Jonathan Majors and Zachary Levi to star as twins in a movie produced by Ben Shapiro for The Daily Wire

Jonathan Majors and Zachary Levi will star as twins in a new action film for The Daily Wire.

Described as anti-woke ‘Sinners’

(via: Deadline) pic.twitter.com/aZhY5db39p

— Wong Updates (@WongUpdates) February 26, 2026

I love how basically anything not predominantly white is "woke" now.

Sinners is anti-vampires, anti-KKK, anti-conformity, anti-appropriation, and pro-music-as-healing. All pretty level-headed positions.

But because it features a mostly black cast, and some racist white people die, it's "woke" and thus the far right not only has to be against it, they tout the hiring of a disgraced/convicted abuser in the same breath as their holier-than-thou "anti-woke" claims.

It's all so ****ing stupid.

Anti woke sinners would literally be pro KKK https://t.co/FBys5GbLUS

— evan loves worf (@esjesjesj) February 26, 2026

Sinners is not woke. That's a silly assertion. Black people lived in primarily black enclaves in the 30's in the south. They had their own businesses and nightclubs. They had their own vampire struggles and they had their own vampire killer hero's. It ain't woke.

AgTrip said:

---

You all know vampires aren't real right?

---

Wrong.

Have you SEEN Wes Andersen?

Don't forget Pharrell

I'm pretty sure Shapiro is some form of energy vampire

MW03 said:

---

Isn't the thrust of Sinners about the dangers/evil of forced assimilation and colonialism? That seems to be the whole reason Remmick is Irish. That being said, because of the story's point of view, I can see how that nuance could be lost.

---

Isn't that notion kind of "woke"? The indigenous were sacrificing men women and children and hurling their bodies down pyramids for entertainment when the conquistadors arrived. Central America and South America are far from perfect, but is the notion that they would be better off if the more advanced and civilized Europeans never came? The vast majority of people are blended with native and euro blood down there...millions of people alive would not exist were it nor for colonialism...and the ones that did would be living like the yanomami...a hell on earth we could not imagine.

This comes to mind...

You don't have to hold the natives in high moral regard to think it was wrong to treat them like slaves and just an obstacle blocking your access to natural resources.

It was christians that did that.

schmendeler said:

---

You don't have to hold the natives in high moral regard to think it was wrong to treat them like slaves and just an obstacle blocking your access to natural resources.

It was christians that did that.

---

Meh, atheists by far hold the higher body count in the last few centuries...congrats..

But counter to your statement, tens of millions of people exist south of our border that otherwise wouldn't...and in more advanced and civilized societies than would have otherwise existed...colonialism was a net POSITIVE. History is metal across the board, I just find it funny how euros are always the ultimate villains. With the information they had at the time, can you not kind of see how they would have viewed a bunch of people from across the world with bones and sticks through their noses sacrificing each other and drinking human blood and eating lice out of each other's hair as "not the same"?...Especially given the ignorance of an illiterate 17th century euro who had never been exposed to primitive peoples before?

You are probably 100% convinced you would have been the noble "voice of reason" or "conscientious objector" back then. That's kind of the main beef I have with liberals always blasting people from hundreds of years ago (well, really only white people)...how are you so convinced you wouldn't have followed the herd if you were born into it?

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

You don't have to hold the natives in high moral regard to think it was wrong to treat them like slaves and just an obstacle blocking your access to natural resources.

It was christians that did that.

---

Meh, atheists by far hold the higher body count in the last few centuries...congrats..

But counter to your statement, tens of millions of people exist south of our border than otherwise wouldn't. History is metal across the board, I just find it funny how euros are always the ultimate villains. With the information they had at the time, can you not kind of see how they would have viewed a bunch of people sacrificing each other and drinking human blood and eating lice out of each other's hair as "not fully human"...given the ignorance of a 17th century euro who had never been exposed to primitive peoples before?

You are probably 100% convinced you would have been the noble "voice of reason" back then. That's kind of the main beef I have with liberals blasting people from hundreds of years ago...how are you so convinced you wouldn't have followed the herd?

---

You can acknowledge that bad things were done in the past without wanting to tear everything down that was built on top of it.

