish-like character in these films, with customary feminist abrasiveness. But the fair-haired Amy Adams was quite gentile, and apart from an obligatory throwaway early crude comment to some soldiers, she was more traditionally feminine that any previous Lois, and was unapologetically a damsel in distress — another raised middle finger to modern culture

    -Superman wasn’t quite the tool of American Power that he is usually made out to be, and the last scene, showing him taking down a U.S. drone, gives him considerable distance from U.S. interests. (Think of it: he took down a U.S. drone! That’s pretty unprecedented.) If anything, he’s more like a paleoconservative-ish militiaman type in that last scene.

    Also, I’m surprised to see such favourable comments about Watchmen. Anything good in that film was due only to the source material. Every change that Snyder made undermined the work considerably. And some of the acting (Dr. Manhattan, Silk Specter, Ozymandias) was outright awful.

  5. M.W.
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    Just a couple more points, if I may:

    -note that instead of making Superman a reporter (the most Judified of professions) except at the very end, the film shows him actually doing goy work (crab fishing, cleaning dishes, etc.).

    -Jor-El’s caution against mining the planet core didn’t strike me as egregious; hasn’t Counter-Current itself advocated for combining environmentalism with WN?

    -I didn’t even notice the cameos of Morpheus and whatever other chap was mentioned; but as for Kevin Costner, I don’t think that was a mere cameo at all, but rather, a good choice to play the Jonathan Kent role, an actor who immediately embodies the American Midwest, and his performance was excellent and quite moving

    -the dilemma that Kal-El faces, of having a hidden side of himself that he fears to unveil, is very relatable to WNists, I think; certainly when I was grown up, my own father advised me to keep my most dissident opinions to myself, and I still struggle with how much of my beliefs to share publicly

    • WWWM
      Posted June 22, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

      That last paragraph was a good point. Have not seen the film yet, but I probably will.

  6. Posted June 22, 2013 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    I always thought it was terribly revealing that Superman’s co-creater, Joe Shuster, eventually worked for Jewish-gangster-run porn magazines, including various Superman and WonderWoman fetish titles. It’s a living!

    http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v5_3/harpold/

  7. Jack Laurence
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    I saw Man of Steel last night in glorious headache inducing i-Max (i lasted about an hour with the glasses before i had to take them off), and here’s my 2 cents from a marketing genius social engineering perspective;

    The “bad guys” are solely and explicitly motivated by their desire to “save their race” and they’re introduced to the audience as they say those keywords and wantonly shoot people; callously blowing away an old lady for no particular reason in the opening scene, associating with “pro-race” and “pro-violence” in the mind of the younger viewer. The very fact the they mention “race” is definitely portraying the bad guys as White Nationalists if their aryan features and roman haircut of the general doesn’t already do that by itself. It’s possible to put a spin on the whole thing as pretend that the bad guys are maybe zionists as a portion of the audience would be inclined to do, but the roman haircut really says that that isn’t the case it all.

    So the White Nationalists want to save their race which has been doomed by the rulers of krypton who have harvested the planet for raw materials (oh how we’re gonna be hearing so much of that in the future when the oil runs out) and everybody acknowledges this point; Russel Crowe character (AKA Obi Wan Kenobi) even agrees completely with the generals motivation, but proceeds to stand in his way anyway as he’s about to complete the military coup of krypton and force himself to be martyred for no particular reason except to set up the general even more as a cruel and callous killer.

    That’s how the villains are presented to us anyway, the rest of the film is less important after we’ve pointed out already that the bad guys are set up to be White Nationalists from the get-go.

    I found it rather funny towards the end that the film momentarily lapsed into the old cliche of having a “guy who saves the world by pushing a button” (no spoilers) and it happens to be a guy with jewish features; the groucho marx glasses and eyebrows kind of can’t help but give it away.

