Counter-Currents
1,360 words
Mad Max: Fury Road is the fourth — and the best — Mad Max movie directed by George Miller. Miller was born George Miliotis — the son of Greek refugees from Turkish ethnic cleansing in Anatolia — and is also the creator of two other, and very different, film franchises, the Babe the talking pig movies and the Happy Feet animated penguin movies.
In Fury Road, the title character, which heretofore has been played by Mel Gibson, is played by Tom Hardy (Bane — with another grill thing on his face, no less). Charlize Theron is the female lead as Imperator Furiosa, who has a prosthetic Terminator arm attached to an amputation stump.
Theron’s character is the focus of a media kerfuffle about her allegedly “badass” superfeminist character, but it is entirely baseless and manufactured to sell tickets.
James Bond movies have a formula, and so does their advertising. Every few Bond films, we are told that this time Bond will be paired up with a “strong woman” — presumably unlike all the other Bond women. Bond aficionados laugh because of course few Bond women ever match Ursula Andress’ formidable heroine in the very first Bond movie, Dr. No.
Of course Bond movies appeal overwhelmingly to men, so the publicity people probably concoct the “strong woman” pitch to persuade potential female ticket buyers that it will not be too much of a sausage fest. And they figure that a strong woman won’t deter male viewers, as long as she is hot. Of course, this is a risky proposition, because there is a well-documented tendency for men to abandon social spaces and activities once they have become too feminized.
I think that pretty much the same reasoning was behind promoting Theron as the strong woman in Fury Road — unlike the shrinking violet Tina Turner in Beyond Thunderdome, I suppose. But these are the days of Peak Feminism, and this time, there has been a backlash, with many young men swearing off Fury Road in disgust.
They’ll come round, though, because the feminist elements of this movie, such as they are, would only offend Oriental advocates of purdah and footbinding. Indeed, the society they rebel against is profoundly un-white and un-Western, despite the fact that it is ruled by and predominantly populated by whites.
The Citadel — a set of towering rock formations — is the headquarters of cult leader Immortan Joe. Joe, like the despots of neighboring Gas Town and Bullet Farm, is hideously malformed and debauched. His government is a form of oriental hydraulic despotism — literally, for he hoards water and food and releases them in dribs and drabs to the starving wretches below.
Joe also uses brute force to maintain power, filling the citadel with War Boys, who look like skinheads on chemo. To control the war boys and motivate them to sacrifice themselves, Joe has manufactured a religion which promises Valhalla to the War Boys and some sort of redemption to the rest of his people.
Aside from Joe, everyone is basically a slave. Huge fat women are milked like cows, and the milk seems to be consumed as food and even exported. When Max is captured, he is turned into a “blood bag” to offer transfusions to a sickly War Boy, Nux. (Radiation has made many people sickly. Their abbreviated existence is ironically called a Half Life.)
Another oriental trait of the Citadel is Joe’s harem. Healthy and fertile young women are in short supply, so naturally Joe monopolizes them.
The Citadel’s combination of polygamy, slavery, militarism, religion, and rule by a prophet/priest/despot actually brings to mind one of history’s greatest practitioners of the gangsta/pimp lifestyle, namely the Prophet of Islam.
At this point, I will “spoil” the story by giving away a few plot elements. Furiosa is a trusted driver of one of Joe’s armored War Rigs, a tanker that appears to be loaded with water and mother’s milk, which Furiosa will drive to Gas Town to barter for gasoline.
At a certain point, however, she turns off road into the desert. Furiosa, it seems, is defecting. Joe discovers that his harem has disappeared. They want something better than being the brood slaves of a bloated tyrant, so Furiosa has promised to deliver them to the Green Place, where she was born and from which she had been kidnapped 20 years before by Joe’s people.
Joe sends his army to recover them, and Max is brought along as a blood bag. Max escapes, teams up with Furiosa, and they battle their way across the desert, to discover that all that remains of her people are a few old crones wandering the desert, one of whom carries a treasure: seeds. If only she can find water and soil for them.
The crones team up with Furiosa, Max, and Nux, who has changed sides. Their mission is to preserve life. To find a suitable home for the fertile young women, so the race can live on, and to find fertile ground for the seeds. It is a mission important enough to kill and die for, and they do. But life triumphs in the end.
Feminism has created a false consciousness in women. They imagine that women never exercised agency, never protected themselves against abusers, and never exercised political power until feminism came along and started white, Western women bitching as if they were in purdah. Of course if they really had been in purdah, all the complaining in the world would not have made any difference.
