Don’t get me wrong; some of my best friends are betas and white knights, but…
…In the socio-sexual spectrum, betas and white knights are the useful idiot minions for the perverse cultural Marxist social engineers.
A telling anecdote about the state of America’s girls and women:
In 15 years as a BSA leader I never heard dads speak so proudly as when saying that their daughters were tomboys.
(BSA=Boy Scouts of America?)
Truth be told, I’ve even heard ostensible alpha males bragging about their macho daughters. (No, I am not referring to John Scalzi admitting his daughter can beat him arm-wrestling, just in case I confused you.)
…Another reason for this glorification of grrlpower and imputation of male sex roles onto daughters by beta dads is, it must be said, a subconscious kowtowing to the reigning feminist shrikegeist. The culture is so steeped in feminist idiocy and the attendant ugly woman project of training girls to grow up into ballbusting men (and of shaming men to become supplicating nancyboys) that it seems perfectly reasonable and normal for the regular dad on the suburban street to crow about reshaping his daughter into an androgynous weirdo with a penchant for throwing balls…
Well, yeah. But I’ve noticed this attitude in white knights even when the female in question is no relation to them. They take some kind of pride in it–most of them even have the same facial expression when they sing the praises of some butch broad who comes to their attention. Maybe part of this is the American worship of underdogs; or the equally pathological hatred of favorites. Maybe this speaks to a subconscious obsession with gender-bending that has spread from the elites into the commoners.
I am frequently annoyed at how superficial the manosphere and “Alt Right” work so hard to be. But on the other hand, I must admit that we aren’t just being threatened politically, economically and militarily–we are under attack on even more basic levels:
Genetically–we are being herded toward a race war.
Anatomically–we are seeing the tip of the iceberg in regards to self-mutilation. The more “transgenderism” is normalized, the more psychologically damaged people will volunteer for it. And it won’t stop with mere gender-bending.
Pharmacutically–As if we need more psychologically damaged people, more of the population is being medicated with powerful, mind-altering drugs for excuses that are suspect. And children are getting hooked young–usually with the consent of parents.
Even for biologically sound individuals who don’t want a sex change, the male population is increasingly effeminate while women become more and more butch–all encouraged by pop culture and the Public Education Cartel. This engineered gender confusion is destroying what is left of the family–the fundamental underpinning of humanity.
Our enemies won’t stop at destroying the USA. You can see they’re already positioning themselves to fundamentally transform humanity itself.
But, sometimes advertising in the right way can give you a bump. For months Shadow Hand Blues has been buried on about page # umpteen zillion or so at Amazon. Nobody bought it, because nobody knew it existed.
Virtual Pulp took advantage of an advertising special on Kindle Nation Daily. (It’s unlikely we’ll ever use Book Bub unless their prices get a whole lot less ridiculous.)
Then on May 29 SHB reached #60 in Mysteries>Private Investigators; #76 in Suspense>Political; # 68 in Historical/Suspense; and # 8,755 paid in the Kindle Store. (The rankings were actually a little better than that before I thought to take a screenshot.) Not bestseller status, of course, but it at least moved the book up out of the enormous slush pile for a hot second where browsing readers might actually find it.
And a few did. Sales spiked for one day. What’s nice is, since the promotion ended, it hasn’t slipped completely back into obscurity. Some E-Book sales are still trickling in, and it’s accumulating some KENP (Kindle Edition Normalized Pages) read, along with its prequel, Fast Cars and Rock & Roll, which is targeted at a much narrower niche audience. Maybe one or both will pick up some reviews, as well.
While watching the Cup races this season, it occurs to me that NASCAR is, in some ways, a perfect microcosm of American culture. In particular right now, I’m thinking of Danica Patrick.
Saturday’s All-Star race was wild and wacky from start to finish. The drivers, crew chiefs…even the announcers were confused by the complex format and rules. Tony Stewart, with his usual diplomatic finesse (ahem!) said something to the effect of: “This is the worst job of officiating I’ve ever seen. I’m glad this is my last one.”
But the Danica Patrick Factor is easy to understand, because it is symbolic of the Womyn Factor in our feminized society as a whole. She remained the backmarker consistently all through the race, only moving up from the back of the field when another driver was penalized, wrecked, etc., and sent behind her.
