Category: Uncategorized

Game theory and civic nationalism

Tipsy explains how logic dictates that civic nationalism is intrinsically doomed to failure in any multicultural society.

Civic Nationalism is doomed to fail in a multicultural society because it represents an unstable pareto-optimal equilibrium of the game of resource optimization through democratic politics. The non-cooperative Nash equilibrium, i.e., everyone out for their own group, becomes more stable when a democratic political system is overwhelmed by disparate ethnic groups.

For those inclined to read further about the distinction between these two equilibria, here’s an example of game that admits both types of equilibria. Suppose we have two players, A and B, who are playing a croquet game on a level field. Both players have a croquet mallet that can hit a ball exactly one foot in any direction and they get to hit it exactly once per round of the game. For each round, Player A is rewarded $1 for each foot the ball goes North and player B is rewarded $1 for each foot the ball goes West.

They both start the game willing to cooperate, and thus they decide to employ the Pareto-optimal solution, so they both hit the ball to the Northwest. They ball will go 2 feet Northwest and both player A and B will both get $1.41 (i.e., round(100*sqrt(2))/100).

Now, suppose in the next round, player A hits the ball to the Northwest as agreed upon, but player B decides to no longer cooperate. After player A hits the ball, player B hits it due West. Player A ends up with $0.71 and Player B gets $1.71 for the round.

Player A then gets pissed, and decides not to cooperate. So, the next round he uses a Nash strategy and hits the ball North and the still uncooperative Player B hits it West. They both end up with $1 for the round.

Note that the Pareto-optimal (cooperative) equilibrium yields the most money for both, but it is leaves each of the players vulnerable to the other cheating. The Nash-optimal (non-cooperative) equilibrium leaves both with less money, but structures the game in such a way that minimizes the consequences of the other cheating.

The Left has been using a Nash strategy for years, and “Conservatives” have been duped or shamed into using a Pareto strategy. The alt-Right is finally saying “Ok, you want to play that way, we will too.” This pisses the Left off, because they liked the marginal advantage that cheating in a cooperative game gave them. The alt-Right doesn’t care, goes full on Nash, because it understands the “game” is fundamentally non-cooperative now.

The scary thing is that the situation is even worse than he explains it. There have actually been THREE players, a Pareto player, a Nash player, and an anti-Pareto player. The anti-Pareto player has been playing to either a) hurt the Pareto player or b) help the Nash player, as he has no interest in money, but simply wants the psychic reward of achieving either (a) or (b).

What has changed is that a new Nash player has entered the field. This modeling is probably too complicated to bother with, especially since any numbers assigned would be arbitrary to the point of complete fiction, but regardless, both Tipsy’s original description as well as the more complicated version suffice to demonstrate that civic nationalism could never survive once sufficient Nash players were on the field.

There is nothing cooperative about US politics now. This is both an observable reality as well as a logically dictated consequence. Civic nationalism is now every bit as discredited and thoroughly disproven as communism, and any intellectually honest man will have to admit as much. Ironically, most of those still attempting to disprove it will achieve little more than revealing that they are actually Nash players hiding under a false Pareto front.

To sum up the discussion from last night in the other thread, it is observably better for a nation to be atomic-bombed, militarily defeated, and occupied by a foreign power than for it to adopt civic nationalism and mass immigration.

It is inevitable

Faith Goldy makes the move to the Alt-Right:

My heart is with civic nationalists, I want to believe. However, a deliberate evisceration of national identities coupled w mass migration has made my head at odds with my heart. Right wing civic nationalists are no better than Leftist do-gooder multicultis — result is ethnocide.

I completely understand those whose emotions trouble them on this subject and desperately want civic nationalism to be true. I once felt much the same way about it and other concepts I ultimately had to reject. But in the end, the head must always rule the heart, and the lessons of both history and current events are absolutely clear. Civic nationalism is nothing more than globalism lite.

The gradations of convergence

Cataline helpfully defines them for us:

Cataline’s completely arbitrary list of SJW Invasive Destructiveness.

SJW Fortified: Organizations that were built with resisting SJW entryism as one their deck planks.  SJWs will try anyway because they are parasites and parasites must feed.
Example: Castalia House

SJW Resistant:  Organizations whose internal culture is resistant to entryism by it’s nature.  Any place where everyone has to start at the bottom and work like hell just to get a foot in the door.  Lower level corporate culture provides considerable protection.
(*Surprise*) Example: Disney Parks, “Yeah I know it’s 94 degrees and you are wearing a forty pound bear suit.  NOW DANCE MORE SPRITELY YOU FAGGOT!”  Entryism in these cases are the result of top down pressure, when it can be managed at all.

SJW Neutral: Organizations that are under the impression that  they can stay open minded even with a few SJWs on payroll.  Entryism and eventual Convergence are guaranteed.
Example: the 2010 version of Cracked.com.

SJW Compliant:  Organizations that bow to external SJW pressure despite the damage this causes.
Example: Target.

SJW Friendly: Organizations that invite SJW guidance and follow SJW politics but are still (temporarily) functional.
Example: Google.

SJW Converged: The target organization of Entryism has been killed and the SJWs are now “parading around in it’s skin.  Demanding respect.”
Example: Take your pick.

Now Converged is as low as Vox Day has gone so far but I have a level beneath Converged.

SJW Cancerous:  Organization is so diseased it is destroying everything it touches.  One that is so converged it is completely dysfunctional and is only still surviving due to it’s ability to parasitize a host.
Example: Marvel Comics.

On a not entirely unrelated note, I’m pleased to be able to say that the entire first 48-page volume of Avalon #1 has been written, and the first 24-page Alt★Hero comic has been both written and illustrated. We are making rapid progress and we are on track to get the first digital comics and the first 24-page print editions out in February. We are also establishing a second imprint for publishing content that we have not created ourselves, for which we have already agreed to sign three unrelated graphic novels produced by outside parties.

The 24-page editions will NOT be delivered to backers except for the two #1 versions which will be included as bonus rewards to everyone who will receive either HC#1 and/or PB#1. They are post-campaign creations that are going to be used to provide us with a presence in the comics stores. They are inexpensive and you will be able to obtain them from the stores.

The handicap of high IQ

This recent finding on intelligence and leadership will not surprise anyone at this blog:

Although intelligence is positively correlated with inspiring and capable leadership, there’s a point where a leader’s IQ offers diminishing returns or can actually lead to detrimental leadership.

The findings were made by psychologists at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, who assessed 379 mid-level leaders employed by private companies in 30 mainly European countries. The average age of the participants was 38 and 27 percent of them were women.

Each participant was asked to complete the Wonderlic Personnel Test, a cognitive ability test widely used by employers and educational institutions around the world. The average IQ of the participants was 111, which is well above the average IQ score of 100 for the general population….

As previous studies showed, the Swiss researchers found that there was a linear relationship between intelligence and effective leadership — but only up to a point. This association plateaued and then reversed at IQ 120. Leaders who scored above this threshold scored lowered on transformational and instrumental leadership than less intelligent leaders, as rated by standardized tests. Over an IQ score of 128, the poorer leadership style was plainer and statistically significant, as reported in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

It’s important to note at this point at these ‘very smart’ leaders didn’t employ detrimental leadership styles but rather just scored lower than their ‘less smart’ peers on useful leadership style.

You’ll notice that these findings are perfectly consistent with both the observed exclusion of the cognitive elite from the professional elite as well as my distinction between VHIQ and UHIQ. It may also help you understand why I consistently refuse the various leadership positions I am regularly offered as well as why I am so careful about the volunteers I accept.

I intensely dislike explaining things in unnecessary detail, much less justifying things to anyone, especially subordinates. I simply cannot work with people who insist on both a) having the obvious spelled out to them and b) taking umbrage at having things explained step-by-step for them from the beginning as if they were stupid. (Their words, not mine.) Here is the problem with that conceptual dichotomy: if you have to have the obvious spelled out to you, if you can’t immediately grasp the whole chain of reasoning from start to finish, then it is necessary to spell everything out from the beginning because the other person cannot possibly know at what point your ability to go from A to Z broke down.

Another problem is the way in which many, if not most, people are unable to recognize that for every effect, there must be a cause. If I ask a question, then I want the answer to it. I don’t care if you’ve told me the answer 40 times before. I don’t care if you think I should already know the answer. I don’t care if you think there is a different question that I should have asked. Just answer the damned question; I guarantee doing so will take considerably less time than engaging in a debate over any of the various possible permutations of a discussion exploring the reasons why you should not be under any obligation to answer the aforementioned question. What is more likely, the probability that I have forgotten what you have said or the probability that I derive some sort of strange pleasure from forcing you to answer the same question again? Just answer the question that was asked. If that causes any questions to arise on your part, that’s fine, but ask them after you answer mine first.

I have also noticed that many people seem to rather enjoy playing dumb, ignoring the most likely context, and insisting on having everything explained to them instead of using their common sense to assume the probable. For example, if I say “wash the car” to my friend, is it reasonable for him to say, “whatever car do you mean? There are millions, tens of millions of cars in the world? How can I possibly take action when I have no idea what car you could possibly be referring to?”

To which my response is: “There is one car in the driveway. It is mine. It is dirty. You borrowed it yesterday. Do you really think I am referring to the presidential limo – no, wait, let’s not confuse you and be too general, do you really think I am referring to the U.S. presidential limo?”

Now, the most likely context may or may not be the correct one. But it is surely the correct assumption, which one can either listen and wait to see confirmed by subsequent details, or in the absence of those, a simple question. But to pretend that no actionable information has been presented and that one is operating in a complete absence of data is false, disingenuous, and may even be reasonably considered dishonest. Whether this behavior is the result of looking to excuse inaction, to avoid thinking, or to avoid any responsibility for decision-making, I do not know. Regardless, a highly intelligent person is likely to find this sort of pedantic pseudo-ignorance to be aggravating, and thereby, right from the start, find himself behind the leadership eight-ball in the eyes of his subordinates.

In my opinion, an important aspect of good leadership is a collection of good followers who actively want to be led. I don’t think it is a coincidence that the “poorer leadership” line of demarcation observed happens to almost perfectly line up with the so-called 2SD “communications gap”. Unfortunately, I don’t have any useful advice for the 2SD+ crowd, other than “find smarter subordinates” and “never be surprised by any failure to understand what you think to be obvious.”

An urgent need

Some U.S. military observers are surprised by this action by the USAF:

Defense and space industry executives were surprised Wednesday to see a U.S. Air Force “sources sought and request for information” in FedBizOpps on the next-generation missile-warning satellite constellation — known as the Space-Based Infrared System Follow-On.

The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center invited contractors to an industry day Nov. 21 and gave them a short window of less than 24 hours to register.

To many who have watched the SBIRS follow-on effort drag on for years, the suddenly convened industry day seemed odd. Industry sources said they were puzzled as to why the Air Force solicitation talks about an urgent need and then says a new system would not be deployed until 2029.

The Space and Missile Systems Center’s Remote Sensing Directorate has an “unusual and compelling urgency to constitute a new highly resilient space warfighting construct-based five geosynchronous and two polar next generation architecture, in order to counter emerging threats while operating in a contested environment,” said the solicitation.

Russian military observers are less surprised. I’m going to assume it has something to do with the new Zircon missiles, which reportedly travel at 4,600 mph. That sort of speed is bound to break any current anti-missile system. It also guarantees that the US Navy’s control of the seas appears to have gone the way of the Royal Navy’s.

The important thing to remember is that this doesn’t mean that the U.S. military is unable to defend U.S. borders – that has merely been the will of the civilian leadership for the last 52 years – but that it will no longer be able to project force or impose U.S. demands the way it has in the post-WWII era. Serbia was the warning, and Syria was the onset of the return to a balance of power situation that, while still favorable to the US, is an observable change from the last 25 years of a monopolar world.

40 principles at 40

Mike Cernovich hits a milestone and passes on what he has learned in the preceding 40 years:

Today I’ll be living a day previously unimaginable, because where I grew up, it wouldn’t have been possible to imagine such worlds exist. I’ve been from the poor house to the White House. Here is what I’ve learned along the way to help you dream and live big.

  1. Surrender feelings of self-importance. With apologies to Carlos Castaneda for the blatant ripoff, this is the most important lesson you will learn. It’s not about you. Get over yourself. Incidentally, it amazes me that people complain about their friends without thinking, “Hey, I’m the one who surrounded myself with these people.” It’s only about YOU when you can blame OTHER people for “mistreating” you. What a racket.
  2. View yourself as the most important person in the world. If you are not healthy, wealthy, and wise, how can you leave an impact on the world? If you’re mindset isn’t in order, how can you be a good parent, pastor, teacher, public servant, or even informed citizen. Make yourself great.
  3. Become comfortable with paradoxes. 20 year old men are chomping at the bit to correct the obvious contradiction between 1 and 2. Get used to holding simultaneously contradictory thoughts. For example, free will is a myth, and if you live as if you have free will, your life will improve. If you live as if free will is a myth, you’ll be miserable. This has been scientifically proven. But wait, if free will is a myth, how can you live as if you have free will? Exactly.
  4. Look for the sentiment expressed by a person rather than the literal truth. When someone says, “Live as if today is your last day,” they don’t mean you should go out and exact revenge on your enemies without fear of consequences, or spend all of your money, or do something reckless as if you’re Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. What they mean is to make every day count, because it might be your last day.
  5. You are the product of your habits and your friends and family. If you don’t like who you are, look inside for your habits, and outside at your family and friends. You may need to cut out some negative forces in your life.

Read the rest of them there. This, in my opinion, is probably the most important:

Think big, start small. How did I get to where I am today? I wrote terse posts on a WordPress dot com blog and trolled with some friends on Twitter. Get out there, make your voice heard, but don’t expect to take over the world in a day or even a year. A decade is more like it.

Remember this when you see how Alt★Hero plays out over the next 18 months. We started with a conversation between Cliff Cosmic and me, followed by a few sketches of him putting my ideas to paper. But we are thinking of disrupting and eventually replacing not one, not two, but three industry giants.

Also, Happy Birthday, Mike!

Tactics are not objectives

Andrew Klavan points out the irony of Democrats complaining that Republicans are now utilizing their tactics:

As Roy Moore’s troubles were just getting underway, leftist CNN commentator Van Jones made what has to be one of the least self-aware and yet most revealing comments of the Trumpian Age. Targeting Breitbart firebrand Steve Bannon, who had promoted Moore, Van Jones said, “Bannon is trying to create this sense of an aggrieved identity, frankly, of a white aggrieved identity group that’s under siege by everybody. And this is that in its worse form. So, you’re not supposed to vote as a father, you’re not supposed to vote as a woman. You’re supposed to vote as a member of this identity group against the world. And if that works, that is very, very bad for the Republican Party and it’s very, very bad for our country.”

This comes from the man — from the political party — from the philosophy — that has sold absolutely nothing but aggrieved identities for the last sixty years, ever since it became clear that actual leftist policies don’t work. Blacks, women, people who think they’re women, people who pretend to be black — whatever category you find yourself in, the left has preached that you should ignore the disaster of leftism and focus only on your sweet victimhood, voting your grievances even when it’s against your best interests.

In other words, Van Jones’ only real complaint against Bannon is that Bannon has sunk to the level of Van Jones!

Ignore the whining. And don’t punch back twice as hard. Punch first, and hit them where they’re not looking when they’re not expecting it.

Identity politics are now the rules of the game. Learn to play by them or lose.

Don’t worry about setting examples or troubling precedents. The examples and the precedents are set, whether you like them or not, and whether you approve of them or not. Who cares about accusations of hypocrisy? These days, the only difference between the hypocrite and the non-hypocrite is that the hypocrite has standards, even if they are chiefly acknowledged in the breach. That is vastly preferable to having no standards at all.

However, Klavan and other conservative commentators have got to get over their irrepressible desire to fix the Left and understand that they don’t get a vote. The point is not to prove to the Left that they are wrong and that they should stop what they are doing and behave more like we do. The point is to defeat them utterly, then eradicate their ideas from Western civilization before they manage to destroy it once and for all.

A continent, not a government

Rather a lot of this “conservative manifesto for Europe” not only sounds encouraging and inspirational, it sounds familiar:

1. Europe is our home.
Europe belongs to us, and we belong to Europe. These lands are our home; we have no other. The reasons we hold Europe dear exceed our ability to explain or justify our loyalty. It is a matter of shared histories, hopes and loves. It is a matter of accustomed ways, of moments of pathos and pain. It is a matter of inspiring experiences of reconciliation and the promise of a shared future. Ordinary landscapes and events are charged with special meaning—for us, but not for others. Home is a place where things are familiar, and where we are recognized, however far we have wandered. This is the real Europe, our precious and irreplaceable civilization.

2. A false Europe threatens us.
Europe, in all its richness and greatness, is threatened by a false understanding of itself. This false Europe imagines itself as a fulfilment of our civilization, but in truth it will confiscate our home. It appeals to exaggerations and distortions of Europe’s authentic virtues while remaining blind to its own vices. Complacently trading in one-sided caricatures of our history, this false Europe is invincibly prejudiced against the past. Its proponents are orphans by choice, and they presume that to be an orphan—to be homeless—is a noble achievement. In this way, the false Europe praises itself as the forerunner of a universal community that is neither universal nor a community.

3. The false Europe is utopian and tyrannical.
The patrons of the false Europe are bewitched by superstitions of inevitable progress. They believe that History is on their side, and this faith makes them haughty and disdainful, unable to acknowledge the defects in the post-national, post-cultural world they are constructing. Moreover, they are ignorant of the true sources of the humane decencies they themselves hold dear—as do we. They ignore, even repudiate the Christian roots of Europe. At the same time they take great care not to offend Muslims, who they imagine will cheerfully adopt their secular, multicultural outlook. Sunk in prejudice, superstition and ignorance, and blinded by vain, self-congratulating visions of a utopian future, the false Europe reflexively stifles dissent. This is done, of course, in the name of freedom and tolerance.

4. We must defend the real Europe.
We are reaching a dead-end. The greatest threat to the future of Europe is neither Russian adventurism nor Muslim immigration. The true Europe is at risk because of the suffocating grip that the false Europe has over our imaginations. Our nations and shared culture are being hollowed out by illusions and self-deceptions about what Europe is and should be. We pledge to resist this threat to our future. We will defend, sustain and champion the real Europe, the Europe to which we all in truth belong.

5. Solidarity and civic loyalty encourage active participation.
The true Europe expects and encourages active participation in the common project of political and cultural life. The European ideal is one of solidarity based on assent to a body of law that applies to all, but is limited in its demands. This assent has not always taken the form of representative democracy. But our traditions of civic loyalty reflect a fundamental assent to our political and cultural traditions, whatever their forms. In the past, Europeans fought to make our political systems more open to popular participation, and we are justly proud of this history. Even as they did so, sometimes in open rebellion, they warmly affirmed that, despite their injustices and failures, the traditions of the peoples of this continent are ours. Such dedication to reform makes Europe a place that seeks ever-greater justice. This spirit of progress is born out of our love for and loyalty to our homelands.

6. We are not passive subjects.
A European spirit of unity allows us to trust others in the public square, even when we are strangers. The public parks, central squares and broad boulevards of European towns and cities express the European political spirit: We share our common life and the res publica. We assume that it is our duty to take responsibility for the futures of our societies. We are not passive subjects under the domination of despotic powers, whether sacred or secular. And we are not prostrate before implacable historical forces. To be European is to possess political and historical agency. We are the authors of our shared destiny.

7. The nation-state is a hallmark of Europe.
The true Europe is a community of nations. We have our own languages, traditions and borders. Yet we have always recognized a kinship with one another, even when we have been at odds—or at war. This unity-in-diversity seems natural to us. Yet this is remarkable and precious, for it is neither natural nor inevitable. The most common political form of unity-in-diversity is empire, which European warrior kings tried to recreate in the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. The allure of the imperial form endured, but the nation-state prevailed, the political form that joins peoplehood with sovereignty. The nation-state thereby became the hallmark of European civilization.

8. We do not back an imposed, enforced unity.
A national community takes pride in governing itself in its own way, often boasts of its great national achievements in the arts and sciences, and competes with other nations, sometimes on the battlefield. This has wounded Europe, sometimes gravely, but it has never compromised our cultural unity. In fact, the contrary has been the case. As the nation states of Europe became more established and distinct, a shared European identity became stronger. In the aftermath of the terrible bloodshed of the world wars in the first half of the twentieth century, we emerged with an even greater resolve to honor our shared heritage. This testifies to the depth and power of Europe as a civilization that is cosmopolitan in a proper sense. We do not seek the imposed, enforced unity of empire. Instead, European cosmopolitanism recognizes that patriotic love and civic loyalty open out to a wider world.

9. Christianity encouraged cultural unity.
The true Europe has been marked by Christianity. The universal spiritual empire of the Church brought cultural unity to Europe, but did so without political empire. This has allowed for particular civic loyalties to flourish within a shared European culture. The autonomy of what we call civil society became a characteristic feature of European life. Moreover, the Christian Gospel does not deliver a comprehensive divine law, and thus the diversity of the secular laws of the nations may be affirmed and honoured without threat to our European unity. It is no accident that the decline of Christian faith in Europe has been accompanied by renewed efforts to establish political unity—an empire of money and regulations, covered with sentiments of pseudo-religious universalism, that is being constructed by the European Union.

10. Christian roots nourish Europe.
The true Europe affirms the equal dignity of every individual, regardless of sex, rank or race. This also arises from our Christian roots. Our gentle virtues are of an unmistakably Christian heritage: fairness, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, peace-making, charity. Christianity revolutionized the relationship between men and women, valuing love and mutual fidelity in an unprecedented way. The bond of marriage allows both men and women to flourish in communion. Most of the sacrifices we make are for the sake of our spouses and children. This spirit of self-giving is yet another Christian contribution to the Europe we love.