It does not take feminism or Marxism to make white people rebel against the oriental despotism of the Citadel. Such government has never sat well with us. It is not in our nature.
Real feminism is neurotic man-hatred, anti-life nihilism, and sexual separatism. Real feminism is ball-busting posturing and pointless oneupmanship. None are present in Fury Road. After overcoming mutual distrust (which is reasonable in the circumstances), Max and Nux team up well with Furiosa, the brides, and the crones because that is the natural way.
There is no sense that the crones in the desert are a viable society, only the remnants of one, and the crones are willing to sacrifice their lives to find safety for the brides and fertile ground for the seeds. As the crones charge into battle, one says to another, “One man, one bullet,” but this does not apply to all men, of course, and it delightfully tweaks “One man, one vote.”
The primary role of women in this movie is nurturers, and it is only because the world has been turned upside down that women are forced to kill to further life. In the end though, they could not have done it without Max and Nux. But the women also provided them something real to fight for.
When our race awakens and begins to fight for its survival, it is not pre-Raphaelite damsels and oriental lotus foots who will be our helpmeets, but women like Furiosa.
I found the opening few minutes of Fury Road distasteful, and I almost walked out. I am glad I stayed, though, because it is an excellent movie. Yes, there are lots of chases and fights — thrilling and spectacular ones — but Miller understands pacing, so there are meditative and poetic moments as well, and a number of deeply touching ones.
The world Miller creates is a remarkable work of the imagination, with a stunning steampunk/biker mag aesthetic, and scenes of desolation and horror worthy of Bruegel, Bosch, and Dalí. (I made the mistake of seeing the movie in 3-D, but after a few minutes I went next door to a conventional screening, and I am glad I did. One simply sees more detail.) Thank God there was no symbolism.
The performances of Hardy and Theron are excellent. They have real chemistry. You can feel that they complete one another: she has found a protector, and he has found a purpose. But for me, Miller’s artistry was best displayed when I realized that plot and character, tension and respite, words and silences, had been orchestrated into a deeply moving climax, created with the simplest of means. Hardy simply says, “Max, my name is Max.”
I loved this movie.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
34 comments
“Of course, this is a risky proposition, because there is a well-documented tendency for men to abandon social spaces and activities once they have become too feminized.”
That’s correct, just as Whites abandon social spaces and activities that have been “diversified.” White male flight in toto. It’s time to start taking those spaces back.
I completely disagree with this review. Do not believe any hype. The reviewer sadly is trying to convince himself. There is nothing “islamic” about the villains. They represent the Western “patriarchy” if anything. The first third of this movie is great, then it’s downhill. Bad film structure. Insidious and misleading. Mad Max (Tom Hardy) is a set piece in a film that carries his name. Charlize Theron’s character is interesting and compelling, but surrounded by spewing feminists which completely undermines the balance of the film. This is a film for contemporary Western women. Waste your money at your own peril. If you do not believe me, chew on this (Spoiler Alert)… Charlize Theron’s character kills the main villain of the film, takes over the citadel as ruler, while earlier in an utterly emasculating scene, snatches away Mad Max’s rifle after he wastes a few bullets trying to snipe a “bad guy”… and shows him how it is done, killing the assailant with the last bullet… you see, poor Max just could not be trusted to pull it off. Save your money and your integrity. Mad Max is dead.
It is her gun, and when he can’t hit the target with 2 out of the last 3 bullets, she takes it back, and he helps steady it so she can make the shot. Just good old fashioned frontier cooperation. The women in both sides of my family did not help settle this continent without learning how to fire guns at savages when needed.
I just returned from watching this movie for the second time in a row. It should have had everything going against it: a 70 year old man, who has spent the last 30 years making children’s movies, returns to his nostalgic film series – on the face of it, this should have bombed! But it’s amazing! George Miller ascends to the action genre to rescue it from overly used CGI effects and nauseating shaky cam.
I would like to ecco your criticism of the MRA crowd who thought the movie was some kind of vaginas monologue, it’s not! That type of comments is the typical auto-reply you would suspect from people who lack independent thought or are dependent on clicks. Mad Max: Fury Road reminded me more of a story from Saxo Grammaticus’ Deeds of the Danes in which a woman is married off to some slob for political reasons. She’s obviously not happy with the engagement so she lops off her new husband’s head with an axe. This has always been the case in Nordic and Germanic cultures.
