Friday, June 2, 2017

CASTRATION: Pirates Of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales

Look closely.
Very closely.
Do you see it?
On the tooth, on your right side, there is a pink stone in the tooth (click on the image to enlarge it if you need to); why is this important? This is the same color of pink we see Optimus Prime's eyes turn in trailer for Transformers: The Last Knight, signifying that Prime has become a feminist (please see Trailers: Transformers, Detroit for more).  This skull and crossbones is supposed to symbolize Captain Jack Sparrow (there is not only his divided and braided beard, but his beads and that long thin bone on your right which hangs down in his hair), so we can say that Jack has been converted to feminism and wants to lead the charge. Why? Why would Jack Sparrow become a feminist? He's a pirate and, as such, an outlaw just like feminists, in the very real and legally binding sense: feminists want the phallus-centered law to end, because they feel it doesn't represent them, and it doesn't. The law is based on maintaining order and promoting fairness and harmony throughout society; feminism, on the other hand, is about the elevation of one sex over the other sex and about using coercion to achieve it through male-guilt. The "order" which the phallo-centric laws created go against the "chaos" of all feminists encourage, like abortion, satanism (yes, look at all the witches participating in the "binding spell" against Trump), perverse sexuality (because of "sexual liberation," women encourage same-sex attractions by acting more masculine and regulating men to a more passive role) and the embracing of destruction rather than creation. Some of these issues are addressed below regarding the symbolism of the Trident, but Likewise, much of our sense of how to act in society comes from Christianity, and feminism is in stark contrast to Christianity as well (and the rest of the film, too); in a word, feminism is aptly aligned with everything the New World Order champions; so how and when does the NWO fit into Pirates? From the first scene to the last.
Why is the sea important? 
It doesn't have borders, it doesn't have nationalities, it doesn't have walls or an identity (like the United States and its cultural heritage, or Britain, or Germany, or Italy, etc.). So the sea is a perfect setting for the NWO and what it wants to achieve: to make national boundaries disappear like water. Throughout the film, we also see anyone who is anybody brought down, so there is no Tall Poppy Syndrome, which we literally saw in action in Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2 when Gamora was in the field on planet Ego and cut down the flowers beside her because they annoyed her. There is a surprising amount of similarities between Pirates and the pro-socialist Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2, and I will try to point out as many as I can.
Without a doubt, Pirates Of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales, is pro-socialist, which is a pity, because that means no one likes or is willing to say anything good about Johnny Depp's latest film: the Left doesn't like it because the franchise has made so much money and, in spite of castrating the main characters, the young snobs the Left has raised refuses to be grateful for anything; those of a conservative mind set won't like it because of the blatant undermining of justice, rewriting history and, yes, castration,... not literal--not just yet, anyway, but we can expect it any time now--bust most definitely in both the political and economic sense; we can easily say that the structure of Pirates is the exact inversion of what we see in Guy Ritchie's King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword. As always, this post is full of spoilers, so you have been alerted, and if you haven't seen it yet, there IS A POST-CREDITS SCENE (and it's at the very, very end of a very, very long credits crawl). So, let's begin with the most important aspect of the film: Poseidon's Trident.
So, Jack is being chased because he and his crew attempt to steal a vault loaded with gold. First of all, the mayor (or bank president, whoever he is) announces that the new safe will "bring St Martins into the modern world!" and that gold has never been stolen from a St Martin's bank; then the vault is opened and we see Jack Sparrow asleep with a hangover and the mayor's wife. Each of these details is important. The "modern world" the mayor mentions is actually supposed to work on us psychologically as understanding banking to be "so 1800s," because banking and gold was how they thought of "modern," so if we today truly are modern, we aren't going to look to such arcane institutions and methods of doing things to keep moving forward; rather, we are going to try and find something different (which this is supposed to be a lead-in for socialism). Then, we see Jack drunk, he's broken into a vault no one could break into. What does this mean? If you label a ship as "unsinkable," it's going to sink, like the Titanic, and if you label a vault as "unbreakable," someone is going to be able to break in, and probably quite easily (consider Napoleon Solo easily breaking into the vault in The Man From UNCLE). This is, I will concede, a good point: if you want your gold to be safe, there is a chance someone will break in and steal it, and with all these robbery films the Left have been making, like Hell Or High Water, Tower Heist, Logan Lucky, Masterminds, and others I don't care to remember right now, there is a really good chance the Left is going to break into the banks and steal all your money,.... Then, we have the woman suddenly appearing; why? Feminism. The wife of the mayor is the perfect candidate for feminism, because she's on the floor of the vault, while he rules and gets all the glory. In other words, just as the wife has had an illicit "dalliance" with Jack Sparrow, so feminists are having an illicit dalliance with criminal classes; doesn't sound fair? Which group wanted Obama to pardon Hillary Clinton on his way out, even while, in the same breath, they insisted she didn't do anything wrong and she shouldn't have to go to jail? The Left has made it abundantly clear that they despise the Law, not only in their abhorrent treatment of police officers, but also in the manner of how Obama categorically dismissed all wrong-doing and crimes committed by people in his administration,... no one was EVER punished for ANYTHING. Liberals wanted that to continue with Hillary; why? Because they deny they should be responsible for anything, and I could go on, but that's pointless, we have all seen it playing out for the last several years,....