I don't know that i would have been any better than the people back then. I'm trying now, though.

schmendeler said:

---

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

You don't have to hold the natives in high moral regard to think it was wrong to treat them like slaves and just an obstacle blocking your access to natural resources.

It was christians that did that.

---

Meh, atheists by far hold the higher body count in the last few centuries...congrats..

But counter to your statement, tens of millions of people exist south of our border than otherwise wouldn't. History is metal across the board, I just find it funny how euros are always the ultimate villains. With the information they had at the time, can you not kind of see how they would have viewed a bunch of people sacrificing each other and drinking human blood and eating lice out of each other's hair as "not fully human"...given the ignorance of a 17th century euro who had never been exposed to primitive peoples before?

You are probably 100% convinced you would have been the noble "voice of reason" back then. That's kind of the main beef I have with liberals blasting people from hundreds of years ago...how are you so convinced you wouldn't have followed the herd?

---

You can acknowledge that bad things were done in the past without wanting to tear everything down that was built on top of it.

I don't know that i would have been any better than the people back then. I'm trying now, though.

---

Agreed. Hindsight is weird. On one hand, western slavery was an abomination...no debating that. On the other hand, how many black people are living much better lives than they would have otherwise had it never existed? My black neighbor is very successful, and came up from being a working class farm kid in East Texas...we have it really easy here, all of us.

My main problem, is this dishonest notion that we were basically the only group of people to ever practice slavery. A lot of brainwashed people, particularly younger people, seem to believe that. When slavery is actually going on at this very moment in many third world places throughout the world.

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

You don't have to hold the natives in high moral regard to think it was wrong to treat them like slaves and just an obstacle blocking your access to natural resources.

It was christians that did that.

---

Meh, atheists by far hold the higher body count in the last few centuries...congrats..

But counter to your statement, tens of millions of people exist south of our border than otherwise wouldn't. History is metal across the board, I just find it funny how euros are always the ultimate villains. With the information they had at the time, can you not kind of see how they would have viewed a bunch of people sacrificing each other and drinking human blood and eating lice out of each other's hair as "not fully human"...given the ignorance of a 17th century euro who had never been exposed to primitive peoples before?

You are probably 100% convinced you would have been the noble "voice of reason" back then. That's kind of the main beef I have with liberals blasting people from hundreds of years ago...how are you so convinced you wouldn't have followed the herd?

---

You can acknowledge that bad things were done in the past without wanting to tear everything down that was built on top of it.

I don't know that i would have been any better than the people back then. I'm trying now, though.

---

Agreed. Hindsight is weird. On one hand, western slavery was an abomination...no debating that. On the other hand, how many black people are living much better lives than they would have otherwise had it never existed? My black neighbor is very successful, and came up from being a working class farm kid in East Texas...we have it really easy here, all of us.

My main problem, is this dishonest notion that we were basically the only group of people to ever practice slavery. A lot of brainwashed people, particularly younger people, seem to believe that. When slavery is actually going on at this very moment in many third world places throughout the world.

---

I mostly agree with your first paragraph.

Your second paragraph is a bit of a red herring, imo. The only people i ever see saying that "we were the only group to ever practice slavery" are people on the right that trot it out to react to as a weird way to deflect blame from the truly horrific practice of chattel slavery in the new world. As if this pre-supposition then allows them to point out that "everyone else was doing it".

Discussing the evil of slavery and its legacy in the history of the new world and the US in particular doesn't need the addition or mention of Arab slavers or the existence of modern day slavery in other parts of the world.

schmendeler said:

---

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

You don't have to hold the natives in high moral regard to think it was wrong to treat them like slaves and just an obstacle blocking your access to natural resources.

It was christians that did that.

---

Meh, atheists by far hold the higher body count in the last few centuries...congrats..

But counter to your statement, tens of millions of people exist south of our border than otherwise wouldn't. History is metal across the board, I just find it funny how euros are always the ultimate villains. With the information they had at the time, can you not kind of see how they would have viewed a bunch of people sacrificing each other and drinking human blood and eating lice out of each other's hair as "not fully human"...given the ignorance of a 17th century euro who had never been exposed to primitive peoples before?

You are probably 100% convinced you would have been the noble "voice of reason" back then. That's kind of the main beef I have with liberals blasting people from hundreds of years ago...how are you so convinced you wouldn't have followed the herd?

