Right and Wrong and Right and Wrong…

I’ll cop to being wrong about my post “An Observation”; it seems that even those who express a legitimate issue with the Shield Maiden as role model for women genuinely don’t see Wondie in that precise role. Hey, cool, fine. I’ve been wrong before, I’ll be wrong again. I’m trying to admit it more.

Consider this post a hashing out of thoughts. I’ve thought about it, and I still remain very much unconvinced that “Wonder Woman” is the sort of film we should be supporting. Each time I explain it, I feel as if people don’t get it. Maybe I’m not being clear enough? For example, I’m honestly not sure why my opinion on whether or not “Harry Potter” is pro-consequentialism matters. I don’t think it is, actually, but if you think you can convince me, I’ll hear you out when I (or you, if you have your own blog) get around to discussing Harry Potter. And then we can go from there on whether or not the HP franchise is something we should be giving money to. I think all sorts of different things differentiate the two franchises, in ways that are actually pretty complex…but I’m talking about “Wonder Woman”, not Harry Potter.

Zippy brought up Harry Potter, but he’s just one of a few people now, and it makes a good example; he’s not the first person to go “Well, haha, you supported X property, now why won’t you support Y property!”. I am admittedly confused as to why people think this matters so much to my argument, such as it is, about “Wonder Woman”. If you want to discuss whether other properties would also fall under my “Wonder Woman” arguments, go right ahead; I’d be happy to join you…on a thread not about “Wonder Woman”. Whether I am a mean old hypocrite is really besides the point of these posts.

As for not supporting the creators of the work…I am sure Gal Godot and Patty Jenkins love their mothers and have wonderful families. I am also sure that even if the movie *on its own* (except it’s not on its own, of course) failed as attempted propaganda, I think the video I linked to earlier, along with the marketing campaign, makes it pretty much undeniable that they were absolutely attempting to make propaganda – propaganda pushing feminism, and thus propaganda promoting the effective end of western civilization. I am not giving those fools money – and nor should any of you. It is exactly the same reason I didn’t give “Rogue One” my money – they came out explicitly against me and what I stand for. Very well; I am now against you too, and whether or not your movie is good matters not a whit to me. This is, of course, just one factor, and not necessarily a large one (people I don’t agree with are going to make stuff I nevertheless enjoy, and there’s not much I could or should do about that), but it is a factor.

Okay. So let’s pivot, and take a look at the Hugo Awards. The arguments underlying the Puppies campaigns in the Hugo Awards were that conservative works (works by conservatives or with an unmistakable pro-conservative, or at least American right wing, ideology) were basically unofficially blackballed from being nominated or winning the award; the Sad Puppies was an attempt to get conservative properties nominated to see if, once they were there, people would be willing to judge them fairly.

The answer, of course, turned out to be no, and those conservative works were consequently Noah Warded.

Now let’s look at what I’m proposing with “Wonder Woman” – a boycott. I support a boycott of “Wonder Woman” because it is the head of a Shibboleth that’s a part of the crusade to take down western civilization.

One point I’ve come around to over time is that many of the things we scream are bad, bad, bad are, in fact, necessary, to the point that we do them all the time without thinking. Of *course* there are philosophies so terrible we should never be supporting them, no matter how well written they are. If a brilliant movie comes out – really brilliant – that is ultra-pro-Marxist, I think the majority of my readers will agree that the movie should die a fast and well-deserved death. Literally everybody I know agrees with this to an extent.

The question, then, is this: Were the SJW’s right to think that conservative ideologies were so horrible that they should be blackballed for the good of society? Or were they completely insane?

I believe the latter.

And I think feminism is such a rotting, bleeding, soul-sucking cancer that we should be doing what we could to avoid supporting propaganda machines designed explicitly as feminist message vehicles.

Some disagree. Go ahead. But there you go.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Right and Wrong and Right and Wrong…

  1. MishaBurnett says:

    Well, having seen the film itself, I do not believe that it is propaganda–at least not of the type you seem to think it is. The message that I saw in the film is that men should be strong and brave and that the role of women is to inspire men to make the necessary sacrifices to save what is worth saving. What’s more, I think that is the message that the filmmakers intended, in so much as they intended to have a message at all.

  2. Crude says:

    I have to say, I admire the fact that you’d say this, even while being a writer/involved-in-theatre yourself. Most people tend to protect “their” fields from criticism, especially when it comes to this kind of thing.

    And I think feminism is such a rotting, bleeding, soul-sucking cancer that we should be doing what we could to avoid supporting propaganda machines designed explicitly as feminist message vehicles.


    • Ha! Well part of the reason I am involved in both fields – writing especially, theatre is something I tend to just stay on the edges of and attempt to avoid the landmines – is to try and bring back the true, good, and beautiful. Hence the Superversive fiction movement.

  3. Chad says:

    Keep on the path. I started out as much a propagandist in theatre as the worst of what you oppose – before converting. Now people think I’m crazy when I hint at how the people in theatre and movies view art as a means of religious sermons to the unwashed – and those are the good ones.

    The rest would rather we all die so they can play in their utopia in peace, without anyone pointing out they’re finger painting with human waste.

  4. Cane Caldo says:

    The question, then, is this: Were the SJW’s right to think that conservative ideologies were so horrible that they should be blackballed for the good of society?

    The SJWs are right in the sense that they understand that if you want to win you have to shield your brother in arms even when he isn’t excellent, and you have to harm the enemy. A conservative believes that commitment and dedication to the cause is best demonstrated by either stabbing a sub-par ally in the back, or by praising the enemy’s strength.

  5. Jeffrey S. says:

    This seems like the perfect story for you right now:


    In a world full of lunatics, how does one simply enjoy a well-made horror movie? As the kids would say, it is all somehow problematic…

  6. Well if Harry Potter is pro-consequentialism, then Star Trek is anti-consequentialism and… well we know how people feel about the Prime Directive. 😉

    • I thought about it, and the last book IS really weird on this point. It seems to both deny and affirm consequentialism simultaneously and ends up lionizing Dumby partially because he secretly set up Harry secretly as a lamb to the slaughter.

      And lionized he is, given that Harry names his son after him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s