Of course, Jack Sparrow is drunk because the Left believes in altering reality, and alcohol--like drugs--definitely alters reality, to the point that Jack can't even remember why he's there in that place. So we have Jack glorifying drunkenness and not having any idea what is happening around him, and I'm quite confident the "leadership" of the Left would love to see all their followers in the exact same state.
The middle image above, with the British soldiers standing on the slab of where the bank had been just moments ago, is incredibly important to the film; why? The NEW WORLD ORDER. This is exactly what they want to happen: steal all the banks away and start over with a clean slate, and many of the ruling elite that want this are themselves bankers, who want to create an even more beneficial system for themselves. How can we say this? The bottom image with the bridge.
As the crew of the Black Pearl pulls the bank throughout the town--which I am quite confident is meant to reflect Dominic Toretto in Fast and Furious: Fast Five--they come to a bridge through which the building won't fit (bottom image) so as the building goes through, it's all smashed to smithereens, and then there is just the vault, however, the vault has been dropping money all through town and by the time they get it back to the ship, it's empty of all its gold. The money falling out of the safe is a clear indication of "wealth redistribution," because it's mostly the kids and poor picking it up (kids like young Henry who wants to pay off his dad's debt of being captain of the Flying Dutchman).  The bridge symbolizes a process of change, because people start at one end of the bridge, and when they get to the other end, they are at a different place (duh, right?) but that's how the bridge symbolism works, and why it symbolizes change, and why the bank won't fit through the bridge. So, when the "change over" (the bridge) to the New World Order arrives, there will no longer be any banking (the destruction of the building) and there will no longer be any money; why would the NWO want to get rid of money? Because that means they get rid of wages, and consumers (because in order to be a consumer, you must have expendable income; you must have at least some leisure time outside of work and there must be a "market" where you can spend that expendable income; this is capitalism). Sure, once all money is gone, all debt is gone, too, but once all money is gone, so, too, is all of our freedom, because we can choose when we have money, but when all we have is our labor, then we are slaves, and that is exactly what the NWO wants.
When Jack and the crew get to their ship, The Dying Gull, there is one single coin left and Jack sneaks that for himself, and then tells the crew there is nothing left for them; what has just happened? The Left, socialists. have painted a horrible picture of what bosses are like, because--as the captain of the ship--Jack is, technically, their boss. So Jack keeps what was "made" by stealing the vault for himself, and gives nothing to Cotten and the others who did the "work" of stealing the vault, and then Jack tells them that they should pay him money as tribute for being with him (or something like that). Now, this is a moment of artistic noise, that is, with Jack's slurring, sound effects and the crew's accents, it's difficult to understand exactly what is being said, and the film makers wanted it this way, but you know, that Jack has failed to provide them with "wage" for their "work" (in pirate terms) so they mutiny, which is exactly what the Left wants ALL EMPLOYEES to do to their bad bossess, because every boss is bad to a socialist.
Then what do we see? Jack bartering his compass for a bottle of rum; later, we see Jack the monkey, at the end of the film, act like he's going to barter with Jack Sparrow (I will give you your compass if you let me stay with you, since Barbossa is dead?) and Jack let's him. The point is, bartering--which is a capitalist system of exchange--is bad since Jack obviously made a bad bargain in giving away the compass for a bottle of rum,.... remind you of when a Johnny Depp character did something like there somewhere else? Tonto, in The Lone Ranger, and we're being reminded of it.
Why does Jack Sparrow lose his hat at the end of the film? Technically, he loses it because it falls off his head when the waters come crashing back down, but there is a symbolic meaning as well: we see Jack first get the hat after he has saved his crew from certain death at the hands of Salazar, and in gratitude, they offer him "tribute," including the hat, and from that moment on, Dead Men Tell No Tales contends, Jack has been "obsessed" with tribute and getting money, because we know the head of a person symbolizes their thoughts, so their hairstyle or anything on their head will give us a clue to what they are thinking; the hat was given as tribute, so tribute is what Jack thinks about, and we see this with the empty vault and again when Cotten and crew save Jack from the Guillotine and Jack wants the crew to pay him for them rescuing him. So, after the Trident is broken, Jack loses his hat because after the "power is divided" and no one is in control anymore, no one owes tribute to anyone else anymore.
