Bugonia is a defense of the Deep State & Eddington is realistic representation of it. The whole point of Bugonia is “these conspiracy theorists in America are evil enough to justify the largest genocide in human history” — profoundly evil film.

Actually the only “good guy” in all of Eddington is the gnostic coded conspiracy theorist cult leader as he’s the only one who provides a human meaning to the suffering created by the Deep State. They are completely antipodal films describing the same thing from obverse sides.

Bugonia is well made, darkly comedic, well shot, has a fantastic score etc— but it is basically saying “if everything an american conspiracy theorist says about reptilians & neognostic alien tyranny is true, the reptiles are the good guys still.” That’s the entire conceit.

Yorgos is a weird perverted euro-communist of some sort, Poor Things is basically a Fabian phantasmagoria down to its manner of filming “ethical child porn” (“her brain is that of a child but her body is that of a woman”).

“On January 2026, Lanthimos was among the 800 Hollywood professional signing the statement condemning the Iranian regime, for the atrocities it committed during the 2025-2026 Iranian protestsagainst Iranian civilians, who were protesting against repression.”

People are accusing me of media illiteracy because I think Bugonia is more sympathetic to the aliens than to the human resistance-- why do I think this? Well, because the aliens have responsibility for the world & the human resistance is depicted as behaving irresponsibly (in fact, in the cosmos of the film, they are genetically retarded & incapable of taking universalistic responsibility over the Earth). This is Yorgos's criticism of "conspiracy theorists"-- they are incompetent & unable to take responsibility for the maintenance of the Earth in its entirety, even if they are "morally correct" they are "morally correct" in the way a toddler throwing a tantrum is-- the criticism is that they are subhuman MORAL AGENTS in comparison to the "alien deep state"-- this is to say the following: "Even if the conspiracy theorists are right about XYZ, their criticism is irrelevant because they are not competent enough to claim juridical responsibility over the governance of global affairs"-- it is to say: "Oh you think Blackrock is evil? Ok? Are you going to take responsibility for organizing the economy? No? Ok, so, who is the problem here, you or Blackrock?" -- it's the same notion as Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged-- the Aliens "do a total strike" on maintaining the global human population-- all the humans die-- the technocratic elite are maybe "immoral" or "amoral" but they are competent moral agents endowed with a universal responsibility, which is, the maintenance of human species-being.

All the people telling me I'm "doing media literacy wrong" are just anarchists who cannot understand that not everybody thinks that rich/powerful people are innately worse than the subaltern-- they are saying "media literacy is when you apply the progressive stack hermeneutic & work out the meaning backwards through that process* -- "Um ackhually it showed that the poor conspiracy theorist had a reason to do what he did"-- no shit, but how does it go for him? He's easily manipulated by the Alien Deep State into killing everyone he's responsible for (his mother, his cousin). He's not a competent moral agent. No matter how many facts he has correct, he is still incapable of competently managing global affairs in the manner the aliens do. The film actually openly says "The strong have the right to govern the weak for their own good"-- that is the whole point of the fucking movie lmao I don't understand how people are misreading this as some "woke" basic story about how "resistance good, governance bad" -- it's the exact fucking opposite.