He only needs to be loyal to one person.
This person may be decent, wise, and know how to use people.
Maybe faint and incompetent, degenerate and corrupt.
But no matter what, the knight only needs to obey, without judging whether the master is good or bad.
The knight killed the unjust prime minister with the sole purpose of avenging his master.
For the unjust king, the knight chose to submit. In the end he may be dead or alive.
However, there is no doubt that the king is still alive.
The director chose the Iranian Peder, who is a parting male protagonist, to play the king.
Choose a black man to play the role of the local feudal lord Bator who has no descendants.
The wandering orphan is the leader of the white knight.
And the prime minister who makes plans to reap the profits and conceit is a white hereditary aristocracy.
In fact, it is almost the same in modern terms.
Democracy has not been realized. For the current white bourgeoisie, they control all of the country, such as requiring Messi to pay 50% of all income as taxes. We think this is irrelevant, because it didn't happen in China.
We already feel heavy to pay the 17% consumption tax.
But why is it 50% instead of 40% or 45% or 55%? Why is it 17%, not 16%, not 18%?
Does personal opinion play a role in making such a decision?
It doesn't seem to be.
Whether in China or Messi's Spain or Europe or America.
Rousseau advocated human rights, but did not stop the enclosure movement.
Land and other resources belong to the bourgeoisie. That is, the king.
The last knight died under the king's sword.
View more about Last Knights reviews