There is another reason to consider Jack and feminism, which is his slur against chivalry at the end of the film as he watches Will, Henry, Carina and Elizabeth all walk off together. Chivalry, as we know from King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword, is the very definition of masculinity, law and order. Is anyone surprised that the pirate Jack Sparrow, who is--by very definition of "pirate"--at odds with the law, and thereby, masculinity itself
When the film opens we see a very young Henry Turner (son of Will Turner [Orlando Bloom] and Elizabeth Swann [Keira Knightly]) rowing deep into the sea in a scenes that reminded of the row-boat full of communists rowing delivering Channing Tatum's character to the Soviet submarine in Hail, Cesar! (from the Coen Brothers); but little Henry wraps a bag of rocks around his ankle to drag him to the sea floor so the Flying Dutchman will have to fetch him, and then he tells his father (Will Turner) he's going to free him of the curse that keeps him there.
What just happened?
You may need to click on this image to enlarge it so you can see. The first image, at the top, is the very first image we see in the film: it's a book illustration of the pagan god Poseidon, holding his Trident; the second image down (and it is intentionally difficult to see) is the "actual" Trident used in the film as Poseidon's, and is, again intentionally, very disappointing. The Third image down is the Devil's Triangle (two of the angles being formed by the rock sides going up, and the base of the triangle by the water), and this is where Jack outwits Salazar, and then, the bottom image, is the splitting of the sea where Carina, Henry, Jack and others go down to get the Trident of Poseidon. So, what do all these images mean? I'm glad you asked.
There are two important details about the image at the top: first, the illustration is obviously more grandiose than the "reality" the film makers provide us with; why? Because they want it that way. Look at the second image: that's like an ugly twig. That's a horrific Trident, even if it were just a regular trident, that's awful (I mean, Finnick O'dair [Sam Claflin] in Mockingjay Part 2 is just a mortal, but he had a far superior trident than what Pirates decided to bestow upon "the god of the sea," Poseidon) so what the film makers of Pirates is doing, is deliberately "de-sensationlizing" the Trident; why? Because it's a male symbol of power, and to de-sensationalize the Trident is to de-sensationalize male power across the board. This leads us to the second important point: The Trident of Poseidon is not the Cross of Christ. You might be going, "Well, duh!" But no, I assure you, this is where the other two images come into play.
The "Devil's Triangle" (third image down), isn't the "Devil's Triangle," it's the Holy Trinity. To the Left, God is "the devil," because God has all these rules, regulations, and oppresses gays, women and the poor, whereas the devil is an anarchist revolting against God's strict ways. Young Jack tricks Salazar into going into the "Devil's Triangle" (the Holy Trinity) by acting as if Jack himself is going in, i.e., the Left think they have tricked us with their "gospel" of equality and freedom from debt for the poor, and whatever other trash they preach, but they are leading people, like myself who believe in law and order, into the very "devil" they themselves hate, God. I know, this doesn't make sense at all, but when we see Salazar's crew attack the British who go in (the ship young Henry is on) why does Salazar (if he symbolizes law and order, and the British also symbolize law and order) why is Salazar attacking them? Because the British captain wouldn't listen to Henry, so since Henry is a "hero" of the Left (because he will believe anything he's told and he wants to free his father from debt and "divide the power") the British have to be punished for mis-treating young Henry who has no power on the ship (we will discuss his "treason" below). If you don't buy into this, I understand, I believe that this is what Liberals truly believe, but I completely acknowledge that it's ridiculous, which is why I am not a Liberal (if you don't think even Liberals are dumb enough to think like this, check out this article about how one girl "reasoned" that working with the devil would be a good idea to stop Trump).; but consider the bottom image.
It is, in far less colossal appeal, the "parting of the sea," without Moses. Without anyone, in fact, since Poseidon himself seems to be a myth, which is, basically, the point: the sea can part on its own, and doesn't need a white man holding a phallic symbol acting like he's saving people when, in fact, he's just going to enslave them with capitalism,.... Again, I obviously don't believe this, yet the "parted sea" (which is really more of a crack, like the "crack" in their own heads) exemplifies the "re-writing of history," and we're going to see more like it: you want the Red Sea to be parted so you feel like you are being saved? We'll give you Hillary Clinton parting the Red Sea (remember, she should have been president now, according to the Left) and we will save you from the slavery of capitalism and all those fathers who do nothing but rack-up debts for their kids to pay off. To sum up, there is just enough religious symbolism in the film to undermine Christianity, but not enough for anyone to get really upset about,.... yet. This is going to change.
An important event takes place in the film, and it re-writes the Pirates history. Originally, Jack Sparrow got his compass by bartering it from the sea goddess Calypso ((you can watch a video of it here at YouTube). In Pirates 5, Jack gets it when the Captain of the Wicked Wench hands it to Jack and encourages him to use it against Salazar to save the ship. Is this a big deal? Yea, because it's an example of intentionally changing a story and thinking you can and get away with it, just like all of the lies from the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton; a perfect example of this is the remake of Watership Down. The original 1978 version of Watership Down was clearly about an "escape from Berlin" and communism; a new version, made for television (probably so it reaches more kids) is being made and will re-write that, making capitalism the evil and communism good. Trust me, this is how they are re-writing history, one film at a time, one piece of history at a time. And little things like changing how Jack gets his compass, contributes to the "license" of rewriting history.
