M. Night Shyamalamadingdong's Gay Anti-Gay Movie

Spoilers. 

Knock at the Cabin is M. Night Shyamalan's latest underwhelming flick. At least on the surface. However, the interesting twist about this movie is not in some surprise ending as usual. Instead, it's that the movie itself is either an absolute atrocity of screenwriting and virtue signaling cast in an interesting idea that never manifests itself into a great story, or it's an ingenious movie too subtle for the dimwitted woke crowd to realize due to their inability to understand nuance and creativity in literary development.  I honestly cannot tell if he meant to create a really deep subversive movie that would be truly brilliant for our time or just had a cool idea for a movie and then put together a piece of garbage for the sake of telling us that gay people are people too.  Gay is everywhere now. It's in everything we watch whether we want it or not. We are being brainwashed to believe it is moral by training us that it is normal. This movie is likely in that same vein but it may be a counterargument all the same. In my hope for the latter, let me tell you how this movie reads to me. 

The premise is that a gay couple who have adopted a Chinese daughter (because two white men adopting a white baby isn't woke enough) are up at a cabin when four individuals, who represent the four horsemen of the apocalypse, tell them that one of them must be sacrificed by them in order to save the rest of humanity or the three of them alone will survive the apocalypse to walk the earth and see humanity's end. Unlike the biblical four horsemen which represent conquest, war, famine, and death, these four represent "all aspects of humanity: malice, nurture, healing, and guidance." Of course, malice is represented by the only white straight male out of the main characters. The others, who represent positive qualities, are all of other ethnicities, genders, or sexual preferences. Throughout the movie, we are shown how the two gay men have experienced each of these characteristics throughout their lives (which makes me believe Shyamalan meant this as a virtue signal). 

However, here is where it gets interesting. These two men cannot procreate. They are literally partaking in the destruction of humanity by entering a homosexual relationship. There is no two ways about it. The only reason we don't see it that way is because there are lots of other people procreating instead, including the people who bore their adopted daughter. So by choosing this lifestyle, even with the world not coming to an end, they have chosen to partake in the destruction rather than the preservation of humanity. This becomes even more apparent, however, when they are told that the three of them alone will be left on earth. Now, if the couple had been heterosexual, one might simply know that humanity could still be saved, still be preserved for another day. But knowing that these two are gay, they have chosen a sexuality that will spell the absolute end for all humanity in a world where they alone are left to propagate it. This is why they had to adopt. This is why homosexuals have to find surrogate mothers. They don't produce life in their relationships, only death, only the end, only the apocalypse, never life, never preservation, never a new beginning for humanity, never genesis. 

Throughout the movie, one of the men seems to know that this is all true but doesn't care. He constantly makes statements about letting the world all die because they have the three of them. It is a selfish choice filled with hatred for all humanity. He talks about their love being all they need and to forget humanity that doesn't accept their love. It is a good riddance to a humanity that is said to hate them, even though the bulk of the hatred is coming from this gay man toward the human race. This is what a homosexual chooses when he chooses to indulge in a lifestyle that neither creates nor nurtures human life.

This brings me to the next point and that is the fact that these men adopted a baby in selfishness, knowing that all studies show that in order for a child to develop well he or she needs a mother and a father. The lack of concern that the daughter would grow up in a world covered in darkness and despair is evident in the hateful gay man. He truly represents the homosexual who is selfish and simply wants what he wants at the expense of everyone else around him. He doesn't care that she will suffer, only that the world did not make him give up what he wanted.

The second gay man seems more empathetic toward humanity. He isn't the hateful, selfish, and angry gay man but the one who realizes that he must sacrifice what he wants, i.e., his life (i.e., I think primarily representing his relationship with his partner), in order to save the girl he wanted as his own and the rest of humanity. This would be the man who may struggle with same-sex attraction but decides that he will participate in the preservation of humanity by turning away from his homosexual relationship and the adoption of a child within that. 

The movie becomes fantastically subversive to the ever popular mantra that gay couples are no different than straight couples and that gay sex is as much love as straight sex and that gay adoption is just as much loving as straight adoption. None of this is true. Gay sex and gay parenting is hatred toward humanity and works to end it. It is the apocalypse. Only choosing to sacrifice these will stay off the destruction of humanity. As one of the four "horsemen," the woman who represents nurture, states, "Our choices make our destiny" in response to angry gay dad's proclamation that "there is always a choice." This could be Shyamalan's subversive way of saying that homosexuality is a choice (if he's brilliant and not a complete brown-nosing moron who sees no connection between what is being said and the homosexual relationship he has chosen to showcase in the movie).

Those who choose non-creational sexualities hate humanity and participate in its demise. Those who choose "non-traditional families" do the same. Those who choose to break from that relationship choose life, the preservation of a larger humanity. It is a choice between selfishness, taking what one wants and all others be damned, and selflessness, giving up what one may personally want for the greater good.

If Shyamalan did not mean for his movie to have this message, and I suspect he didn't, I am glad that yet another woke movie, in attempting to stick it to the man, brainlessly stuck it to itself instead because this is absolutely what it communicated. 

There are a few other subtleties I found interesting, one of which was a ridiculous mural of an overly happy Jesus playing soccer with some kids in contrast to what was clearly the wrath of God being placed upon humanity for, well, in line what I suggest above, things like homosexuality and other anticreational sexualities. I'm sure Shyamalan would say it was for a lack of tolerance and acceptance of gay people. The irony, of course, is that Shyamalan himself turned the wrath of God represented by the four horsemen into aspects of humanity in the same way that the mural turned Jesus as Almighty God who judges wicked humanity into a happy hippy playing soccer. 

The first scene is of one of their parents disapproving of them, showing how people are horrible for not being super happy that their children have decided to end their biological line, essentially wiping their participation in humanity from the face of the earth. Bigots. This isn't even to mention the advertising the movie does for such overly woke resurrected cartoons like "The Proud Family” and others by stating how educational and woke the similar cartoon looks and is good for children (ironically, as what we just noted shows that such is bad for children in every way), but I digress.

Numerous people die, of course, while the homosexuals make up their mind and only do so at the last minute. The same could be said for homosexuals and other people who partake in anticreational sexual activity, as each act could be one that saw new life and preserved humanity but instead does not partake in a sexuality that would do so. 

So, as I said, this movie is either ingenious or so completely stupid and oblivious that it puts Captain Marvel that was trying to be a movie in support of feminism to shame. Either way, it has the same message and humanity should harken to it if it knows what is best for it.