This was the All-Star race. In an “all-star” anything, you’d expect only the cream of the crop to participate, and at one point in history that was the case.
Danica is not one of the elite drivers. She did not belong in the All-Star race. Why was she even there?
Because she’s a fan favorite. Fans voted her in.
Much like real life, the best women can’t compete with the best men in most physical contests, despite what the pop culture svengalis would have you believe. And average women can’t compete with average men. But there are more than enough white knights out there to give them opportunities they didn’t earn and don’t deserve, all while regurgitating The Narrative (which says that celebrity womyn like Danica are oppressed victims who rise to prominence DESPITE discrimination AGAINST them; which means they had to be even better than the men, blah blah blah.)
One easy example to point out from the culture is our social-engineered military. The latest fiasco is putting females in the Rangers. They can’t meet the standards men have to meet, so standards were changed to let them in anyway.
Because vagina.
Even in normal cup races, Danica always shakes out around the middle of the field–behind all the drivers who have support and resources commensurate with hers, but ahead of most of the independent, low-budget one-driver teams without the support and resources.
Organizations like the NFL are already fully SJW-converged. They’re not yet stupid enough to start forcing teams to add female players to their rosters, but the league is a zealous enforcer of the LGBT agenda. They already coerced the governor of Georgia to overturn the will of the people–it’s frightening to imagine what kind of muscle they must use to crush dissent within their own organization on behalf of the advancement of sexual deviancy.
This madness won’t stop until the cancer spreads to every once-great institution and destroys it. Keep in mind that even NASCAR is pushing for more “diversity” now. It’s only going to get worse.
In the Silver Age of comics, when Marvel became a serious competitor for DC, there was a distinct contrast in the storytelling styles of the two publishers, especially in the team titles (DC’s Justice League of America and Marvel’s Avengers, primarily). While DC spent most of its comic panels on plotting, Marvel’s approach was something more like: “Forget this silly script treatment–let’s have somebody fight!”
The “Marvel Misunderstanding” subplot became an inside joke with comic book readers–when there were no supervillains handy, excuses were dreamed up to have Marvel’s heroes duke it out with each other.
The difference between Marvel’s characters on the silver screen and in comic book pages is almost as drastic as the spy novels of Ian Fleming compared to the cinematic James Bond in the Roger Moore days. Still, we got a little “Marvel Misunderstanding” throwback in the first Avengers flick.
As the title of this movie (“Civil War”) suggests, most of the screen time is dedicated to fraternal conflict among Marvel’s big screen pantheon. But not due to a misunderstanding–because of a fundamental disagreement about “oversight.”
Collateral damage caused in the previous Marvel movies has caused various globalist interests to call for “hero control” (my term, thank-you).
Iron Man, at one point a free market capitalist hero, is now more of a corporatist bleeding heart who believes the answer is for the Avengers to be leashed by the United Nations. Now there is a brilliant quantum leap in logic: collateral damage caused by saving the planet from despotic monsters must be curbed by putting the good guys under the direct control of an organization with a horrific track record, run exclusively by unelected bureaucrats who don’t believe in representative government and are not accountable to any people anywhere in any way.
On the other side is Captain America. He doesn’t spell it out like I did, but amazingly, he senses the danger in such an arrangement, that would make the problem they’re trying to solve even worse (which is pretty much the de facto purpose of the United Nations).
Interesting analyses can be drawn from this scenario. It can be a metaphor for the whole “gun control” struggle or, more broadly, the march toward police statehood, and the belated reaction to it by Americans who prefer to be free men, partly represented in the Trumpening. Again, it’s amazing how accurately Tony Stark and Steve Rogers represent their respective sides, considering Hollywood’s blatant myopic axe-grinding in every other movie touching on the subject.
Marvel’s done a great job with characterization and humor in their movies, and that continues here, even though this might be their most somber one yet. Suddenly there is a whole subplot regarding Stark’s parents which affects his frame of mind in this movie. Robert Downey Jr. pulls it off with his usual panache.
There’s a lot of character tweaking I found annoying, as a one-time comic afficionado. Of course, I quit reading comics as they became 100% SJW converged, so a lot has probably changed since then. Black Widow is about 20X more badass than in the comics I read, but she has been that way in all the movies, because vagina. It was cool to see Black Panther on the big screen, but he punches way above his weight here, too. But the most annoying is Spiderman.