The bag of rocks around his ankle sinking him represents "debt," and in the casual lexicon of the film, "debt" isn't a "debt," it's a "curse," and it's the "debt" of  the curse that Henry wants to rid his father. (It hasn't always been this way, but there was this TV show with Robert Redford about suicide called The Discovery, about life after death, and people were willingly killing themselves to be free of this life and live in the next; except it wasn't about "life after death," rather, "life after debt," and the mother filling a backpack with rocks to drown herself--kind of like young Henry in POTC 5--was doing so because of her college debt drowning her; so the brainwash of the show was, become a socialist and there will be life for you after debt because socialists don't have debts when everything is free,... except nothing is ever free, but do you want debt because you went to college, or because you needed to buy toothpaste and shampoo for the month?). So, young Henry mimics the state of being "in debt" and "under water" (because being "underwater" is a financial term meaning that you owe more on a loan than what you can make back from the market) to speak to dad and then we get to Carina.
Carina, top image, battles being called "a witch" throughout most of the show. When Barbossa visits Shansa (second image down) we are introduced to the real witch of the film: us. Yes, viewer, if you are a conservative, and you rooted for the Tea Party, guess what, the Left thinks you are a witch. Here is what happens. When Barbossa arrives, Shansa asks him if he would like some tea, and she takes a cup full of this thick, green slime and drinks it. This is a reference to the Tea Party and the "hope" (the green color) of the grassroots movement to impeach Obama. Then she kisses a "pet" rat that runs over her; the "rat" references those who "ratted" on Hillary regarding her emails and servers, the missing $600 million from the State Department, and the deaths at Benghazi, as well as the destroyed US Embassy there. Later, Shansa is taken to the cell where Carina had been held (third image down), and one of the British soldiers referred to Carina as a "witch," and Shansa replied, basically, "She's not a witch, I am." Then Shansa deciphers the writings on the wall well enough so the British can attempt to intercept Carina, Jack and Salazar. Was does it mean?
As we saw the "parting of the sea" above, so the "writing on the wall" is meant to refer to THE writing on the wall by the Holy Spirit, announcing to King Belshazzar that his kingdom had come to an end just as we see Carina and Henry being the kingdom of Poseidon to an end when they break the Trident,.... well, if parts of the story don't make sense, don't worry about it, because if you DO worry about it, that means you are infected with "logocentrisim" the way Jack Sparrow is infected with scabies. Remember, Carina kicks down a priest; regardless of whether you are Catholic or not (I am, personally) that's exactly what the film is doing, her heretical "confession" she makes (that she has nothing to confess) and that she's walking over religion, is what the film makers believe and want people to start doing; Shansa is a "witch" because she helps the British, and as I detail below, that's the ultimate evil for the film makers. There is also the small detail that Shansa "requires payment" for helping Barbossa, and of course, that means Shansa is in business for herself (she's self-employed) and that, too, is an evil in the eyes of the film makers.
Why is Carina so unlikable as a character? She's so full of herself. She does nothing but brag about herself and put other people down; in short, she's a bitch, just like the vast majority of feminists society has been forced to tolerate.  
Now, Carina, an orphan, was left on the steps of an orphanage with nothing but a book and a name; the book is the diary of where and how to find the Trident of Poseidon, but Carina also realizes at the very last moment that it's Captain Barbossa who is her father as he sacrifices himself to save her from Captain Salazar. We also see Paul McCarthy hamming it up as Jack Sparrow's Uncle Jack who, like Jack, is in prison, waiting for a beating; now, what do we have here? Fathers are an awful lot of trouble, and not good for very much at all, which leads us to a really big problem,....
So, what are we to make of Henry, the new hero? Well, let's look at what he says when he attempts to rescue Carina and Jack from the gallows: "I'm just the distraction." We have heard that in another film, once more, Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 1, at the end when Star Lord (Chris Pratt) sings, Oh, Child, Things are going to get easier,... right before Rocket blows to bits Ronan who is the equivalent of the Tea Party. But we also hear Brenton Thwaites say this in another film, Gods Of Egypt, when he and the god Ra have to fight off the evil Seth (Gerard Butler) who has taken over the fertile Egypt with his desert and is letting demons in (sound familiar?). So which hero is Henry? Star Lord, because Henry is perfectly willing to bring down the British, and the prove is his treason. Yes, you are perfectly legitimate in arguing that Henry was trying to warn the British of the Devil's Triangle so the ship wouldn't be lured into danger by Salazar (who lures ships in the way Sparrow lured him in). The problem with that is we know what the Devil's Triangle really means to Liberals (the Holy Trinity) and so, to Christians, Henry telling us not to follow God (steer clear of the Devil's Triangle, aka, The Holy Trinity) is basically a heresy, so why would we listen to Henry? We're Christians, and he's telling us not to believe in God, but he believes every other myth that has been written, just not anything written in the Bible. These are the characteristics making Henry a "hero" to socialists. Then there is still the treason.
