*The Batman* is a great film. I loved it. As many noted, it evokes *The Godfather* and *Chinatown*, but mainly Batman: The Animated Series. A “sad and rainy reboot”—an interesting twist on the “dark and gritty” reboots of the 2000s.
I don’t think *The Batman* is quite as definitive a vision as the Nolan series… but I appreciate the “noir detective” and slow-pacing.
Michael Giacchino’s theme is infectious. It’s basically “i-V-i”—the chords of “Something in the way” by Nirvana, which features throughout. It has a driving, primal quality, and begins to sound like the Imperial March (i-VI-i).
Yes, there’s REM in the film. In fact, there’s a baptism! Also interesting commentary on 4chan culture. Anyway, I definitely enjoyed it!
*The Mask of the Phantasm* is a really underrated film that came out of the animated series. It has a similar vibe to *The Batman* and might have inspired it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Across the Western media, a new Traitors Coalition has emerged in support of Russia: Dirtbag leftists and rightists, “America First” Groypers, Q holdouts, LARPing “traditionalists,” Ultra MAGAists, literal Commies, and the occasional neoreactionary and paleoconservative.
The Traitors Coalition roughly tracks with those who either enthusiastically endorsed or apologized for January 6. Some “fellow travelers” in this coalition, notably Trump himself and Tucker Carlson, have already back-tracked and reversed their positions.
The “Z” emerged overnight as a curious symbol. Z is a Latin letter, not a Cyrillic one; its meaning is cryptic, though its implications are not. It’s hard not to see its similarities with “Q.” It is, in fact, the new Q. In itself it means nothing…but it implies everything.
America and the West went insane over the past 30 years. Whether it was a matter of too much luxury or something deeper—we had no enemy abroad and turned on ourselves.
A Neo-Cold War environment is where we are headed (though, of course, with some important differences). Many hysterically loathe such an outcome: fearing the potential dangers—WWIII or even nuclear annihilation—and the imperial burden such an arrangement entails.
I, for one, have fond memories of my Cold War childhood. Unquestionably, life was more civilized and decent; the intellectual world and media were more sober and serious.
The conflict in Ukraine is depressing and sickening—and could have been avoided. But I ultimately think it is a positive and necessary development for European civilization and consciousness.
We are returning to the 20th century, to a divided world (probably a trifurcated, instead of a bifurcated one). The 30-year period of true globalism—"The End of History," Unipolar Moment"—is over. It was America's time, when it projected itself across the globe, and it is over.
The difference between the new 20th century and the old is that the three sides (U.S./EU/NATO; Russia; and China) have been evacuated of ideology.
There’s a funny rhyming or symmetry to Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine and America’s 2003 Iraq debacle.
Both Moscow and Washington justified war as “liberation,” “protecting minorities,” and even “de-Nazification.” The Donbas region, supporting anti-Saddam liberals, the Azov battalion, and sending Iraqi girls to college can all be mixed and matched.
Both invasions also started out with spectacular “shock and awe” campaigns. In 2003, many analysts warned of Iraq’s military’s prowess, not to mention WMDs. Last night, I was amazed at the speed of the Ukrainian military’s collapse, barely putting up a fight.
Putin has already sent forces of some kind into the break-away regions. A full invasion of the country, including Kyiv, is more that possible. I’d say it’s probable, and I’ve been saying this for a while. The reasoning behind my assessment is the basic structure of the conflict.
Returning Ukraine to the Russian sphere—the long-term Russian empire, which stretches back further than the USSR—means quite a bit to Moscow, and, apparently, Putin in particular. It means more to Moscow than the option of Ukraine entering NATO does to Washington.
Biden might change his tune (as Macron seemed to suggest…), but he told the world in clear language that Washington will not send ground troops into Ukraine. It follows—or I hope it follows—that catastrophic retaliation, like aerial bombing or nukes, is off the table.
Returning Ukraine to the Russian sphere is far more important to Moscow than bringing Ukraine into NATO is to Washington—which is why Biden explicitly said he won’t send in troops. Putin, however, *is* willing to invade.
The pro-Russia (“anti-imperialist”) Left has offered some of the dumbest analysis of this conflict. In some ways, it would be worse if they’re *not* getting paid to spread falsehoods. It’s worse if they actually believe this nonsense.