Apparently the webslinger is getting yet another reboot. This time Peter Parker has a younger, attractive Aunt May, and is given his costume by Tony Stark who, somehow, has discovered his secret identity without ever having met him. Normally Spiderman would be the heavy hitter of all the heroes in this story (when the character was introduced by Stan Lee originally, only Thor, the Thing and the Hulk were stronger), but he is reduced mostly to comedy relief. The way he was brought in, and dismissed, makes him seem like just an afterthought in the script. Too bad, because the actor played him better than any other has, IMO.
Physical prowess is treated inconsistently in every superhero adaptation for big and small screen. Of course part of this is necessary to conform to the feminist aspect of The Narrative. Much of it is no doubt contrived to make scenes more dramatic. Then there is the star clout of Downey Jr., who frankly got more attention in this film than the title character did. Spiderman and Captain America are not played by actors worshipped to the degree he is; therefore the characters must be depicted as inferior to his, one way or the other.
In any case, most moviegoers don’t know much about the source material anyway, so this should be a fun diversion for a couple hours.
Not since John Milius filmed Red Dawn (the original) has Hollywood been slapped in the face like this. And while that cold war kiddie flick has aged poorly, and dealt with only the most superficial threat to America, this one digs much deeper.
Imagine this: In the not-so-distant future, a large-scale electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the U.S. energy grid wipes out all power in the country. Electronic devices cease to function. No more phones. No Internet. No TV. Credit cards become useless as the entire banking system grinds to a halt. Food, water and mere survival become every person’s primary concerns.
“Amerigeddon” depicts a dystopia in which the American government reacts to a debilitating EMP strike by declaring martial law and stripping Americans of their constitutional rights and their guns. And by the way, it was the U.S. government, in conjunction with the United Nations, that staged the EMP attack in the first place.
It was a plot that none of the studios wanted to touch, so Norris and Heavin independently produced and financed the movie. In an interview with WND, Norris called it “a film of passion” that he and Heavin very much wanted to share with the world.
“We just decided we’re going to do it ourselves,” said Norris, the son of legendary actor and WND exclusive columnist Chuck Norris. “We said we’ll go take it to the theaters in areas that we think people would gravitate toward a film like this, and [hopefully] it’s something that resonates with people that believe in the First Amendment, the Second Amendment; people that believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights – this is a movie that was created just for them.”
No kidding the studios didn’t want to touch a story like this. Their mission is to condition movie-going audiences to irrationally fear “right-wing extremists,” not seriously consider some of their concerns.
I don’t know for sure yet what kind of quality we’re looking at, here, in screenwriting, acting, etc., but it does seem to comprise some themes that need to be explored…all of it related to the fate of our country and the world, and how it will affect each of us–our lives, liberty, and property.
Those themes have been explored in indie fiction–including some published here at Virtual Pulp. But for people who haven’t opened a book since high school and never intend to, this movie could get them thinking. At least, I hope so.
Everyone in North America is encouraged to be proud of whatever they are…UNLESS they are a white male heterosexual. And that’s kinda’ funny, because if you’re gonna subscribe to group/tribal identity, that particular demographic has a whole lot more bragging rights than any other.
All I can say to Bill Whittle is “Touche, bro!”
I don’t know why the video clip is cut off right where it is. If it had gone on for another second, you’d have seen the entitled female thought cop shoving her hand into the camera, blacking out the frame in classic Nazi fashion.
In actuality she was probably trying to grab the smartphone to destroy it or edit out the evidence of her behavior. The fact that the footage survived and was uploaded to Youtube means that one of the pantywaist millenials on the scene must have grown a pair and fended her off. Sadly, just the act of doing so ran the risk of arrest by the campus police–she would have made an accusation of assault or rape or similar when the owner of the device didn’t comply with her demands, and her victims would have been automatically assumed guilty.
If they didn’t have video evidence of what really happened.
There are several different ideas about what film noir is and isn’t, and you can hear a lot of them on youtube.
The best interpretation of the French term would probably be phrased “dark cinema” in English. Here are some of the requirements as I learned them:
Shot in black & white.
Dark, moody lighting.
Made in the postwar years.
Featuring a femme fatale.
A very cynical outlook.
(Wow–sounds like a genre custom made for the red pill manosphere.)