When Obama was doing things to weaken America and strengthen our enemies, conservatives shouted, "Treason!" and wanted him impeached; Liberals, on the other hand, applauded him, because they didn't want America to be strong, rather, they wanted our enemies to be strong, so when Hillary was committing treason, she was applauded as well; in other words, Liberals only love hating America, and anyone who commits treason is a hero to them; proof? How does the British commander of the ship demonstrate that Henry is in "a state of treason?" They rip his sleeves off; why? Because the arms symbolize our strength, and to have the sleeves ripped off means you tried to undermine the strength of your country (Obama and Hillary) and so thereby, you have no strength yourself because you don't even know what is to your advantage (having a strong home country is to your advantage, stupid Liberals). 
Where is Poseidon?
They are able to find his Trident, and there is no doubt ever expressed that the Trident does, in fact, belong to Poseidon, and they are even able to find Carina's unknown, long-dead father (Barbossa) but they can't find, or even bother to look for Poseidon, but they get his Trident,.... why? They steal it. They just take it for themselves because they want the audience to believe that Poseidon's Trident doesn't actually belong to someone, the way the $9 billion dollars that Donald Trump has made over his life, doesn't really belong to him, it's just there to take it if you want it; or to take anything from anyone else, should you so care to do so. And you should. Because that will end the "curse of the debt," which the whole film is about, and this is why, the riddle of the film, "DIVIDE THE POWER" leads to the breaking of the Trident: that is, without a doubt, the most important moment of the film and it means castration. "Divide the power" isn't about going from socialism/communism to democracy, it's about going from democracy/republic to totalitarian rule: taking the possessions of others and giving them to a small ruling elite (Hillary, Obama, Bush, and anyone else on Soros' payroll). Even though there is no Poseidon, the breaking of the Trident is like the breaking of King Arthur's Excalibur, or Thor's hammer: it's castration of male power, the castration of leadership, responsibility and the symbols of that power, which leads us to Salazar and the end credits scene.
Ever hear of a TV show called Shark Tank? Well,  now, the Liberals have made a film called 47 Meters Down about some dumb girls who get stuck in a cage watching sharks and they can't get back up to the surface; you can watch the trailer at this link. There was also the Blake Lively film, The Shallows, about capitalism ruining paradise, and now we have Pirates 5 comparing capitalists to dead sharks. The sharks are "dead" because Liberals believe that capitalism is dead and anyone who supports capitalism is dead, also. This is, however, a potential additional religious reference (even though I will admit this is a bit of a stretch, but when it comes to the liberal mind, that's all they do is stretch things) and that is when Christ compares apostles to "fishers of men" and the multiplication of Christians to the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. So, take it how it's most insulting to you: you are a dead shark because you are a capitalist, or you are a dead shark because you are a Christian (and a "shark" is how those pagan, satanic Liberals see you praying for their souls).
What about Beatrice? Jack is captured by someone to whom he owes money, and is being forced to marry the man's widowed sister, Beatrice, who is hideous, and Jack even stammers calling her an "it" and a other names; why? That's a "revenge" for people who have a difficult time with transgenders. You've seen men wearing a long wig, and maybe even some make-up, and maybe dressed like a woman, but he's still obviously a man, or a woman who has tried to make herself more masculine, but is still a woman; they have disavowed their God-given identity to take up an identity that is more of an "it" and so, Pirates 5 is shaming us and trying to "show us how it feels" to be called an 'it,'" ... so what's my proof that Beatrice is someone like myself? She's "widowed," and we know that men symbolize the economy, so Beatrice was married to a man who symbolized the economy but is no longer alive,... like "capitalism." Remember, Hillary was supposed to be president when this film was released! So, Jack is basically seeing a "picture" of himself in being Beatrice's next "capitalist" husband, the way Barbossa sees himself when he looks at Salazar (discussed below). Beatrice is basically the reason Jack becomes a feminist and wants to break the Trident (instead of keeping it for himself to use as "master" of the seas, because he doesn't want to be a capitalist anymore; we also know Jack wanted to go to heaven, but he's obviously turned his back on that, too). 
Who is Captain Salazar?
Me.
What about those "dead sharks" that he sends after Jack?
Me.
What about the hideous Beatrice and her two kids?
Me, again.
Pirates Of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales cannot stop slapping in the face someone like myself, a conservative and Christian, who believes that criminals and murderers should stand trial and pay for their crimes. Remember: when they made this film, like so many others, they believed Hillary Clinton would be president right now. Salazar tells Barbossa that his father, and his father, were both killed by pirates, and he vowed he would clear the sea of them.