    I mentioned all of this to my friends afterwards, saying that I was aware in the final fight scene that “My Guy” was getting the crap kicked out of him… but despite that and despite the intentions of it, it wasn’t a terrible film. Afterall, a White Nationalist Alpha still looks and acts more like the hero of the piece than the villain, and that’s something that people are going to remember from it. The krypton valkyrie woman was really a treat to see; even the US army boss man knew better than to tangle with her.

    I’ll give it 10/10 for visuals, and 9/10 for all the negative plot points in it which are likely to shape the mind of a kid firmly against Our Cause in the future.

    • M.W.
      Posted June 22, 2013 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      Roman haircut? That’s your determining factor in identifying Zod as a White Supremacist rather than a Zionist?

      I’m sorry, but I’m as much on the looking for anti-white messages as anyone, and I think that’s a stretch. I didn’t even know what a Roman haircut was until you pointed it out.

      Look, if the film had wanted to make the bad guys WNs, it could have easily done so, and far more blatantly — as, for example, the films of JJAbrams do. Or they could have been skinheads, for example, like Azog in The Hobbit. Or they could have been blue-eyed blonds. They were pointedly NOT any of these things.

      But continuing the Jesus metaphor that the director himself flat-out states was his intention in the film (as per the article that I linked above), Zod is much more logically interpreted as a Zionist.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted June 22, 2013 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

        It is not logical to interpret Zod as a Zionist, because Hollywood is controlled by Jews who think there is nothing wrong with Jewish racism, nationalism, chauvinism, etc. Thus Hollywood does not make anti-Zionist movies. If Hollywood makes a movie negatively portraying racism and nationalism by linking them with violence and genocide, that is not an attack on Zionism, but an attack on specifically non-Jewish forms of racism and nationalism. It is a willful act of misreading to interpret Man of Steel as in any way an anti-Zionist film.

        Sure, it might occur to some people that if white or Kryptonian forms of racial nationalism are bad, then Jewish racial nationalism is bad too. But that is no part of the intention of the film.

        And consistent racial nationalists should recognize that if White Nationalism is the appropriate system for whites, then Zionism is the appropriate system for Jews. As a White Nationalist, I want to see the Zionist project completed by sending all Jews to Israel.

      • Jack Laurence
        Posted June 22, 2013 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

        Well storyline aside I’m looking at from the point of view of social engineering, that is to say what the average viewer will get from the film. When I saw it there were a lot of children there who aren’t exactly going to get the subtly of it, but they are going to identify with Supermans character (there were plenty of traumatic childhood scenes set in his school days) and they are going to remember the angry white people killing anybody and everybody and screaming that they want to “save their race”; and that’s going to be a foundation upon which they form a part of their personality. That’s social engineering.

        I won’t argue the finer points of the christian overtone since you seem to have a point about it and you might be right, although there was the anti-christian scene I mentioned which doesn’t really support the notion of it being covertly christian.

        I’m not exactly into Superman and its comicbook canon but if I remember correctly he was very much the Aryan archetype in the beginning which would make Zod (who appears in the original comics) also Aryan. Now if that’s true then what basis is there to say that Superman or Zod are metaphorical jews?

        The name Zod predates the concept of ZOG …if that’s where the association came from.

        And yeah, I get the terraforming aspect but in this day and age zionists don’t want to destroy the established world because they’ve already terraformed it. In fact it would be “us” who would be “perceived as” destroying the established world.

      • M.W.
        Posted June 23, 2013 at 8:08 am | Permalink

        It is a willful act of misreading to interpret Man of Steel as in any way an anti-Zionist film.

        Dr. Johnson, myself being a formalist, per Cleanth Brooks, I don’t accept intentional fallacies or authorial fallacies. The only way to interpret a work is by what’s in the text/work itself, not by bringing in externalalities.