This classic masterpiece written by Daniel Mainwaring and directed by Jacques Tourneur fits the criteria pretty well. Whatever someone’s chosen definition of film noir, Out of the Past is universally accepted.
This movie has much in common with The Maltese Falcon–another classic masterpiece I highly recommend (and the most I’ve liked Humphry Bogart in any flick).
Jeff Marcum (Robert Mitchum) is a tough private detective who comes off smart, is never at a loss for words and seems to have rock solid frame control. You would assume him to be an alpha…until he meets Kathie (Jane Greer).
He completely lets his frame crumble; places Kathie on a pedestal; falls for her lies and reverse game (I’ve never seen a reference in the manosphere to women using game…but they do, and here’s an example); double-crosses his client; flushes his career down the toilet; and ultimately has to go into hiding, assuming a new identity, after realizing he’s been used to help Kathie avoid the consequences of her thieving, murdering, deceptive behavior.
At the beginning of the film his name has already been changed to “Jeff Bailey” and he runs a gas station in a small town. He’s found another girl, too–a good one: honest, feminine, submissive…a keeper back then; a unicorn today.
Kirk Douglas plays Whit, who is ostensibly the villain of the story–but is he, really? He’s the one Kathie played for a chump before Jeff came along. He’s also the client that Jeff double-crossed because of her. One of his henchmen (for lack of a better term) just happened to drive through the small town one day and saw Jeff pumping gas.
Just like that, all Jeff’s sins and foolishness come out of the past to bite him hard, in the present.
The acting is solid all around, and the production values are just plain classy. Though it takes place in a bygone era (when you really could change identities and start a new life), I consider the story timeless. However, the plot skeleton was transposed into the 1980s for the movie Against All Odds, which is also a good watch.
Heartfelt thanks to The Social Pathologist, and his commenters, for putting my Cassandra Complex into remission. And thanks to Free Northerner for my discovery of The Social Pathologist.
(The Cassandra Complex shares space with my Elijah Complex. Thankfully both are in remission, now.)
Our domestic enemies are in the habit of framing our choices for us.
Every election our choices are narrowed down to Socialism vs. Socialism Lite. Anyone who is an actual alternative is destroyed, one way or another.
Our choices in entertainment are:
Women/homosexuals are superior to men intellectually (sitcoms).
Women/homosexuals are superior to men morally (dramas).
Women are superior to men physically (action-adventure).
And so on. Our choices regarding Vietnam were:
Continue pouring money and young men’s lives into a “police action” with no strategic objective, that ultimately works against America’s interests.
Pull out and ensure that the sacrifices already made were completely in vain (except for how they weakened America and strengthened our enemies).
Never, ever, was the option to fight a war with the intention of winning, and truly pursuing the stated goal: “halting the spread of Communism.”
(Nixon did actually bomb North Vietnam to the peace table, which only provided Congress the excuse to abandon South Vietnam when the Communists predictably broke the treaty.)
Nor has the option ever been “Let’s mind our own business and only sacrifice our fighting men in the defense of our country and its interests.” Not since 1917, anyway.
Now another choice has been framed for us:
There is the traditional “right” (a bunch of NeoCons and Rinos in the pockets of the same oligarchal scumbags who own the Democrats) who consistently (by pure coincidence, of course) lose every significant battle, even when controlling both the Executive and Legislative branches of US government. Plus the normalcy bias-afflicted status quo-worshipers; moderates; and coincidence theorists who vote for them because Fox News tells them anyone better is too radical. Both the office-holding surrender monkeys and their gullible voter base have recently been labeled “cuckservatives” or “cucks” for short.
And now there is the “Alt Right”–those who intentionally lump you together with the cucks if you value individual liberty and representative government higher than racial identity. In other words, the loudest voices in the “Alt Right” are both the mirror image of the goose-stepping collectivist SJWs on the left, and the caricature of a “right-winger” that those goose-stepping collectivist SJWs cling to as a vital component of The Narrative.
If you don’t want to join the hive mind of the left, then your choice is either to assimilate with the socialists in “conservative” drag (NeoCons, RINOs, cucksevatives, the GOPe, etc.); or to buy into white supremacy (also referred to as “Western Civilization” in the white tribalist blogosphere).
My greatest fear for the dissident right has always been capture by Stormfront entryists. Unfortunately, this seems to have come to pass with the successful influence of Stormfront types who have successfully (been) able to rebrand themselves as the alt-Right.