Why is this important?
This is perhaps the most important shot in the entire film (not that anything in the film is particularly important). Why? "The dead have taken command of the sea," Shansa the witch tells Barbossa, but we learn that it's Barbossa with his ten ships that is in command of the sea; it's because Salazar has destroyed so many of Barbossa's ships that Barbossa goes to make a "capitalist" trade with him in exchange for Jack, as usual. Just as the "dead sharks" reference the capitalist show Shark Tank, so the "dead commander" references the financially successful pirate, Barbossa. Why does Salazar's face have all those lines over it? Just before we "meet" Salazar in the film, we see Henry holding up a mirror to see the Devil's Triangle, then we meet Salazar; that juxtaposition of the mirror is a horrible slam to people like myself. They are saying that people who don't believe in God can "reflect" upon themselves and know that God is actually evil, whereas Christians and capitalists aren't capable of reflection (the mirror) and so the lines in Salazar's face reflect the "broken mirror" of self-reflection which Salazar isn't capable of seeing because he's a selfish capitalist and Christian. Then, there is obviously the uniform. Just as Henry was wearing a uniform at the start, then his sleeves were stripped off, Barbossa wears a uniform similar to Salazar's and then, just before he dies, his sleeve is rolled up, exposing the same star-formation Carina has searched for her whole life. "But wait!" you say, smart reader, "Socialists want the government to take over everything, and the British is a government, so why are the British bad, and why would wearing a British uniform be bad?" and that is, as usual, a most excellent point you are making. The answer is: the British government is the wrong government. The British are very practical, self-sufficient, realistic, nationalistic (rightly so) and logocentric, that is, they don't go for the "emotional" way of doing things, they go for the logical way to do things, and that's why American Liberals hate the British as a form of government (I don't think they hate the British, except for Brexit, but American Liberals hate everyone). Anyway, the British government is the wrong government, therefore, it's basically evil, like the Devil's Triangle and the Holy Trinity. So anyone revolting against what the British government stands for, is good, and someone defending the British government is bad.
So, we know that no one dies unless they are all ready dead, unless they sacrifice themselves for someone,.... so, Barbossa sacrifices himself to save Carina, right? Wrong. Salazar threatens to pull her down into the abyss of the sea with him, and why didn't Barbossa reveal to Carina previously that he was her father? He would have pulled her down, the way Will "pulled down" Henry to the Flying Dutchman at the start of the film to see his dad (but Will didn't do that, you may argue, and you're right, he didn't do it physically, but because of Will's debt and Henry's desire to see his dad, it was Will causing Henry to do it). So, Barbaossa sacrifices himself, but only so he's not weighing down Carina, and we saw the same thing in Independence Day: Resurgence when the white, heterosexual male (former) president sacrificed himself for his daughter. We also see it in Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2 when Yondu sacrifices himself for Peter Quill. (Granted, Peter isn't a female, but he's making the move to convert to socialism; please see Patricide: Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2 for more). Salazar on the other hand, is avenging his father, and this is an important note, because in Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 1, Ronan said almost the exact same thing, about the people he hated having killed his father, and his father before him, which is what Salazar says. Well, who are the pirates who killed so many of our fathers and grandfathers in the same way? Wars, wars fought to stop socialism from spreading (World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War). You may be confused: "Didn't you just say that Salazar was Barbossa?" Yes, but Salazar links Barbossa to the audience, in other words, Salazar is an "efficient villain" who is meant to mirror the audience, but through Barbossa, demonstrates what our fate will be if we fail to submit to the bullying tactics of the Left. Proof? When Salazar's ship comes up out of the water, it looks like a massive mouth that is going to "consume" a ship, and that "consume" is meant to be directed at "consumers" who are capitalists. Then there is the issue that the first thing we see of Salazar is his foot; why? Feet symbolize the will, so Salazar is a man of will power, which isn't associated with the "victims" of Liberalism (rather with a man like John Wick); then we see Salazar's medals, for his outstanding achievements. To people like me and you, medals and trophies are good, but we are seeing a disturbing trend amongst the "participation trophy" sector which sees trophies for actual achievement as "evil" because, like, no one should actually achieve anything, because that makes someone else a loser (remember in Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2 when Nebula says to Gamora, "All you wanted was to win, and all I wanted was a sister," oh, yea, winning must be bad, and of course, the black kid in Logan who had rodeo trophies and then died in the next scene; then there is the villain of Justice League popping out from a dark corner behind a box of football trophies,.... yea, the Left hates achievement, which is why they loved Hillary so much: she never achieved anything). So, these are the reasons why Salazar and Barbossa are basically the same, but also why Salazar symbolizes the audience, whom the film makers hate with a passion.