        (E.g., it doesn’t matter if John Milton was a devoted Christian. In reading the text itself of Paradise Lost, Satan comes off as a hero, whether that was Milton’s intention or not. Anything else is speculation. Same here. One can only deal with what’s in the movie. Also, as noted by the review, Snyder and Nolan are not Jews, so who knows what themes they might have smuggled into the film or what might be in their hearts; again, one can only go by what’s in the film itself.)

        Furthermore, the leftists have been willfully misreading texts of European literature for decades to slant them into their agenda. I see no reason not to interpret texts to support our agenda. And besides, what’s the difference between a “reading” and a “misreading”? There are just readings based on presence or absence of textual support, the more support the more credible, the less support the less credible.

        And as I said, and as hasn’t been refuted (and cannot be refuted), when WNs are presented negatively in films, there are obvious markers: skinheads, pseudo-swastikas, blonde hair/blue eyes, etc. These are plentiful in countless movies. The fact that such markers are pointedly absent in this film weakens any attempt too associate the Phantom Zone Kryptonians with WN. A Roman haircut is hardly evidence of anything, to say the least. In this particular film, the support for reading the antagonists as WNs is scant and is mostly external to the film.

        On the other hand, the parallels between Christ and Superman within the text/visuals of this film are blatant and obvious, as I have enumerted. (There is also a reference to 33 years — the exact age that is held to be Christ’s age when he began his ministry.) Jesus being Jewish, that makes the Kryptinonian race, his forbears, implicitly Jewish as well. Zod is an aggressive ethnonationalist, and ethnonationalist Jews are Zionists. It is the film itself that is “linking racism and nationalism with violence and genocide” by assigning it to implicit Jews.

        Jack, I believe that has addressed your point as well about Superman’s origins: I personally know of no explicit connection of DC’s Superman to Aryan in any of the comic-book history, but rather, an origin story that always had Jewish overtones; but regardless, as I state above, that is an externality, and one has to evaluate this work according to its own text and visuals. And while it is true that it shows (non-blonde) white people as the antagonists, it also shows a white person as the hero, so that part balances out.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted June 23, 2013 at 11:58 pm | Permalink

          Citing Cleanth Brooks or Foucault, for that matter, doesn’t make a patently implausible misreading any more plausible.

          Why should WNs refrain from tendentious misreadings of texts in the vein of our enemies? Because it isn’t honest, and the best way for us to credibly oppose a regime based on lies is not to tell them ourselves.

          The enemy has to lie, and they have the power to make lies stick. We do not have to lie, and we have no power to force people to go along with them anyway.

          We need to recognize that our honesty and credibility are our primary assets. Every single one of our enemies has to lie about race and the Jewish problem. People who are sick of lies and cowardice and conformity will naturally gravitate toward us.

          This is why I oppose conservative panderers in our ranks, who refuse to name who we are (the white race, not Christians or conservatives or bearers of Western civilization) and who our enemies are (Jews and their tools, not “liberals” or “Cultural Marxists”), yet set themselves up those who will lead us through the fog of their own creation.

      • reiner arischer Tor
        Posted June 23, 2013 at 8:15 am | Permalink

        Re: Greg Johnson

        I think it’s similar to the views put forth in the Inglourious Basterds review. (I still haven’t seen the movie, so I’m basing it on the review, and some comments I read regarding the review elsewhere.) Jews are shown as being “one-dimensional vengeful sadists”, and the most human character in the movie is the young German soldier. However, some people were objecting that even though Jews are hateful and Germans are much finer people in the film, the message of the movie will be still anti-white: it will be that however fine these Aryans can ever be, the moral thing to do is to murder them anyway.

        Probably the context makes an important difference. WNists watching a movie will find many WNist messages in a movie, which is invisible to others, who, in turn, will – consciously or not – notice many anti-White messages. So the movie is still effective Jewish propaganda in a context where they are controlling the press, the media, academia, the rest of the film industry, and entertainment and education in general. It might be an almost-WNist movie in a WNist world.

