Message from @John F Guilliman
Discord ID: 667260068000956437
I think what causes so many analyses of the bad guys--whether they be left-wing or right-wing baddies--is that most voices in the media are controlled. Even the somewhat independent ones like Praeger really aren't that independent. We are fed controlled narratives on Right AND Left. It's that Hegelian Dialectic trap.
Like, I could igv eyou 50 things that I consider rank hypocrisy and stupidity right now on "The Right." It's so easy to do that, you see?
and people fall for it, every time.
Both sides collude in their lies about each other, in the controlled media. Acceptable Narratives are crafted, others suppressed. And paid actors are what most of the "activists" you see are.
It took me a while to red pill that hard but honestly, just look: this is what it is. When you are arguing with what you call "The Left' (or "The Right" even) you are arguing with a phantasm created for you by the media. We have to break out of gov't controllec corporate media.
Globally.
Figuring out that we're all being propagandized is step #1.
Behold, the new 007
So far as the James Bond Cinematic universe (as opposed to the novels) 'James Bond' is a code name that is passed from agent to agent. This explains why Bond from *Dr. No* in the 60s can be the hero of *Goldeneye* in '95. Because there's not going to be a septuagenarian action hero.
So Idres Elba who is a brit, which fucks me up because he did a good job as Stringer Bell in *The Wire* could be an appropriate Bond. I cannot see a woman playing as Bond because the character is too masculine.
A female Bond would be retarded though. I don't think a healthy 20 YO woman could be as virile or convincing as an aged Sean Connery.
Bond is intended with an inherent campiness that Lampoon's the stereotypes. Gender swapping kills the satire. Which is the bedrock they need to pull off the story
In the Flemming novels he is pretty cold-blooded. Almost a murderer except that he mostly kills communists who are by definition not human.
Okay, I'm admittedly not a big bond fan. So the campiness might just be a films thing. But it's still very much needs bond to be a man
"So Idres Elba who is a brit"
looks african to me
Sure in either version a female Bond would not make sense. Just that in Fleming's novels Bond was a specific individual while in the movies most consider it a position held by different individuals.....
@Goddess Tyche zoroastrian I am indeed
@bocchi just wants friends Then why are you on Discord instead of taking Iran back from the mudslimes?
if you're zoroastrian why are you on discord instead of fucking your sister
Trying to find your mom's contact @Death in June
@Goddess Tyche we're doing that I was just at a protest
May you succeed in your undertaking.
No be kill, pls.
#MakePersiaZoroastrianAgain
That will happen islam in iran is in real danger I read a report about iran being the biggest growing church in the world and our masque attendance being lower than UK muslims beside that kurds in iraqi Kurdistan are also returning to the old religion
U.K. muslims are all in the pub!
👌
The only reason 007 was made into several individuals rather than one in the movies is because they had to hire a new actor every so often, so to not confuse people they just went with the multiple Bonds thing. But outside of the limitation of acting material it's a stupid idea to have multiple Bonds.
It'd basically mean that being 007 coincides with being super charismatic, having or adopting the exact same taste, being polyamoric, etc. etc. All the exact same traits for every single individual, it's nonsense.
In my head canon it used to be that all 007's are the same person, simple enough. But then they hired Daniel Craig and shattered the illusion by styling him so differently.
That's why I don't consider him to actually be 007.
He's an imposter, only carrying the name for commercial sake.
That's a fourth-wall interpretation obviously.
But the butchering of source material for commercial gain has been what I think is bad practice within Hollywood for a long time.
Many angry writers have spoken up about it but we rarely hear of that because their reach is small compared to Hollywood.
In other words, if people only get angry if or when 007 becomes a woman, and didn't get angry about Caniel Craig's casting, then I consider them a little hypocritical tbh.
Although it may not be his casting that's the issue, they could've styled him properly.
They went with the excuse that they had to adapt him to modern day demands, to which I say: stop lying please?