Because for one, it is one of many references to Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 1 (the villain of Ronan who also cites that his father, and his father, were killed and there would not make peace; this references World War II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, possibly the Cold War in general as well, when so many people died to fight against socialism/communism and its spread, and both films are saying, "So what? I don't care if you lost relatives. Let me have what I want today, those people are no longer relevant," which is one of the reasons we are celebrating Memorial Day this opening weekend). "Pirates" are lawlessness, they are thieves, drunkards (or addicts of any other drugs), adulterers, and the antithesis of civilized society; in other words, "pirates" are "liberals."
Please read the paragraph below before you read this caption, it will make more sense, thank you.
The likely meaning of the end credits scene, in my estimation, is that, Davy Jones (pictured here as portrayed by Bill Nighy) is an "octopus-like" creature, and we just saw at the start of Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2 how the octopus creature opening the film and quickly being killed off by the Guardians is actually a metaphor of Christians and conservatives in the audience who paid to see the film, and are now being slapped in the face by it (please see Patricide: Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2 for more). Please recall how the octopus symbol has been employed over the last several years to symbolize socialists: it's the sign of HYDRA in the Marvel Universe, as well as of SPECTRE in the James Bond film Spectre. So, what has happened, is the liberals--who can't come up with anything on their own, so they steal everything from everyone else--took the octopus symbol and are trying to "re-write it" just as they try re-writing history, to make people believe that, no, the octopus today doesn't symbolize socialism/communism, it symbolizes Christians and conservatives. So, when Davy Jones' shadow is seen in the bedroom of Will and Elizabeth Turner, it's really the horror of them seeing someone like myself who has come in through their door at the dead of night and is ready to take them away. in other words, they see someone like myself as a member of the Gestapo--even though they probably aren't smart enough to know what that is--and themselves as the innocents. Again, this is a great inversion of what we just saw in King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword, with the masked Black Leg soldiers kicking in the doors of people and hauling them away at the dead of night, because that's what the socialist Nazis did; we can prove it: how many times in the capitalist history of America did soldiers round people up and take them into custody? Once, and a Democrat was in office (FD Roosevelt). But in any society where there has been socialism and communism, there is nearly always the sweeping away of a large portion of the population in a purge to aide the socialists taking control so they don't have to battle their enemies. Anyway, this is most likely what the end credits scene means, is that, even though "Hillary Clinton has been elected, and we are all safe and debt-free, there is still the fear that THEY could return and wreck havoc on our little Utopian bliss."
PLEASE READ THE CAPTION OF THE FINAL POSTER AT THE VERY END OF THIS POST.
What about the end credits scene?
IF they decide to do another Pirates film (and opening weekend isn't looking great for it) they will mimic another Disney franchise, Star Wars, by pulling in the "young tier" of millennials to take over the lead from the senior class. But the possible return of Davy Jones to the narrative is a consequence liberals are seriously thinking about: when all debts are canceled, all debts are canceled; in this case, the debt of Will Turner as captain of the Flying Dutchman will also cause some serious ripple effects throughout the universe. During the scene, we have to note that the window is open--symbolic of reflection--they are sleeping (a symbol of death or at least not being alert to what is about to happen) and we see Davy Jones walk in through the door into the bed room (the bed room often symbolizes the heart, because a bedroom is like one of the "chambers" of the heart), and we then see Davy Jones raise his sword (phallic symbol of law and order) and the crashing of lightening and thunder (because it comes from the heavens, might symbolize even the "judgement of God"), but it has also been dark in the room, then suddenly it's light, so they have, metaphorically, been in the dark about something but then they will be illuminated all too quickly,... It is meant to invoke Davy Jones, without a doubt, but on a deeper level, there is also the truth that Will Turner was Davy Jones for nearly two decades, and he can't just leave that on the sea floor bottom, like the barnacles under his bed; because we see Will wake up, this dream is more about Will's inner-state than about the return of Davy Jones and more likely to be about Will doing something "phallic" (exerting his "toxic masculinity," as liberals would say) rather than Bill Nighy actually returning as Davy Jones,...but we don't know. I actually DO hope this was the final adventure: I rarely agree with main stream critics, but I chime in with their sentiments that I hope this franchise is over, because I hate being the target practice of a drunk and unsuccessful pirate.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
I took a photography class once, and we had a discussion on portraits, wherein it was pointed out that, in a photograph, you can "cut off" the top of someone's head, and it will look acceptable, but don't "cut off" the bottom of their chin, because that alters their features too much and that will look really awkward, if not ruin the photo. Now, in this image of Jack Sparrow, there are many interesting things going on. First, the top of his head is cut off; why? Probably because he's missing his hat, which we have discussed previously. Secondly, half his eyeballs are missing; why? This is probably the indication that Jack has altered the way he sees the world, that now he's only going to see "part" of what there is to be seen, that is, the liberal, feminist side, because they are the ones who ignore reality and only see what they want to see. Jack has dark circles under his eyes, rather like the villain Hela (Cate Blanchett) in the upcoming Thor: Ragnarok which you can view here. Even though Jack seems arrogantly proud of his "accomplishments," his crew certainly doesn't, especially after the failed bank robbery at the start of the show; this darkening of the eyes suggests either that Jack really does have a bleak outlook on life--which is why he was willing to trade his compass for a bottle of rum, his heart would never desire after anything again, so he wouldn't need it--or, two, he wants people to see him this way, regardless if whether he really is or not. This would add to the "intimidation" and mystery factor, both of which would be advantageous for a pirate.