“Stormfront” is probably a good euphemism for these “Western Civilization!” screaming individuals who seem to be reading from a script written by Marxists who want there to be no reasonable alternatives. Evidently “1488” is another term for Neo-Nazis/white supremacists trying to contaminate us by association.
…(H)ow are they even “Right” at all? Pro abortion, Pro Homo, Eugenics, strong anti-capitalism, Anti Christian: how the hell are they even considered right at all?
How indeed? Well, I’ll tell you how. They are considered “right-wing” because we have allowed the left-wing to revise history and redefine what “left” and “right” mean…in addition to their Orwellian redefinitions of terms like “liberal,” “unemployment” and “budget cuts.”
The “Alt Right” weltanschuang is simplistic, but with an increasing list of addendums. Basically, if you are not a superficial dolt (who can type big words in a comment thread occasionally) whose universe revolves entirely around skin color, then you are no different from the Boehners, Ryans, Bushes, Romneys, McCains, Doles, et al.
Ah, but skin color is not enough! We can’t forget about the sinister Jooooooooooooos! You may look white, but you’re not racially pure if you happen to be Semitic, and therefore are an enemy regardless of what you actually do, think or say, because WESTERN CIVILIZATION!!!!!!!!!!!
Doesn’t matter that the vast majority of the enemies of freedom are apostate Gentiles, they’ll keep searching for a Jew until they find one. They don’t even notice that the left hates Israel more than they do…
…Most of their reasoning begins and ends with, “Do you even Nazi, brah?”
I hadn’t heard of “NRx” prior to reading the post. But apparently Virtual Pulp is and has been “NRx” from the start, going by the implied definition in the linked post. Still, I would like to know what the letters stand for, before I start using the term.
NRx seemed to provide a space where intelligent ideas could be discussed freely and a rallying point for those intelligent but dissatisfied people of the right. However, with the infusion of the alt-Right, thought policing–admittedly of different kind–has returned with methods of the SJW, driving away the intelligent people.
…For the Left, this state of affairs is particularly fortuitous and sometimes you have to wonder if they bring out their alt-Right hitmen every now and then to discredit intelligent Rightists through guilt by association.
I’ve wondered this for a long time, actually.
As pointed out here, previously, the rising tide of white tribalism is fueled by the discrimination mandated and enforced by the “Social Justice” industry.
The real life discrimination against whites is seen as a sort of cosmic Karma for the sins of the past and so many leftists are prepared to accept some discrimination against the whites since they feel it’s a payback for the past. Of course, punishing someone for someone else’s sins is totally unjust, but intellectual consistency isn’t a feature of mob logic. I think quite a few “soft” righties are sympathetic to this view as well.
All this theater is summed up pretty well in this statement:
Nationalism does not have to be toxic. The alt-Right makes it so.
A reasonably intelligent man will learn these maxims eventually. Unfortunately, most will learn by experience via the Hard Knock Academy.
IM MAXIM #108 – Give a woman less attention than she wants, and she will desire it. Give her as much of it as she wants, and she will not. Women quickly devalue the attention of a man who would attend to her every whim, so be frugal; it is easy for a man to be too generous, but near impossible for him to be too frugal.
IM MAXIM #109 – In matters of women, entitlement and worthiness is a matter of false equivalence; her level of entitlement almost always exceeds what she is worth.
IM MAXIM #110 – If she can find a way to blame a man for her decisions, she will. If she can find a way to avoid guilt, she will. Oft these two intertwine, for women are allergic to responsibility and loathe to be held accountable.
Maxim #110 helps explain, for instance, the firestorm of criticism aimed at Donald Trump because of his careless remark about women and abortions. Yes, he was ambushed by the press (probably mild compared to what lies ahead for him), but that’s not my point here. His cardinal sin was to suggest that a woman who asks for an abortion be held just as accountable as the doctor who performs it (assuming the doctor is a man–in the case of a female doctor, well, obviously it’s a victimless event).
Even anti-abortion females are shocked by this outrageous suggestion that the women who choose to have unprotected sex, then choose to have the baby killed, should share in the blame for what results from their choice.
“But…but…but…those women are victims! Because rape.”
We all know that very few abortions are requested because of rape.
