Any commentator, such as Ben Shapiro, or the "traditional" Dr. Taylor Marshall, or Mr. "I work for the Jews" now at DailyWire Pints with Aquinas Matt Fradd, and anybody else who says that the Nolan Odyssey movie isn't that bad or isn't subversive is compromised.
Any movie that has a tranny playing Achilles and that race swaps Helen of Troy is subversive.
Other rumors indicate this was a last gasp for woke girlboss Hollywood going all in on an "epic" to see if they can make DEI make money. The movie will make some money, because they are rigging Rotten Tomatoes, every shill on Earth is urging you to go see it (including a radio DJ I listen to on the way to work) and they cashed in the chips on Nolan's favors for his previous Hollywood success to get him to direct this piece of shit.
Name recognition and marking will make normies go, and even some people who would avoid it otherwise are going, because of sellouts like Dr. Marshall.
The irony of the trojan horse being central to the fall of Troy and the sneaking in of DEI woke BS into this movie is not lost on me.
The thing is, the sellouts and shills--nearly universally, to my guess--have no consciousness that they are sellouts and shills. Just like almost everyone else who opens their yap to air their opinions, they are smart and the big heroes in all this.
There is a more subtle litmus test, one reflecting the subconscious, something which is typically extraordinarily difficult to gain insight into. Ask anyone who saw the movie--shill or sellout or guy at the watercooler--something like this question:
You see, I would say, "Yes, and further there is no question that it was intentional." Many others reading this would say the same.
For others, though, they will resist giving any answer whatsoever, even if you persist and press for a straight answer. In fact, it can be quite unsettling when you study them closely because they plainly cannot answer a plain question in a plain way.
So what's going on? The individual's subconscious is--as always--struggling for the most profitable answer. Further, it senses from the controversy and from the construction of the question that there may well be a trap which it is desperate to avoid.
The internal gears grind and various forms of nonsense and non-sequiturs come out of their mouths. Really, it's very much like that guy who gets AI chabots to spout nonsense in response to simple questions and requests.
The comparison is not spurious, which is precisely why it is so unsettling.
You are a singular essence...by viewing another as plural (they) you are artificially holding together (con) what nature sets apart from one another.
One cannot perceive (scious) togetherness (con)...only apartheid.
Native within nature implies secondary (perception) within primary (perceivable)...natives to each other implies optional (suggestion).
Any opinion represents an optional suggestion tempting ones secondary perception to ignore perceivable primal. It's called PRIM-AL because all (al) comes first (primus).
That's because can versus (verto; to turn) cannot represents a circle...not a plain line. It's question vs answer (circle) which distracts from solution (line) and line implies way (inception towards death) of life.
...if put together. Nature works without putting the natives within together.
Sleight of hand: Gears of War aka conflict based on proximity.
"Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Anything else is from the Devil."