      • Jack Laurence
        Posted June 24, 2013 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

        M.W.

        I think you’re viewing this with a certain amount of tunnel vision although that’s not to say you’re wrong… rather that there’s more going on in the film than christianity. Reiner pointed out that we all interpret things in the manner we’re accustomed to interpreting them in, which is why I picked up on the WN angle to it, why feminists will pick up on the dominant role of the valkyrie woman and why you likely picked up on the christian aspect. It’s these pet aspects (and i mean our personal politics) that make people decide to say “this is a good film”.

        Now, more importantly than what either of us happen to notice in the film it is the case that the majority of people who will go to watch it, including their 6 year old children, aren’t going interpret certain scenes and themes as being pro-christian in the jesus vs. zionism sense because it’s very unlikely that a 6 year old child or your average “dinner and a movie” crowd are inclined to see it even if they were capable of understanding it. Neither are they necessarily going to recognize and understand a feminist scene in anything other than a superficial way.

        But what we all can’t help but notice in the first 10 minutes is that the villain, a white guy (whether the viewer interprets him as a jewish zionist or a white imperialist (because remember as far as people are concerned it’s white imperialists who run the world, right?)) is a cold blooded killer who shouts about “Wanting to save his Race”. You don’t need any custom made goggles of personal politics to watch that scene and come away from it with anything other than negative associations about anybody who expresses their desire to Save Their Race. That’s the message that’s reinforced in the film because that’s what the scripts had the actors say, regardless of whether the film was part of the Batman, Superman or Jay and Silent Bob franchises.

        It’s hollywood, and it’s a multi-million dollar movie. You can’t expect it to be friendly to any kind of “revolutionary” position or concept unless it’s in a firmly individualistic and consumer-orientated context.

        I want to emphasize this point again about terraforming; jewish zionists do not want to change the whole world to suit themselves, because they have already done it. Anybody who comes along to change the world from how it is right now is going to be portrayed as a villain, that’s how it works. So to put these movies scenes into the context of our position or even in animal rights activist circles or something, “we” are the ones who it will be said will be destroying the established world, it’s not going to be any other way. We don’t gain anything by trying to co-opt the system by pretending that Film A is smuggling in covertly pro-white messages, or worse by keeping hope alive that the entire industry is even capable of doing something like that in the first place. We gain things when we don’t let them dictate what we say and do, and we accomplish that by cutting it out of our personal world entirely and encouraging others to do the same.

  8. Jack Laurence
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    err typo edit:

    associating “pro-race” [with] “pro-violence”

  9. Andrew Hamilton
    Posted June 23, 2013 at 1:19 am | Permalink

    Das Schwarze Korps (“The Black Guards”), the official newspaper of the SS, in 1940 published a brief article about Superman that Calvin College’s Randall Bytwerk has translated into English for his German Propaganda Archive web page. It can be read there: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/superman.htm

    Bytwerk’s intro to the piece:

    “Background: Early in World War II, Look published a two-page spread showing how Superman would end the war. A copy found its way to Das Schwarze Korps, the weekly newspaper of the SS. It naturally was not pleased. The fact that Superman’s originators were Jewish provided opportunity for particular enthusiasm in the Nazi attack. Thanks to Ilpo Lagerstedt from Helsinki, who sent me the photocopy of the article, and to Christopher Borden, who informed me of this link to comic book referred to in the article.”

  10. Coltaine
    Posted June 23, 2013 at 3:44 am | Permalink

    What’s wrong with psychoanalysis?

    • Jaego
      Posted June 23, 2013 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

      Everything that is higher is explained away in terms of something lower that is being repressed. Thus a Man of Duty is seen as an “Authoritarian Personality”; a lover of God is seen as being idenitifed with the Super Ego of his Culture; a Mystic is seen as regressing to the oceanic state of the Id. And so it goes. And it get worse: as a Jewish Cult, it has a history of being overtly Anti-Western.