---

You can acknowledge that bad things were done in the past without wanting to tear everything down that was built on top of it.

I don't know that i would have been any better than the people back then. I'm trying now, though.

---

Agreed. Hindsight is weird. On one hand, western slavery was an abomination...no debating that. On the other hand, how many black people are living much better lives than they would have otherwise had it never existed? My black neighbor is very successful, and came up from being a working class farm kid in East Texas...we have it really easy here, all of us.

My main problem, is this dishonest notion that we were basically the only group of people to ever practice slavery. A lot of brainwashed people, particularly younger people, seem to believe that. When slavery is actually going on at this very moment in many third world places throughout the world.

---

I mostly agree with your first paragraph.

Your second paragraph is a bit of a red herring, imo. The only people i ever see saying that "we were the only group to ever practice slavery" are people on the right that trot it out to react to as a weird way to deflect blame from the truly horrific practice of chattel slavery in the new world. As if this pre-supposition then allows them to point out that "everyone else was doing it".

Discussing the evil of slavery and its legacy in the history of the new world and the US in particular doesn't need the addition or mention of Arab slavers or the existence of modern day slavery in other parts of the world.

---

What does any of that have to do with the time, place, and characters in Sinners?

schmendeler said:

---

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

You don't have to hold the natives in high moral regard to think it was wrong to treat them like slaves and just an obstacle blocking your access to natural resources.

It was christians that did that.

---

Meh, atheists by far hold the higher body count in the last few centuries...congrats..

But counter to your statement, tens of millions of people exist south of our border than otherwise wouldn't. History is metal across the board, I just find it funny how euros are always the ultimate villains. With the information they had at the time, can you not kind of see how they would have viewed a bunch of people sacrificing each other and drinking human blood and eating lice out of each other's hair as "not fully human"...given the ignorance of a 17th century euro who had never been exposed to primitive peoples before?

You are probably 100% convinced you would have been the noble "voice of reason" back then. That's kind of the main beef I have with liberals blasting people from hundreds of years ago...how are you so convinced you wouldn't have followed the herd?

---

You can acknowledge that bad things were done in the past without wanting to tear everything down that was built on top of it.

I don't know that i would have been any better than the people back then. I'm trying now, though.

---

So then why even make the second part of your first comment? Seems like you're ****ting on Christianity as whole and testing it down for something that happened hundreds of years ago.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

You don't have to hold the natives in high moral regard to think it was wrong to treat them like slaves and just an obstacle blocking your access to natural resources.

It was christians that did that.

---

Meh, atheists by far hold the higher body count in the last few centuries...congrats..

But counter to your statement, tens of millions of people exist south of our border than otherwise wouldn't. History is metal across the board, I just find it funny how euros are always the ultimate villains. With the information they had at the time, can you not kind of see how they would have viewed a bunch of people sacrificing each other and drinking human blood and eating lice out of each other's hair as "not fully human"...given the ignorance of a 17th century euro who had never been exposed to primitive peoples before?

You are probably 100% convinced you would have been the noble "voice of reason" back then. That's kind of the main beef I have with liberals blasting people from hundreds of years ago...how are you so convinced you wouldn't have followed the herd?

---

You can acknowledge that bad things were done in the past without wanting to tear everything down that was built on top of it.

I don't know that i would have been any better than the people back then. I'm trying now, though.

---

So then why even make the second part of your first comment? Seems like you're ****ting on Christianity as whole and testing it down for something that happened hundreds of years ago.

---

The post i was replying to (directly before mine) was talking about how backwards and blood thirsty the natives were while calling the Europeans "advanced and civilized".

That is the context of my comment.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

You don't have to hold the natives in high moral regard to think it was wrong to treat them like slaves and just an obstacle blocking your access to natural resources.

It was christians that did that.

---

Meh, atheists by far hold the higher body count in the last few centuries...congrats..

But counter to your statement, tens of millions of people exist south of our border than otherwise wouldn't. History is metal across the board, I just find it funny how euros are always the ultimate villains. With the information they had at the time, can you not kind of see how they would have viewed a bunch of people sacrificing each other and drinking human blood and eating lice out of each other's hair as "not fully human"...given the ignorance of a 17th century euro who had never been exposed to primitive peoples before?

