Marxist-feminist fifth column infiltrates James Bond

I wondered why the plot in Quantum of Solace was about something so mundane and trivial as the water rights to the utility services in Bolivia. I mean, this is James Bond we're talking about here, the greatest spy in the world. His job is to prevent global nuclear war, or stop the largest depository of gold in the world from being blown up, or to stop some maniacal plan to destroy cities with a satellite laser beam space weapon. But Bolivian water rights?!? Why is such a mundane plot even in a Bond movie?

But then I researched it, and I discovered why: it's because the main script-writer for that film, Paul Haggis, is an out-and-out Marxist, and it seems this whole Bolivian water rights thing is some sort of cause célèbre amongst radical left-wing Marxists.

Apparently, it actually happened in 1999: the Bolivian Government tried to sell the water supply rights in the third largest city in Bolivia to a private company. Now, of course, any kind of capitalism or private enterprise is like a red flag to a bull as far as Marxists are concerned, and so they protested and demonstrated and howled and screamed, and in the end they won and forced the government abandon its plan to sell the water rights.

(As a corollary, to this day there are water shortages in that city, because the necessary dams and infrastructure which would have been built by the private enterprise, never got built by the Government, and thus the poor people in Bolivia are far worse off for of the activism of fanatical Marxists than they would have been otherwise if a private company had just been allowed to profitably provide for their needs.)
But of course, committed Marxists like Paul Haggis don't see it that way and thus it makes sense now why such a strange plot for a Bond film was written.

I wondered why in Quantum of Solace and Skyfall, Bond seems so asexual, and the interactions between Bond and various different women are so unnatural, and, well, un-Bond-like.

You see, in all the previous films, Bond's sexual exploits have been an integral part of the story, and, they are used in very specific ways: sex is usually seen as a celebration, a life-affirming and joyous act, a fitting ending for the triumphant Bond to rejoice and celebrate the villain's defeat by making beautiful love to a beautiful, doe-eyed woman.

Sometimes, Bond uses sex as a weapon to further his investigations, such as with Miss Taro in Dr. No. Other times the femme fatale uses sex to get closer to Bond so as to distract him and get a chance to kill him, such as with Fiona Volpe in Thunderball.

Once, in Goldfinger, Bond's (forcible) seduction of a lesbian (Pussy Galore) ends up saving the day, because it "appealed to her maternal instinct", and switched her allegiance over to the good side. 60 000 people would have died instantly, and untold economic damage would have been wrought, so we are asked to believe.

But in Quantum of Solace and Skyfall, none of these types of sexual exploits are incorporated in meaningful ways into the script. Instead, Bond's sex scenes are just tacked on as an afterthought, as if they are included almost under duress.

When Bond has sex in Quantum of Solace and Skyfall, it's not a celebration or a life-affirming act at all. In Quantum of Solace, it seems like Bond is just bored, and just decides to have sex (with agent Fields) because he "can't find his stationery" (wtf?) Fields is then promptly disposed of, and we find out she was completely superfluous to the plot in the first place.

Incidentally, Quantum of Solace was the first Bond film ever in which Bond didn't have sex with the main female protagonist (the "Bond Girl") - vandalism of what I think is a fine tradition.

In Skyfall, it's even worse. When Bond is shown having sex with an anonymous Turkish woman at the start, its used to portray the exact opposite meaning of the sort of life-affirming celebration that sex is supposed to portray in Bond films. The script-writers want us to believe that Bond has descended into a dark, dark place of alcoholism and despair, neglecting his duty and letting everyone think he's dead. And by showing Bond having sex in this way, the implication is that it's something dirty, something that he should be ashamed of.

Then, when he meets Sévérine in the casino later on, he interacts with her in the most creepy, unnatural and unnerving way. "You were a child prostitute, I can tell", sheesh Bond - way to charm the ladies!   Shortly after, he just creeps naked into her shower without saying a word.

Then he promptly lets her die! A metaphor I suppose for his powerlessness and impotence with women (although as soon as she's dead, oh NOW he's somehow able to kill all the henchmen and capture the villain...)

I wondered why the script-writers didn't show Bond actually creating attraction, being cocky and witty and charming, developing a sexual rapport with the opposite character.

But then I researched it, and I discovered that John Logan, the main script writer for Skyfall, is openly gay. One may thus speculate that he doesn't know the first thing about male-female sexual dynamics, and that deficiency of knowledge is apparent in his work on this Bond film. So instead, the only sexual dynamic in the film is between two men, Bond and the villain.

Honestly, when Bond said something like "How do you know it's not my first time?" in response to Silva stroking him, I felt my skin crawl. It was really uncomfortable for me. Because you know, I've seen every Bond film, and I KNOW what Bond is like. It was a disturbing scene.

Look, there is a reason why all this matters, there is a serious reason why these corruptions of our hero must be opposed. When Fleming created the character, he said his books were for "warm-blooded heterosexuals", and for 50 years, James Bond has been the leading archetype of warm-blooded, white, Anglo-Saxon male heterosexuals, and James Bond films have been glorifications of that archetype.

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!

But what happens when you take away a group of people's identifying archetype, and marginalise and alienate them, is they go crazy! They retreat into an introspective world of confusion and psychosis. This is the direct cause of the spate of mass shootings: intelligent young white heterosexual males who have been alienated by society and deprived of their identity.

Society doesn't realise what they're doing to this cohort of people. They are driving erstwhile capable and contributive members of society into a darkly introverted psychosis, in which space, inevitably, some of them snap and "go postal", as it seems to them to be the only possible release for the pent up and constrained emotions they are consumed by.

Yet if they just had an archetype they could identify with as a hero, who could exemplify the distinction between good and evil, whilst simultaneously giving expression to all the passions that come naturally to white male heterosexuals, such horrific senseless violence in our schools and public places could be avoided.

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.