  11. Alexandros Megas
    Posted June 23, 2013 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    I used to read super-hero comics, but later it became quite clear that is just another jewish-run industry.

    Michael Santomauro said that we live inside of the “jewish box”, the jewish narrative is everywhere: Bible, comics, TV, Hollywood, intelectual/political movements,… Its really everywhere.

  12. Bobby
    Posted June 23, 2013 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    M.W. your posts are very interesting concerning your take on who you believe Superman is in this movie and the messages of the movie in general. A question: are you convinced that the two directors are giving the middle finger to the status quo? I wish you’d mull it over a little more and let us know if you are satisfied with your conclusions or have some doubt left concerning the messages in this movie. I used to watch at least 3 movies a month, but for the last 11 or so years, I have avoided movies with a fanatical dedication, so sick did I become of Hollywoods trash. Your thoughts on the movie might cause me to actually go see it. PEACE.

    • M.W.
      Posted June 24, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

      Allow me to respond here to the points that several have made.

      Bobby, I can’t guarantee anyone’s reaction, but yes, I do believe Snyder and Nolan are giving the middle finger to the status quo. While certainly Hollywood is the center of Judaic power, I also believe in the auteur theory, which assigns the artistic vision of a film to its director (except that in this case, I would expand that to include producer Nolan as well).

      In short, Man of Steel is “by Snyder and Nolan” (two gentiles) not “by Hollywood.”

      Given their past history, especially Nolan’s, I think it’s quite reasonable to identify them as being about as anti-Hollywood-values as anyone can be and still get work within the system. The shots and references that I described as being in the film are there. That’s not an interpretation. They’re right there in plain sight on screen and in the dialogue.

      Remember: Nolan is the same man who turned the Batman symbol into a direct visual echo of the Reichsadler of the Third Reich. Many viewers identified the fascism in his Dark Knight films. I don’t think it’s at all a stretch to state that he is sympathetic to some aspects of national socialism, perhaps many — and the markers of this are in the symbols and themes of his films.

      Dr. Johnson, I didn’t mention Brooks to parachute in an authority, but rather simply to identify my analytical approach, which is formalist. I believe in text, not context. (Indeed, the move to favoring context over text is precisely the stratagem by which the Leftists have Judified the academy; formalism is now considered quite reactionary.) And as I suggested, analyzing the film strictly on the basis of its content, not its context, invites the reading that I assigned. It is not a “patently implausible” reading because it does have textual support.

      Your point about naming the enemy is well taken, though. Cultural Marxist is a phrase I default to from other forums.

      Jack, sure there’s more going on in the film than just Christianity, but I didn’t pick up on the Christian aspect because I’m accustomed to interpreting films in that manner (quite the opposite), but because in this particular film, there was a preponderance of its own internal content that invited such a reading. The Marvel superhero films are filled with blatant pro-Jewish, anti-White content. Captain America is grotesquely obvious in its Judaic propaganda, Avengers scarcely less so. This film is quite substantially different.

      As for your other points about how audiences might interpret the content, I won’t dissent from your general argument that audiences bring their own framework to bear on how they interpret anything. But I do believe in the formalist idea that beyond that issue of personal slant, one can glean interpretations of works that are supported by more of their internal content versus less of their internal content.

      • Petronius
        Posted June 24, 2013 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

        I’d say it is not impossible that directors and screenwriters work as “smugglers” for subversive messages, it happened so in the Hays Code era, even in the Soviet Union, and some “blacklisted” authors in McCarthy’s days were very clever in that as well. I guess the respect you have for Snyder and Nolan makes you wish it were so, but in the end we cannot know. It is certainly painful to see talents like these in the service of what can be seen as anti-white propaganda.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted June 24, 2013 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

          The greater pain is the sheer dumbness of the movie. I can respect well-made anti-White propaganda, which, let’s face it, is the best we can hope for from a lot of movies. But this is so gawdawful loud and dumb and slapdash.