You are probably 100% convinced you would have been the noble "voice of reason" back then. That's kind of the main beef I have with liberals blasting people from hundreds of years ago...how are you so convinced you wouldn't have followed the herd?

---

You can acknowledge that bad things were done in the past without wanting to tear everything down that was built on top of it.

I don't know that i would have been any better than the people back then. I'm trying now, though.

---

So then why even make the second part of your first comment? Seems like you're ****ting on Christianity as whole and testing it down for something that happened hundreds of years ago.

---

The post i was replying to (directly before mine) was talking about how backwards and blood thirsty the natives were while calling the Europeans "advanced and civilized".

That is the context of my comment.

---

And you could've responded with just the first part. The second was unnecessary.

---

Nah I'm good with my original post. The Spanish were conquering the new world in large part because of their religion (Christianity).

schmendeler said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

You don't have to hold the natives in high moral regard to think it was wrong to treat them like slaves and just an obstacle blocking your access to natural resources.

It was christians that did that.

---

Meh, atheists by far hold the higher body count in the last few centuries...congrats..

But counter to your statement, tens of millions of people exist south of our border than otherwise wouldn't. History is metal across the board, I just find it funny how euros are always the ultimate villains. With the information they had at the time, can you not kind of see how they would have viewed a bunch of people sacrificing each other and drinking human blood and eating lice out of each other's hair as "not fully human"...given the ignorance of a 17th century euro who had never been exposed to primitive peoples before?

You are probably 100% convinced you would have been the noble "voice of reason" back then. That's kind of the main beef I have with liberals blasting people from hundreds of years ago...how are you so convinced you wouldn't have followed the herd?

---

You can acknowledge that bad things were done in the past without wanting to tear everything down that was built on top of it.

I don't know that i would have been any better than the people back then. I'm trying now, though.

---

So then why even make the second part of your first comment? Seems like you're ****ting on Christianity as whole and testing it down for something that happened hundreds of years ago.

---

The post i was replying to (directly before mine) was talking about how backwards and blood thirsty the natives were while calling the Europeans "advanced and civilized".

That is the context of my comment.

---

And you could've responded with just the first part. The second was unnecessary.

---

Nah I'm good with my original post. The Spanish were conquering the new world in large part because of their religion (Christianity).

---

No. They were after gold and silver, not religion. Columbus sailed west looking for the spice trade, not proselytizing. De Gama sailed east and around Africa for the same. The encomienda system and later repartimiento system were all about extracting gold and silver. There were priests and missionaries that did some ****ty things (which is understandable given the general ignorance of the time and the savagery of many native cultures), but they were not the Church as a whole and were asking for the ride with the conquistadors, not spearheading conquest.

That's not too mention multiple Spanish monarchs and several Popes condemned the enslavement of indigenous people, and the Spanish crown started abolishing the enslavement of and establishing rights of the indigenous in 1512.

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

You don't have to hold the natives in high moral regard to think it was wrong to treat them like slaves and just an obstacle blocking your access to natural resources.

It was christians that did that.

---

Meh, atheists by far hold the higher body count in the last few centuries...congrats..

But counter to your statement, tens of millions of people exist south of our border that otherwise wouldn't...and in more advanced and civilized societies than would have otherwise existed...colonialism was a net POSITIVE. History is metal across the board, I just find it funny how euros are always the ultimate villains. With the information they had at the time, can you not kind of see how they would have viewed a bunch of people from across the world with bones and sticks through their noses sacrificing each other and drinking human blood and eating lice out of each other's hair as "not the same"?...Especially given the ignorance of an illiterate 17th century euro who had never been exposed to primitive peoples before?

You are probably 100% convinced you would have been the noble "voice of reason" or "conscientious objector" back then. That's kind of the main beef I have with liberals always blasting people from hundreds of years ago (well, really only white people)...how are you so convinced you wouldn't have followed the herd if you were born into it?

---

Buddy, millions of people died during the Columbian Exchange and as a result millions of people weren't born who would have been. That argument you're making is idiotic. Oh, and we have the letters from Columbus's men and the earliest Conquistadors. They boasted of beating women until they allowed themselves to be raped and of taking children as sex slaves. We also know exactly how the Spanish tortured "heretics" and anyone accused of a capital crime as well as the gruesome public executions they enacted. Maybe save the moral high horse.