White people can’t have anything of tradition can they in the New World Order? Even the tradition of James Bond 0007, is now being replaced by a Black woman. It is all part of the deracination trend that movie land is into, but it has been going on for decades, arguably at least since High Noon (1952), a Western that got away with the lead character being a fornicator, and having an interracial affair.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7244671/Thought-007-never-woman-black-shes-James-Bond-hand-number-over.html
“Since Daniel Craig announced he was standing down as James Bond, debate has raged whether the next 007 should be a woman, or black. Now The Mail on Sunday can reveal that she will be both – thanks to the intervention of feminist TV writer Phoebe Waller-Bridge. In what's been called a 'popcorn-dropping moment', British star Lashana Lynch, will be given Bond's licence to kill in the 25th movie in the franchise, currently being shot in Italy and the UK. However, traditionalists can relax: she's not the new Bond, but a new character who takes over his secret agent number after he leaves MI6. The story begins with Bond retired in Jamaica. But spymaster M – played by Ralph Fiennes – calls him back in desperation to tackle a new global crisis. A movie insider said: 'There is a pivotal scene at the start of the film where M says 'Come in 007', and in walks Lashana who is black, beautiful and a woman. 'It's a popcorn-dropping moment. Bond is still Bond but he's been replaced as 007 by this stunning woman. 'Bond, of course, is sexually attracted to the new female 007 and tries his usual seduction tricks, but is baffled when they don't work on a brilliant, young black woman who basically rolls her eyes at him and has no interest in jumping into his bed. Well, certainly not at the beginning.' The source added that the phrase 'Bond girls' is now forbidden, saying: 'We were all told that from now on they are to be addressed as 'Bond women'.' Waller-Bridge, who wrote the BBC comedy Fleabag and the female-led thriller Killing Eve, was recruited to ensure the 57-year-old franchise moved with the times. She said: 'There's been a lot of talk about whether or not Bond is relevant now because of who he is and the way he treats women.”
https://www.counter-currents.com/product/the-importance-of-james-bond/
https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/11/the-importance-of-james-bond/
“Attacks on Bond have come from both Left and Right. From the Left Bond has been accused – correctly – of sexism, racism, heterosexism (aka homophobia), classism, lookism, elitism, imperialism, and much else. This Leftist critique is still regularly trotted out. Just four years ago the BBC’s online news magazine published a piece asking “Is James Bond Loathsome? ” The piece quotes one professorial authority who proclaims “Ideologically, none of us should like the Bond films. They are sexist, heterosexist, xenophobic, everything that is not politically correct. Either the audiences don’t notice these ideological issues or the films provide a different kind of pleasure.” (A third possibility: perhaps the very political incorrectness of the Bond films is the source of that “different kind of pleasure.”) … So, yes, the world of Bond is guilty as charged – of sex, sadism, and snobbery. But this just completely misses the point, because there really is something important about James Bond – very important. James Bond is a modern hero, a hero for the modern age. Actually, this claim has often been made. But I mean it in a special sense: Bond is a hero in spite of modernity; an anti-modern hero who manages to triumph over – and, indeed, harness – the very forces that turn most modern men into soulless, gelded appendages to their desktop PCs. This is why Bond is important, and this is why we’ve worshipped at the cinematic altar of Bond for half a century. We long to be as free as he is. As Julius Evola might have put it, Bond is spiritually virile. He is a self-contained, self-actualized man who appears to be a self-indulgent hedonist, but is in fact fundamentally detached from the pleasures and distractions that obsess and enthral most men.
Let’s begin with the much-discussed sex issue. In fact, Bond does not chase after women; women chase after him. This is established in the very first scene in which Sean Connery is introduced as Bond in Dr. No. He is playing Chemin de Fer at a London club. An attractive woman asks his name from across the table: “Mr. . . . ?” Famously, Connery replies “Bond. James Bond,” while lighting a cigarette and flourishing his great, caterpillar-like black eyebrows. The woman – Sylvia Trench, played by Eunice Gayson – pursues a rather disinterested Bond, acquires his business card, then breaks into his apartment and seduces him (over Bond’s protestations). Later in the same film, in a brief but iconic scene, we see a female hotel receptionist ogle Bond as he makes his way across the lobby. Dr. No establishes the sexual pattern for all the succeeding films (which does indeed have its basis in the novels). Women practically throw themselves at Bond, who often seems rather weary of the whole thing. (The Bond imitators – those who brought us Matt Helm, Derek Flint, and others – often failed to get this, turning their pseudo-Bonds into lascivious, salivating womanizers.) The ease with which Bond attracts women has often been noted, and chalked up to “male fantasy wish fulfillment.” This is true, but what exactly is the wish? It’s not just the desire for easy sex. It’s also the desire – only dimly understood by most men – to be free of the tiresome indignity of having to pursue women.
At some level, men realize that there is something unmanly about Don Juan. They realize that Bond, by contrast, has “got something” that makes it possible for him to attract women without effort. But that “something” consists in the fact that he doesn’t care about it as much as they do (perhaps because he’s proved his masculinity in other, more significant areas). He is detached. As a result, Bond doesn’t just attract a lot of babes, he attracts extraordinary women. One of the great myths about Bond – particularly as far as the films are concerned – is that Bond girls are brainless, helpless bimbos. This perception is now cynically exploited by the filmmakers, who every so often announce that “the Bond girl in the new film is different: she’s strong, she’s capable, she’s Bond’s equal,” blah blah blah. But this has been true from the very beginning. Honey Rider tells Bond in Dr. No that she murdered a man who raped her by putting a black widow spider under his mosquito net (“A female, and they’re the worst. It took him a whole week to die.”) Pussy Galore is a … lesbian and leader of her own gang of Amazons. And Octopussy is cut very much from the same cloth. Fiona in Thunderball is a cold-blooded assassin, and even Domino – rather bimbo-like for most of the film – winds up executing the villain herself. By my count, no fewer than ten of the cinematic Bond girls are spies or assassins. Two of the Bond girls are scientists: a geologist in A View to a Kill and a nuclear physicist in The World Is Not Enough . (Though it must be admitted that the actresses who play these parts are not very convincing.) Yes, there a few helpless bimbos – like Mary Goodnight in The Man With The Golden Gun – but actually most of the Bondian heroines are strong, capable women. Which is just the sort of women we would expect a spiritually virile man to attract.
And as for Bond’s seemingly absurd culinary pretensions, they’re not actually born of a desire to impress, nor are they an expression of hedonism. Bond explains himself rather well in Chapter Eight of Fleming’s Casino Royale:
“You must forgive me,” he said. “I take a ridiculous amount of pleasure in what I eat or drink. It comes partly from being a bachelor, but mostly from a habit of taking a lot of trouble over details. It’s very pernickety and old-maidish really, but then when I’m working I generally have to eat my meals alone and it makes them more interesting when one takes trouble.” Besides, when you’re facing death on a daily basis, every meal could be your last! Of course Bond takes a lot of trouble over details; of course he lives life to the full. Hagakure , the “Book of the Samurai,” states that “The Way of the Samurai is found in death. . . . If by setting one’s heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his body were already dead, he gains freedom in the Way.” Bond has learned to face life as if death could come at any moment. This has the effect of heightening his senses and his tastes. He notices the nuances of food and drink that most men miss, and he takes greater pleasure in them, as he takes greater pleasure in sex. Bond’s pleasure is greater than that of other men – but paradoxically he is free of desire in a way most men are not. His constant brushes with death have given him a unique perspective: he is keenly aware of the impermanence of things, and of what matters and what does not. Bond enjoys food, drink, and sex so much precisely because of their unimportance. Other men, who have never faced death, place too much importance on these things and – again, paradoxically – are less able to enjoy them. Bond takes pleasure in the things of this world, but he is not mastered or absorbed by his appetites. This is the real meaning of the Bond family motto “The World is not Enough” (introduced in the novel On Her Majesty’s Secret Service , and later its own Bond film title). This is usually taken to be an expression of rapacious desire. In fact, what it says is that the things of this world, which would be too much for most men to handle, are not enough for James Bond. He is greater than they are, thus he can “use them” without being corrupted by them. It’s unsurprising that book and film critics would be unable to understand any of this, and would simply see Bond as a “hedonist” and “snob.”
Ok, that explains it all much better than I could. Even in the time of Bond Pierce Brosnan, who was masculine in the Sean Connery mode, there was this internal critique of Bond made that he was sexist. Many scenes of the female M, blissfully killed off in Skyfall (2012), making the feminist critique of him. Daniel Craig, an utterly terrible cucked Bond, worse than even Australian George Lazenby (On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969)), attempted to feminise Bond, even though women in the 50 Shades of Grey fantasy mode, preferred a hairy-chested Bond like Sean Connery. Anyway, compared to everything else, the end of Bond is trivial, much like the way Marvel has moved to begin pushing feminism and progressivism over entertainment (e.g. Captain Marvel (2019)), destroying childhood memories. But those memories were never “ours’ in the beginning and it was only a matter of time before all of this would be part of the cultural wars. Looking back at the old 1960s comics, it was all there in embryonic form the days of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, so the present critique of Marvel made by many conservative young on the net is beside the point.
One good global financial crisis, and all of the entertainment bs ends. People will not be able to afford to have their minds assaulted, which can only be good. And, in any case, the movies will become boring, especially to the massive Chinese audience, who voted with their feet on Star War’s metamorphosis, rejecting Hollywood’s enforced diversity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK29pEV503s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vXdN0C_IxY
https://variety.com/2015/film/news/star-wars-china-poster-controversy-john-boyega-1201653494/
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/08/asia/star-wars-china-racist-poster/index.html