          The movie is not, moreover, particularly offensively anti-white. Yes, it has by-the-numbers multiracial casting. But it does not go beyond that. It is only in a deeper sense that it is anti-white: that it subtly serves as a tool of Jewish crypsis and apologetics. But that is true of all superhero movies, really. That would have been forgivable if something more interesting were in the foreground.

          For instance, there could have been a great deal of potential dramatic conflict between Superman’s loyalty to his adoptive family and people versus his biological family and people. But that really is not developed at all, because it would have required recognizing that General Zod had a point. But ruthless racial preservationism is allowed only to Jews, and although Superman is a Jewish creation, and he functions as symbolic proxy Jew (a powerful benevolent outsider who uses crypsis), neither the Kryptonians nor his cornfed midwestern adoptive family are Jews. Great emphasis is placed on making Superman an outsider from the Kryptonians, who are fascist stand-ins for whom Superman feels no loyalty. His parents are Kryptonian liberals. He was the product of natural rather than artificial reproduction. Etc.

      • Jaego
        Posted June 25, 2013 at 12:04 am | Permalink

        The Jews are pretty damn good at Culture Control, but yes, why assume they are perfect? Remember the 13th Warrior? Whether it mean to or not, it portrayed some of the Nordics, particularly Bullvai, the leader of the Warrior Band, as brave and self sacrificing – Noble. It’s what a lot of Americans still want to see. They used to give it to us all the time before the big power shift began. Some of the Beowulf movies were quite good too. I don’t know if any of these were made by Gentiles – so it could be either a throwback to an earlier time when their main concern was making money. Or if by Gentiles, a couple of movies that got by their censors.

  13. Bobby
    Posted June 23, 2013 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    James, interesting reference you give on Joe Schusters later “work”. The only thing that surprised me about the drawings, is that the woman aren’t dressed in Nazi uniforms,etc. Did that come later?

  14. Posted June 24, 2013 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Thanks for the review. I’ve linked to it and riffed on it here:
    http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2013/06/man-of-steel-shmeel.html

  15. rhondda
    Posted June 24, 2013 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    I think that it is a very important piece of information that the cartoon superman was made in 1933 by two Jews. Forget Nietzsche’s Superman ( the unity of Apollo and Dionysus) and substitute a magician, creator of illusions and passivity. Not an incarnate God, but completely other. Can you tell that I just read Abir Taha Nietzsche’s Coming God or the Redemption of the Divine? I have learned to fly. (metaphorically speaking)

  16. john
    Posted June 24, 2013 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    I know it wasn’t the intent of the film but it could be interpreted as an anti-Zionist film.

    “and, to top it all off, the ongoing genocide of the white race.”

    When did this happen? Please Explain?

    “all to another thundering, tuneless, dreary Hans Zimmer score”

    Did you not like the music score to Inception and The Dark Knight?

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted June 24, 2013 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

      If present trends continue, the white race will cease to exist through lower than replacement birthrates, hybridization with other races, as well as outright murder. The conditions that promote white extinction include the loss of white homelands to multiculturalism and non-white immigration, loss of white identity and pride in white identity due to loss of control of our culture and educational institutions, the legalization and cultural promotion of miscegenation, and the decline of pro-family values and institutions that have lowered white birth rates below replacement.

      If you look at the forces in white societies that have created these trends and that stand in the way of reversing them, the organized Jewish community is predominant.

      Yet Jews are more aware than any other people of the conditions that promote or prevent genocide. For themselves, Jews promote the existence of Israel, an ethnostate whose purpose is the protection of the Jewish race; for themselves, Jews promote ethnic identity and pride; for themselves, Jews who oppose and work to prevent intermarriage are heeded, funded, and not treated as marginalized kooks and haters; for themselves, Jews promote pro-family, pro-natal policies to prevent the Jewish population from falling.