“But…but…but…those women are victims! Because the patriarchy! Some man manipulated her into sex. She had no choice but to abort because of how she’ll be treated if she doesn’t because of the unwritten rules that men dreamed up and men enforce.”
IM MAXIM #111 – Women have a propensity to distract you from your mission, do not permit this.
Ouch, ouch, and triple-ouch.
I once had a lot of goals in life, most of which were within my grasp to achieve. In most cases, I ruined my own chances by allowing myself to be distracted by some woman or another.
Women want goal-oriented men who have worked hard and achieved great things. But if they latch onto a man before he has achieved his goals…sin loi, dude. She will not tolerate the focus and sacrifices needed to pursue those goals, and manufacture all kinds of drama which MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE over any- and everything that’s important to you to accomplish. And if you succumb to her demands, later she will of course blame you for having accomplished nothing.
And she’s right to blame you. She can’t help it. Like the Geico (or whatever) commercial says, it’s what you do if you’re a woman. If the man doesn’t maintain frame under the barrage of the woman’s shit tests, it is his fault. Frogs and scorpions, young man. Frogs and scorpions.
The following maxims lead me to believe they were written in no particular order:
IM MAXIM #115 – Whenever there is a problem between a man and woman, the fault is always assumed to lie with the man and never the woman. And so because of this, the onus to fix the problem lies on the man, not the woman. Even when it is obvious that all if not most the blame lies with a woman, polite society will reject all good sense and insist that liability is man’s to bear. Would it then be a stretch to presuppose that even on the most subconscious of levels, people believe it easier to coerce a man than reason with a woman?
IM MAXIM #116 – Women define themselves by their relationships, men by their achievements. Refer to Maxim #104
IM MAXIM #117 – Female helplessness is an asset prompting charity and sympathy, male helplessness is a liability prompting disgust and aversion. Women are independent by choice, men have no choice.
IM MAXIM #118 – Any man who needs a woman is not a man she’d want. Women want to feel wanted, not needed, they can’t handle being needed. Needing a woman is tantamount to forfeiting her, women are repelled by desire that has transformed into need.
IM MAXIM #119 – Women are the needier sex and hence the deadlier sex; great need necessitates great duplicity.
You have been taught to believe something totally different, I know. In fact most women actually convince themselves that a weak, vulnerable man who pedestalizes her and lets her wear the pants is attractive (as long as he maintains a six-pack and earns a six-figure income like in the movies). But she herself feels no attraction to helpless, needy males. She just embraces it as an ideal that other women should strive for.
IM MAXIM #123 – Snagging a high value man is women’s entire purpose for being, although she’s never quite sure she got the best deal possible.
This is one reason there is no such thing as “happily ever after” in the real world–even if you were her Prince Charming at one point.
IM MAXIM #126 – If a woman accuses you of cheating when you haven’t done anything, there’s a high chance she’s projecting her infidelity onto you – abandon her.
Sounds ridiculously simplistic, but it is absolutely accurate. The most intelligent woman, regardless of how high her IQ, is just not very complex. They seem unpredictable and mysterious to the miseducated male mind, but that’s a myth, reinforced by the culture. The red pill demolishes myths like these, but few even find it–much less swallow it. You can grow to hate women–simply imagining that it is purely malevolent sadism behind their actions–if you don’t accept the scorpion/frog paradigm for what it is.
I strongly suggest that younger men read the more exhastive list of these maxims and take them to heart. Readjust your thinking before it’s too late for you. I have learned by experience that these are true, whether they sound harsh or not.
On the one hand I wish this information had been available for me back in the day. Oh, how badly I wish. But on the other hand I have to be honest.
The fact is, I probably would have rejected this wisdom. I was too hard-headed. Not only did I swallow the blue pill, but I wanted to believe the myth. I thought my one-itus was a virtue, and wanted there to be a special snowflake I could place on my pedestal.
Ignorance may feel like bliss at the time, but it leads to misery in the long run.
IM MAXIM #128 – Women need their ex’s to be losers to feel like they made the right choice. If even one is a winner, her hypergamy will realise a glitch in its optimisation and thus the afflicted woman becomes awash with regret.
IM MAXIM #129 – If you place your trust on a woman’s conscience to compel her to do the right thing, then you are a fool by definition.
IM MAXIM #130 – The smarter the woman, the more nimble the rationalisation of her emotion.
IM MAXIM #132 – As a man, win or lose, you have to take risks; being complacent and passive is a female privilege – men have the burden of performance. Taking risks is core to the personality of masculinity, when nature gave you XY chromosomes, this was ordained. Meek and lazy men get nothing.
IM MAXIM #133 – Masculine women are a poor simulacrum of man, for they capture a man’s fierceness absent his reason or accountability.
Or, as it was so aptly expressed on film:
IM MAXIM #134 – A woman hates a man who won’t give her what she wants, but she absolutely detests a man who does, and without a fight.
IM MAXIM #138 – If you’re winning, women care about your tiniest grievances, when you’re losing, you’re dead to them.
IM MAXIM #139 – When you’re winning you can be rude and unruly and she will apologise for your mistakes. When you’re losing, she will blame you for her mistakes.
The more the list goes on, the more it hits an experienced man right between the eyes. Life will be so much better for you if you learn from the mistakes of others.
Character reboots are commonplace these days. In a pop culture spectrum so bankrupt of creativity that the only movies produced anymore are remakes, sequels, adaptations (often of old TV shows that weren’t so good to begin with), thinly-disguised ripoffs of other movies (the Fast & Furious franchise started with a Point Break knockoff set in a fantasy streetracing scene; Avatar was Dances With Wolves in outer space, etc.) or an attempted fusion of previous successful movies; and the bulk of TV programming is some sort of lame “reality show” because the industry lacks the imagination to conceive anything more interesting, re-forming an established character in one’s own image is lauded as some sort of seminal breakthrough. Seems like comic book characters (one of the ores constantly mined by Hollywood) are revamped, and their histories revised, every 3-5 years.
Wonder Woman is a character whose essence needs no revamping to fit the current Narrative being rammed down our throats incessantly. She fit that Narrative from her very debut in the 1940s. She was probably the very first Amazon Superninja to appear in American pop culture, and from the very beginning was intended to be a social conditioning propaganda tool. But despite all this, her inclusion in Dawn of Justice doesn’t bother me much.
Wonder Woman has been a member of DC’s superteam the Justice League going way back; and was a founding member of the “Justice Society of America” before that. She was good-to-go for the leftist pop-culture svengalis already, so they didn’t have to feminize an established male character or otherwise ruin the work of earlier creators.
Perhaps it is fitting that an exotic beauty was cast to play the Amazon. After all, she comes from “Paradise Island,” an all-female society closed off from the rest of the world since ancient times. So it’s appropriate that her accent sounds different from ours, and that she doesn’t look like a WASP. (However, it appears that DC/Hollywood also intends to ethnicize the Flash and Aquaman, which is getting annoying.)
At some point after I quit reading comics, I guess Wonder Woman took to carrying a Bronze Age sword and shield, in addition to her golden lasso. This only makes sense, if she’s going to be fighting gargantuan baddies like Doomsday. What doesn’t make sense is that her ancient bronze shield can withstand a Kryptonian’s heat vision without a scratch, when heat vision slices through every other form of matter except other Kryptonians. Because vagina, I guess.
Another development is that her red, white and blue colors have been replaced by some muddy red-brown metal flake scheme. This also makes sense. First of all, those colors represent oppression (college girls being forced to pay for their own birth control, for instance). Remember: WW was never an American in the first place. And all the big screen superheroes wear costumes with drab color schemes. Even Superman, who has never needed camouflage or to avoid attracting attention, wears a costume that looks like it’s gone a few months without being washed.
I don’t know if this ties in with comic book revisionism, or is original to this screenplay, but Wonder Woman is apparently a WWI veteran now. Bruce Wayne/Batman finds an old photograph from 1918 that shows her with an odd assortment of guerillas (in Belgium, if memory serves).
Maybe the most interesting thing about Wonder Woman in this movie is how Gal Gadot’s performance fits into a red pill socio-sexual understanding. Gadot is far more attractive as Diana Prince than as the Amazon heroine. Upon reflection, it’s obvious why: she is very feminine when incognito in the secret identity, as opposed to her super-identity as an extremely masculine brawler with tits.
Only fetishists, white knights and sexual deviants find such a gender-bent individual even remotely attractive; no matter how much skin she shows or how well she fills out a skimpy costume.
Red-Blooded American Men Examine Pop-Culture and the World