Everyone knows how I love erasure or, sous rature: when one has to use a word that doesn't quite convey what one wants to say, so they cross it out, but then there is not another word that does convey the meaning, so even though the word is crossed out, it's left legible. Please note Jack's mouth, and how Dead Men Tell No Tales, is written over it, in gold letters. That the phrase should be written over Jack's mouth acts as a form of erasure because it suggests that Jack himself is dead (and by the standards of the film, he is because he's after money, which means, he's dead, because good socialists aren't concerned about money). So, Jack can't tell us anything--about why he might be dead, or the film, or even this poster--because he's "dead," however, that in and of itself, that Jack is dead, IS being told to us, so we will know, according to the film makers' morality the "path of death" so we won't take it up for ourselves, in other words, Jack Sparrow is being left alive as a lesson as to how not to live one's life. This is typical of socialists, because no one wants to see films about socialist heroes like Marx, Stalin, Pol Pott, Lenin, Pinochet, Mao, etc., and quite frankly, they are embarrassing to the Left, so instead, they create cardboard heroes they know the audience will identify with and use them to brainwash viewers, as well as push their morally dubious agenda.
One of the two most intriguing aspects of the poster is the mark on Jack's upper-right cheek. one critic I read automatically deduced it was an "X" because, "X marks the spot" in a pirate's life, and we do hear a reference to that when Jack tells Carina, "So you are the X that marks the spot," when they argue about how she knows where the Trident is. If Carina is the "X" marking the spot, why is it on Jack's cheek then? At this point, the poster is actually flipped on us, because it's not that Jack Sparrow can only see "half" of what is going on (because his eyes are cut off), rather, it's us, the viewers, who have our eyesight cut off, because we can't see what the "X" means nor, regarding the second most intriguing aspect of the poster, why Jack has "JAKC" written on his knuckles (more on that in a moment). There is, however, an entirely different explanation altogether. If you will recall the ending of Logan, Laura takes the cross at the head of the grave they have dug for Logan, and turns it on its side, into an "X" for X-Men because these socialists didn't want Logan associated with Christianity, but with comic books; the "X" on Sparrow's cheek, then, might be linking Sparrow with Logan, not that Sparrow is an X-Man, rather, that Sparrow refuses to be identified with any Christian tenants and wants, instead, to be aligned with this socialist faction; why can we say that? The "X," as we see Laura turn it, is a "broken cross," just as the Nazi swastika was a broken cross, just as the Trident of Poseidon is a broken cross, and just as the "X" on Sparrow's cheek (from the direction we look at it, it could be a cross, but it's not, it's a mundane "X,") is also broken, and that's imperative, because at the start of Pirates Of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Jack was in hell,... with himself,... and thereafter, for a short while, he was saying, "I'm willing to do what I must to be in with the 'goody-goodies,'" so he wouldn't have to be condemned again,... well, it didn't last long, did it? We can say that Jack Sparrow has sold his soul for socialism and feminism,... should we be sad? Remember, this is a man who traded the world's greatest compass for a bottle of run, so what does that say about those following socialism? In all likelihood, the "X" that marks the spot is the same "X" marking the spot where Logan (Hugh Jackman) is buried in Logan.
So, why is the "c" and the "k"switched in the word "JAKC" on his hand? Because that is what they are doing in history. "Just a simple, switch-eroo," just like the characters of Murtogg and Mullroy, the two British soldiers from Curse Of the Black Pearl, who we see this time as pirates working for Barbossa, and trying to swindle treasure from the other. So, just as Murtogg and Mullroy "switched sides" to becoming pirates from their previous respectable employment for the British navy, and just as Will Turner switched from being Davy Jones to being Will Turner again, and as Carina Smyth switched from being an orphan to the daughter of Captain Barbossa, and as Barbossa switched from being the all-powerful pirate of the seas to being a self-sacrificing dad, or the way Jack Sparrow goes from being a captain wearing a hat, to being a seaman not concerned with tribute,... In other words,... CHAOS. That's what the JAKC means on Jack's hand, a world where nothing is going to be grounded in meaning, but every thing is in flux and can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean--like, Bruce Jenner suddenly deciding that the absence of a penis means he's a woman. This is exactly what they plan, and they have warned us, it's only going to get worse.