      Yet if whites wish to promote for ourselves the same anti-genocidal values and policies that Jews promote for themselves, Jews oppose them at every turn, first with vilification, then with legal sanctions, then with out and out illegal means. The conclusion is inescapable: this is not some ghastly mistake. The white race is the target of deliberate genocide, promoted and sustained at the highest levels of the organized Jewish community.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted June 24, 2013 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

      Can you remember a single melody from any Zimmer score? I can’t.

  17. Bobby
    Posted June 24, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Greg, I was never a member of the Boy Scouts of America, but I knew kids tht were and in general, that organization absolutely without a doubt, instilled character and other positive traits. I simply blew me away, when they were forced to accept the gay issue thing. It isn’t that I have ever had anything against gays, rather, the thing that bothers me is that the way the gay issue is forced on the rest of the population, makes it seem like the rest of the population is simply crazy or misguided. I wonder if politically organized Jewish groups were involved in pushing that issue?

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted June 24, 2013 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

      Of course Jewish groups push gay liberation & integration, just like they push women’s lib and black lib and animal lib: not because these are good for gays, women, blacks, platypuses, etc. But because they think they are bad for whites. Jews are shorting our civilization: they position themselves to profit from the decline of our values.

  18. David Carter
    Posted June 24, 2013 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    A little known fact – Superman was not so much ‘created’ by Schuster and Siegel as stolen and re-made. Numerous elements were extracted from the pulp fiction of Lester Dent and Kenneth Robeson in particular Doc Savage (‘The Man of Bronze’). The specific ‘Man of Steel’ moniker appears to have been stolen from another Robeson character, The Avenger. Other characters ‘borrowed’ without acknowledgement from Robeson by Marvel writers include ‘The Metal Master’, who can manipulate metal with his mind (see: magneto) and a guy that can teleport at will (see: night crawler). Interestingly, in Bryan Singer’s X Men movies magneto is made into a jew whose parents were snatched away from him in auschwitz, and night crawler is made into a Christian German. Despite being villians, both characters are portrayed sympathetically in these movies, although the German is depicted as being a rather pathetic character. Whereas Magneto, the jew, eventually becomes a hero in later films.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted June 24, 2013 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

      If memory serves, Robeson was the pen name for Lester Dent.

      Incidentally, Doc Savage had his own Fortress of Solitude in the Arctic. He developed his natural abilities(genetic, see his eyes that had golden flecks in them that seemed to move) through a tremendous effort of Will.

      (I could swear I saw him in the stands during the filming of Olympia.)

  19. It is I only
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    Definitively another jewish wet dream movie, that I will avoid! Like WWII Z!

  20. RobRoySimmons
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    We’ll have to create our own art, it seems a WN themed zombie book would do rather well, IMO.

  21. Alexandros Megas
    Posted June 25, 2013 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    “Nolan attempts to re-imagine the comic book hero as a semi-realistic space alien psychologically tormented by schoolyard bullies whom he can’t punch back against because he’s too strong.”

    This is perhaps more in keeping with the original spirit of “Superman”. Most “superheroes” (the term itself is so stupid, I can only put it in quotes) had their origin as thinly-veiled revenge fantasies made up by scrawny jewish kids in 1930s New York. Think about the “Superman” mythos: a superior ubermensch, refugee from a shattered world, living among us and showing us the true meaning of “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” – truly, a light unto the nations of the world. Superman may as well have a Star of David on his chest as a big S.

    I despise the hegemony of comic-books and “superheroes” in movies. Even grown-up adult men, who ought to know better, talk about this drivel. I can think of no better symbol of the highjacking of anglo-saxon American culture by Jews than the comic-book superhero. What is ironic about it too is that Jews tend to see themselves as cultured and intelligent. Yet one of their greatest legacies in this country has been the enthronement of comic-books in popular culture – comic-books, which are nothing more than vulgar, lower middle-brow trash. Some achievement.

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance