Didn't one of your heroes, Andrew Bolt, claim that Bond was going back to his roots?

So Bond must be one of those Marxists you are carrying on about!

How boring!
I much prefer the kind of analysis of the Bond films and everything else too to be found in Mad Magazine.

A great analysis with a serious message. Gays and Marxists should be kept well away from things they don't understand, like heterosexual sex and capitalism.

Great article. Skyfall was less about James Bond and more about the farewell of Judi Dench. Now I understand why, gays are always fond of older, masculine women. This segues into my favourite Ian Fleming quote: “Older women are best, because they always think they may be doing it for the last time.”

Never a truer word & all that.

This explains why OUR ABC was so enthusiastic about this latest film.

On the ABC, do you think those who work there would ever have meet any, "intelligent young white heterosexual males, who have been alienated by society". The latter probably, the former, never.

The Leftists who write these films don't understand real men,and strong women, they don't know what one looks like or how he or she would behave in a given situation, this is why modern films are unwatchable.
To a Leftist authentic masculinity is horrifying, so they can only write horrible, twisted male characters,look at Elliot Stabler in Law And Order or Tony Hill from Wire In The Blood.
Another great example of how far down hill a program can go when it's written to a politically correct style guide was The Bill, I watched every episode of that program up until the rights were sold, after about 2003 it barely resembled the original series. At the outset it portrayed real men and real women, Jim, Tony, Bob and June were good,decent people trying to navigate the underside of London as best they could...look how it ended up, the cast at the time of it's axing were the same tortured, brutal and soulless caricatures we see in every depiction of law enforcement personnel these days.

Congratulations to OLO for publishing this important and relevant article.

It helps to make up for several recent articles which are esoteric in the extreme and only appeal to a select few pointy-heads and would-be pointy-heads.

Our beloved Bond Films, No, this is all far too much !

Bring on the Revolution !

Where is Bond when you need him?

Yeah, too right...poor people should be charged a premium for access to water (just ask the World Bank who habitually ties such things to their structural adjustments)...Oi reckon poor people should be charged for air too.

So you're right, what is James Bond doing protecting the rights of the third world poor from Western organisations and those who would profit from their intervention?

Aspley I think he's been written out of the story.

Talk about delusion!

Here is Andrew Bolt, the man who is at the forefront of the 'anti-left' brigade here in Australia. Not Conservative enough for you?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_return_of_the_real_bond/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/skyfall_reviews_the_best_of_bond/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_honor_happiness_where_you_find_it/desc/

Meanwhile being repetitive and pedantic as ever the analysis of this film by a Marxist and a Marxist-feminist is particularly relevant to the blood-soaked politics of our time and place. http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner

Remembering that this unspeakably vile film was created by the ultra patriarchal deeply anti-feminist fascists that infest Opus Dei.
Further descriptions of the applied politics which are the inevitable extension of the psychotic world-view communicated by this vile unspeakably vile film are described by Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine.

Although I am not a Marxist I find that the very best Marxists such as those who write for Logos, and writers such as Frederic Jameson provide very astute observations and commentaries on the signs of the times. Cultural commentaries that make most/all of the stuff published in the IPA Review and promoted by the IPA look like simplistic drivel.

By the way most/all of the various Opus Dei propaganda hacks are very much against the concept of humanly created global warming and climate change.

So people run amok with guns because James Bond isn't heterosexual enough? That's an ... interesting ... theory.

What's saddest about this article is that the author actually thinks it matters just how and when a fictional superman contrives to be fictionally super. Anyone who really wants to see actors playing out macho fantasies has plenty of other material to choose from; they don't need poor old outdated Jimmy Bond.

Every film these days must have a "girl power" moment/character, a token black (including a *Viking* god in "Thor"), a token Asian, a token gay, a dig at Christianity, a conservative caricature, a greedy capitalist, a threat to the environment, blah blah blah.

Oddly, even the Nazis in "Iron Sky" don't get to be really evil.

I'm thrilled whenever these expectations of pathetic predictability are violated.

I'm also annoyed by film directors who neurotically hide male bodies.
I think this is part of the same phenomenon.
Men cannot be shown to be *male*.
So no more superhero bulges in tights. Just neuter Ken dolls.

[Deleted for flaming author.]

"Fleming’s Bond is an amoral, chauvinistic (little) prick"

Certainly not the sort of (um) man a woman would call a friend.

But thankfully all of the Bond women were beyond reproach. Women are like that. As are the hordes of women of all ages who would take advantage of any of the Bonds given the slightest chance.

It is all fantasy. Well, likely a fair bit more if smitten women could get their hands on Connery, even 50+ years later.

This is not a bad article. I particularly liked the section on the feminist-Marxist brigade's belittlement of the white male. Additionally, that this belittlement could also lead to atrocities such as the recent massacre in the USA (there is a cause and effect link in there somewhere!).

The campaign of the feminists and Marxists since the 1960s has been the destruction of the identity of the white male. Today, they still infest the universities in every Western country. The denigration takes the form of "gender studies" and other "cultural studies" you find in Social Science and Humanities departments. Their whole philosophy is built on the negation of "power structures" created by white men. Ironically, they never bat an eyelid when they break one of their own fundamental laws: Negatively stereotyping people on the basis of race and gender. Apparently, if you're a feminist-Marxist then you somehow escape the laws you set down for others to follow.

The movement itself is a manifestation of nihilism. It is little more than a movement of negation; a movement that makes its philosophy out of tearing things down and belittling them. The slogans of "equality" and "freedom" are only secondary to their main aim of revenge against white males.

The solution to this nihilistic movement is to cease funding it. It only exists on the million dollar pay outs of tax payer's money funnelled into university courses and bureaucratic departments. Without this funding (which is ironically mostly funded by white males) it will all whither away within 2 years. It is not an organic movement, nor is it a popular movement; it cannot grow from the ground up, it must be imposed from the top down. Without it being artificially propped up with tax-payer's money, it ceases to function.

However, this can only take place with strong leadership and someone with intelligence. Ceasing public funding of such university courses will generate massive outrage (and lefties like nothing more than their own outrage). Moreover, an intelligent leader is paramount. Marxist-feminists are the masters at dialectics, and can therefore twist any argument around into their favour.

Squeers "What we have here is a miserable, childish little wretch, who might well go on to do unspeakable things one day."

Thank you for exemplifying the very misandry the author speaks of. Well done!

The author isn't the one taking Bond too seriously.
It's the revisionists who can't seem to understand that some cultural phenomena is just a *bit of fun*, and doesn't need political dogma seeping into everything.

"Bond is an amoral, chauvinistic (little) prick"

And then?
Can't he just stay that way? Do we have to send all *fictional* characters to reeducation camps?

Aristocrat,
you've merely continued Dobson's litany of ignorant, semi-literate propaganda, based on infantile hero-worship and white supremacy.
There is so much I could take to task in the article I hardly no where to begin. But it's so ethically, intellectually and aesthetically impoverished as to render thoughtful responses redundant; they would be neither understood nor considered, so I'm content to spare myself the effort and poor scorn.
No labels are defined, no claims, charges or innuendos are substantiated, and no category is couched in anything but the vitriol and slobber of intolerant chauvinism.
You've merely repeated the dose.
Terms like "feminist" and "Marxist" are just red rags to the kind of bovine intelligence on show here and have no coherent meaning.

Shockadelic,
what "misandry"?
I haven't said anything against men. I've defended and dissociated "real" men from the herd and its embarrassing macho claptrap.

Squeers, I've studied and worked in the Academe for 9 years, right in the heart of Marxism-feminism central: The Humanities department. I know exactly what I am talking about.

Aristocrat,

I'm also with the humanities, have won numerous awards and prizes and am on the verge of earning a PhD, my dissertation based on a critical analysis of culturalism.
"I" know what I'm talking about.
Judging by the garbage you've spewed above, you don't have the faintest idea.
I have been extremely critical myself of various aspects of Marxism, Feminism and Cultural Studies, but my critique strives to be objective and fair, rather than wilfully blind and prejudiced.

MOOOO!

Squeers, explain why it is "garbage". Substantiate your claims.

Well that explains a lot about your posts, thanks Squeers.

Much worse, & more immoral than the make believe adventures of our hero, is the totally immoral waste of tax payer money on pretend disciplines.

That people can waste their time & our money on "cultural studies", & even give prises for the rubbish produced, tells us just how far from reality academia has become. Definitely time for a full clean out of the whole incestuous mess in our universities.

I might even watch this film. If the women of academia in general, & the humanities in particular don't like it, it might even be worth the time. That is a pretty high recommendation for anything really.

Oh! dear!! this sounds like Handbags at ten paces, is about to happen.

I forwarded this to a friend of mine who is big Bond fan and he finds the author's rant quite hysterical. He highlighted the passage below.

"Human beings need archetypes they can identify with: it is a deep-seated psychological need. But the condition of being white and male and straight has come to be seen by the bien pensant leftist cultural elite as the enemy, as something to be torn down and trampled. It is the patriarchy! It is the oppressor! It must not be glorified; it must be belittled, diminished and destroyed!
That heroic archetype is James Bond, and that is why he MUST be restored to culture in his original, intended incarnation. We must fight the good fight and not give in to the forces of Marxist-feminism, for they know not what evil they create."

My friend states ... "the reason Bond was re-tooled in 2006 for Casino Royale was because the audience had tired of the over the top silliness. Casino Royale was in fact a love story, when his girl was murdered, he changed forever, broads were just sex from then on in. There's no marxist-feminist agenda!"

Reading the background of Richard Dobson, I don't know if it is tongue in cheek or the claims of a closet gay man.
Why state one is a white straight male, other than clarifying, one is homophobic, have an undertone of racism, scared of independent women, and I buy designer label clothes, because I can.