I never understood the appeal of James Bond as a male power fantasy. Nothing about him makes sense, and only the biggest NPCs can sit down and watch this fake idea of a man adventure PG-13 style for 2 hours. Think about it. He's a suave, debonair guy, who is also violent and kicks terrorist asses in a clean cut PG-13 kind of way. This isn't a male power fantasy so much as it is a fantasy for a bottom in the closet.
It just makes no sense to mix debonair and violent (without being too extreme). The whole whole thing is very queer, and just not worth it. What kind of fag needs their violence to be limited to PG-13??? The entire point of movie violence as a fantasy is TO BE FUCKING VIOLENT. If I see an action movie I want to see people fucking suffering. If it's not cartel violent, its gay. No man wants to shoot other dapper men in suits, get shot at, and save hoes all day on the taxpayers dime. His motivation makes no fucking sense. All those stories are so fucking boring, because the character is so fake. A better male power fantasy is more like American Pie, Californication, or Animal House. Men just want to sit around, drink beer, get high, bully the weak, get blowjobs from sluts, and then kick them out when they are of no use for us. It's a male power fantasy to be rewarded socially for crudity and crassness, not our civility. There is nothing 'fun' about being a metrosexual or erudite or 'saving the world', to pursue this aesthetic is bluepilled and cucked, because it's performative purely in service to the female gaze. It is more masculine to give no shit about what you look like in any aspect whatsoever, and never wipe your ass even, and get rewarded for being a total lazy asshole. It is more masculine for Jim Belushi to tell a waitress, 'HEY NICE TITS' than it is for JAMES FUCKING BOND to shoot a nigger.
You don't go around "wanting" to be James Bond. You pick either bad ass or 'straight' metrosexual. The mix of both makes no sense. I suppose that's part of the sociopathic nature of his character. But it also makes no sense for a sociopath to be a warrior on the 'good' side. Sociopath warriors on the 'good' side, tend to be male feminist types that are the 'real' villain. But then again, Bond makes more sense as a total villain, but no sense whatsoever as a 'hero.'
To be a bad ass like Bond, you likely have to befriend rednecks or just generally trashy right winged survivalists-- because only people of this mindset make competent warriors. It is inevitable to have a conspiracy laden hairbrained mindset in order to become a competent marksman, martial artist, and athlete. Bond does not hang out with anyone like this. He always hangs with upper class diplomats and people in the global state department. To have it both ways is just very queer, because there's a sense you are trying to appeal to both men and women in a focus group pansexual kind of way. The movies get it wrong by focusing on the "action" aspect of Bond, and never Bond as a social manipulator-- this aspect to me is much more realistic and interesting.
It just makes no sense to mix debonair and violent (without being too extreme). The whole whole thing is very queer, and just not worth it. What kind of fag needs their violence to be limited to PG-13??? The entire point of movie violence as a fantasy is TO BE FUCKING VIOLENT. If I see an action movie I want to see people fucking suffering. If it's not cartel violent, its gay. No man wants to shoot other dapper men in suits, get shot at, and save hoes all day on the taxpayers dime. His motivation makes no fucking sense. All those stories are so fucking boring, because the character is so fake. A better male power fantasy is more like American Pie, Californication, or Animal House. Men just want to sit around, drink beer, get high, bully the weak, get blowjobs from sluts, and then kick them out when they are of no use for us. It's a male power fantasy to be rewarded socially for crudity and crassness, not our civility. There is nothing 'fun' about being a metrosexual or erudite or 'saving the world', to pursue this aesthetic is bluepilled and cucked, because it's performative purely in service to the female gaze. It is more masculine to give no shit about what you look like in any aspect whatsoever, and never wipe your ass even, and get rewarded for being a total lazy asshole. It is more masculine for Jim Belushi to tell a waitress, 'HEY NICE TITS' than it is for JAMES FUCKING BOND to shoot a nigger.
You don't go around "wanting" to be James Bond. You pick either bad ass or 'straight' metrosexual. The mix of both makes no sense. I suppose that's part of the sociopathic nature of his character. But it also makes no sense for a sociopath to be a warrior on the 'good' side. Sociopath warriors on the 'good' side, tend to be male feminist types that are the 'real' villain. But then again, Bond makes more sense as a total villain, but no sense whatsoever as a 'hero.'
To be a bad ass like Bond, you likely have to befriend rednecks or just generally trashy right winged survivalists-- because only people of this mindset make competent warriors. It is inevitable to have a conspiracy laden hairbrained mindset in order to become a competent marksman, martial artist, and athlete. Bond does not hang out with anyone like this. He always hangs with upper class diplomats and people in the global state department. To have it both ways is just very queer, because there's a sense you are trying to appeal to both men and women in a focus group pansexual kind of way. The movies get it wrong by focusing on the "action" aspect of Bond, and never Bond as a social manipulator-- this aspect to me is much more realistic and interesting.
Last edited:
