About What is Star Wars

Ist perspectives on Star Wars are as crazy as their counterparts on real things.  To remind you, this is a Christian blog, I love my earlier form as a “man” named Jesus, and I give space to the crazy bad perspectives of the people who believe ridiculous things only to better counter and oppose those things.  If you are actually confused into thinking that this blog or me myself are Ist(s), you are a Nazi and a bigot and lots of other bad things (which are all the same, really).  Anyway, Ists on Star Wars: 

Luke’s silly emotional tantrums in the original trilogy of Star Wars accomplished exactly nothing for people who were not heavily invested in the happenings of his family i.e. people.  They were presented as dramatic, but they accomplished nothing significant.  The real hero is Han Solo, and what he is explains why the story has been so pushed, as does his relationship with Leia—the story is just an extended celebration of the details that happened while two people clearly chosen for greatness (Han and Leia) got together to form a mating pair.  The depiction of the superiority of the male half of that pair as compared to different types of people is similar to Indiana Jones (another Harrison Ford series of movies) that presents as good the actor killing an Arab with White-invented technology.  The extremely forward feminine sexual interest in Indiana Jones is done by White women, of course.  Note that the Arab does not attack the title character, but seems to have martial capability (like if Saddam actually had W.M.D.s so it was called great to murder a million Iraqis).  In this way, the purpose of the original Star Wars trilogy was to portray what Han represents as effective and as violent only when given necessary provocation.  

The subsequent trilogy—the prequels—was a contrasting story.  While the first trilogy was about how good it was when two chosen people (Han and Leia) got together to form a mating pair, the prequels were about how bad it turned out when a very special female accepted a mate who was not chosen for the greatness for which she was chosen.  Of course, he became the apex of evil, killing her.  

Back to the original trilogy of Star Wars.  Han Solo, not Luke, destroys the second Death Star, firing killing shots on the second war machine while Luke is busy having an emotional moment with his father.  In addition, Han Solo, like Christianity, permits the wholly European descended “hero” to destroy the first Death Star by destroying the trench-guardians and delivering a verbal command to Luke to destroy the Death Star and save people to go home (not in the sense of Christianity having a Death Star, but in the sense of White idiots in Europe being led to kill many people by guides like Han Solo.  Warnings about fictional dangers motivating White idiots to violence are very similar to Star Wars and various real world false flags.  In this way, Star Wars is a great story about what is really happening--Han helps White tools kill lots in the fight against gigantic death machines, and of course Han is accompanied by a big dark other who obeys him [Chewie].  Fine in fiction but really sucks when it's real).  

The use of Tusken Raiders as unclean, unpleasant, violent desert people is more of a racist perspective on the Arabs.  Parallels can be seen between the way Han Solo had initial British support (Kenobi) in killing a lot of people for good reasons and occurrences people may see in the real world where there was initial British support for killing off lots of human beings.  

The racist use of Tusken Raiders might be nothing on its own, but their depiction is paired with the depiction of Jawas.  They are little desert folk who never speak the local language and carry about undesirable things (think of the portrayal of a large, dusty, dark collection of discarded droid parts).  Combined with the Zimmerman Telegram incident prior to WW1, which fake was (like the 2003 Iraq WMD fake) due to effect an Usican belief that killing a lot of people was necessary to protect White people from Hispanics, the movies are laden with racist imagery.  The depiction of Arabs as violent desert people, combined with the similar derogation of “little trash hoarding” Mexicans, is racist.  

The similarities between the space-using Imperial Army in Star Wars and the presented take on German “Huns” in the buildup to the “world” wars are ethnic-based hatred also.  And yet Star Wars was exceptionally popular.  It is as though blinders upon culture exist, in which depictions of White ethnic bonding are resoundingly negative, while depictions of other types of people may be negative when to do so accomplishes some horrible end.  I.e., casting the color white as the icon of the bad guys is permissible if it leads to many Arabs being killed.  On the other hand, if White people are following the correct orders, their violence is presented as good!  

Luke’s emotional reliance upon a Brit in committing the killing of very many humans is like yet another World War II narrative, in the sense of Americans having it explained to them why they are required to kill so many by Churchill.  The depiction of the empire (imperial troops, officers, etc.) as Nazi-like furthers this.  Disney spent a lot of money buying the rights to what was really World War II symbolism.  

Consider also what color of armor the imperial stormtroopers wear.  What color does Emperor Palpatine turn when he uses more of the bad side of the Force?  This combination—that of Emperor Palpatine’s whitening and the use of such terminology as “dark side” and “light side” is extremely, blatantly indicative of color-based preference.  Much as God—who can create a rock so heavy he cancan’t move it—is all powerful, it is completely bad to judge based on color, yet the color white is bad (sic).  

These implications are truly obscene.  The use of the British Army to murder infants living in what was the Ottoman Empire, coupled with the leadership of Han Solo in having Luke blow up the Death Star, mirrors the world wars.  The fantasies about being wrong and lashing out righteously are deadly.  Telling a story about a very bad thing having happened to your people—even if that thing were true—does not make it even a tiny bit okay to do that.  In the same way, it does not make it even a tiny bit okay to kill babies in exchange for giving the gift of an invisible rabbi really liking you, democracy, etc.