The Alt-Right is inevitable. It doesn’t need leaders, dramas, or monkey-dancing for the media. It simply needs to stay focused relentlessly, and fearlessly, on expressing the truth. Globalism, multiculutralism, civic nationalism, and progressivism are rely upon the enforcement of lies. The truth will set us free.

A reader sends a not-unrelated quote from Toynbee:

“The moth’s self-inflicted doom is an apt simile for the nemesis that overtakes the barbarian invaders of more prosperous societies that lack the military strength to hold their aggressive barbarian neighbors at bay. The barbarian invaders’ greed is self-defeating. If the the intruders are not eventually exterminated by a counter-stroke, as the Gutaean conquerors of Sumer and Akkad were, they survive only to share in the impoverishment that they have inflicted on their victims.”

The problem, of course, is that even impoverishment by European standards is still better than living in non-European filth. And the European women are considerably more accessible, both with and without consent.

Mailvox: Justice League review

DJ watches it so you don’t have to.

I had some time to kill in town today. Didn’t want to drive back home just to turn around. Decided to roll the dice and see the Justice League Movie. Consider this me taking one for the team.   It was abysmal. Just flat out boring. But it was offensive, too.

Before the opening credits even completed, while the movie tries to convince us the world has gone to hell with the death of Superman, we witness two angry white men (one with a shaved head, of course) assaulting a grocery owning Muslim family.  But that’s actually the only “bad” scene we see. All the other scenes were just of urban decay and sad people in mourning.

Yet, that’s not the only reason I found the movie offensive. It was a horrendously dumbed-down version of the DC Apokolips/Darkseid mythos. Truly awful. Further, the introductions of Aquaman and Flash completely rewrite those characters, making them as annoying as they are impotent.

Flash is a self-described fearful Jew who admits being scared of bugs and running away from trouble, perfectly ok letting others do all the fighting. Arthur Curry is a depicted as a petulant and spoiled resigned member of Atlantis, who even with near godlike power and freedom, drinks himself silly while complaining about his mommy.

Cyborg was pretty on point and probably the best part of the movie.

A risen Superman?  Boring. Made more so by returning him to his all-powerful, Silver Age, personality-missing, truth and justice (minus the American Way) flying savior.

Wonder Woman?  Well…let’s just say I wouldn’t be surprised if Zach Snyder ends up on the Miramax Scoreboard soon considering how many times we got to see a center focus shot of Gal Gadot’s rear. As for her character?  By the end of the movie she’s telling us Batman wanted her to lead the team (which he never actually does), and that she’s supposed to be the glue for the league, all the while smiling patronizingly at all the “supermen” around her…until of course a shirtless Clark Kent arrives on scene, at which point she drops the smile and visibly quivers at the sight of hairy Henry’s chest.

Not ever how the angry-and-suspicious-of-all-men Wonder Woman was ever depicted.

Bruce Wayne/Batman?  Fat. Fat, and not at all intimidating on any level. The Batman. Not intimidating. It’s a joke, but when Barry Allen asks what Bruce’s super power, Bruce responds, “I’m rich,” but that’s clearly what we’re supposed to take away from Batman. He’s too old, too slow, past his prime, useless without real powers (as even stated by Arthur Curry), and nothing without his money.

What. The. Hell.  Not the greatest tactician to ever live. Not the world’s greatest detective. Not the most feared crime fighter villains have ever faced – also, every human bad guy in the movie is a white male; even Steppenwolf is depicted with pinkish white skin. No. Batman is just sort of the Justice League’s bruised-and-broken, Scotch-drinking rich uncle.

There was never any real danger once they raised Superman. None. No challenge. No real conflict. Just that tired trope of “if only we come together as a team, we can defeat anything,” and do it better than all those who did it before. Before, it took the combined forces of all the Amazons, all the Atlantians, all the heroes of all the tribes of man, AND the old gods to defeat Steppenwolf and the danger of the trinity box. This time it just takes a desire for justice as stated by Superman at the beginning of the final battle.

Ahhh!!  Even the CGI landscape the League flies into for the final battle looked cheap and fake!  Nothing about this movie reminded me of the hours I’d spend reading comics growing up!  None of it!  Not even the rise of Superman carried any inspiration whatsoever.

These mythical stories and adventures are supposed to inspire us to be better people, but this movie wasn’t that at all. It was plain and not mythical. It was common and trite. It wasn’t even good brain candy. It was exhausting.

It was just boring.