I agree. There is much in this film that is epic and mythic, and that is the key to its power.
Joe did not impregnate the hot chick it was his assistant who cried out about his son (still born), nor did Joe show hatred towards his harem which I think were meant to represent an eugenic experiment. Most of the chick-fu movies are pure propaganda dreck but Theron can pull it off, Hardy second string to Theron, but what impressed me were the men and boys of the Valhalla cult and the damsels, they did rather well in their roles. Miller did not make them to be sadistic robots, killers yes.
About the young women the locus of the story, they represent as usual the concept of hope. I first noticed this in the “Planet of the Apes” sequel when the apes killed the human woman in front of the two astronauts who then said fuck it hit the button on the nuke.
I haven’t read this review thoroughly, nor have I read the other reviews of the same film thoroughly; nontheless I get an thought that I believe is worth sharing: What I notice immediately is that this review is light hearted and positive, whereas others complain (through zealous over-analysis?) about this or that political tendency…
Maybe that attitude is called for in this case. I don’t know; I haven’t seen the film. But this is a sort of sectarian pattern in nationalism. Nationalists seek out, with neurotic ardour, any detail they can complain about. “American Sniper” was about a white man unapologetically shooting brown men to protect other white men, showing various masculine virtues in the process. At least that is what 99.9% of all sane cinema visitors saw (and loved it!). White nationalist critics saw a propaganda flick for AIPAC and the New World Order (I even heard someone saying it was the most horrible propaganda film he had seen!). Now, I am as anti-Semitic as the next guy, but come on… How are people like that ever going to communicate effectively with ordinary, non-sectarian white people? My advice to people like that is that they should try to meet non-“movement” people now and then, to get things into perspective. That’s all.
We should not turn into cantankerous mirror images of easily offended feminists. They are not the least charming…
I think LimpMax above has it right. What does Rune mean by MRA crowd? What’s MRA? Anyways, let me say this, the film is feminist (do not read this as Brunhilda) propaganda, whether you like it or not.
The action in the film is fantastic, and the heavy metal guitarist will remain etched in cinema history forever. That said, if you have balls between your legs and do not see what is wrong with this movie, maybe you should check again if you are actually feeling balls.
The first minutes of the film have you believe that Mad Max is the hero: you spend the first 15 minutes of film with him, you see the visions in his head, the film is called “Mad Max: Fury Road” etc.
The film then has Furiosa (Charlize Theron) perform most of the heroic actions. Literally. She’s the killer, he’s the bit$h.
SPOILER ALERT
She kills the villain… that should say it all. She kills the villain, then Max cries for her to come back alive. When she does, she becomes Queen or whatever she is suppose to be. And if it were just that, I could have liked it… but the film made sure to have it otherwise. Throughout the movie, we keep hearing some good-looking harpies (in this wasteland, go figure) that sound like they are from an Australian University from the year 2015, go on about women “not being objects.” And the only “good” survivor-community in the film, is an all-woman community of wise, killer-soldier matrons that look like they are from Vermont. This movie has nothing to do with the Nordic or Germanic myths. Valhalla is used disparagingly, it’s used to mock Nordic warriors. Mockery, not flattery, mockery.
If you guys think this film is not a feminist victory over Western men, then it truly is game over, and it truly is the Age of Dissolution. Goodbye West, I loved you.
I really hate the rhetorical ploy of shaming anti-feminist men as being weak and whiny and unmasculine. But dude, the glass slipper fits.
Good, I love glass slippers. I wear size 13.
Although I didn’t hate the movie, I didn’t like it either. My primary criticism is Miller’s crass and vulgar aesthetic, which was not so different from the original Mad Max. Fury Road is not a film that you will struggle to understand after leaving the theater – for that I would direct your attention to the much more interesting (and European) thrilller It Follows (or Ex Machina); that’s a film you can spend days ruminating over (and one that I was ready to rewatch within a few days of seeing it the first time) and whose gothic aesthetic is much more in-line with my own patrician tastes. Mad Max was nothing but a post-apocalyptic sword and sorcery flick; I left the theater devoid of any feelings or reflections (other than assessing why I didn’t enjoy it). My reaction to skinheads and Johnny Rebs is pretty much along the same wavelength – it’s nothing personal, just a deep revulsion to their aesthetic.
On a somewhat related note, Greg Cochran has a post about why the collapse of civilization would not be a hard (ie permanent) one. If you are familiar with his style, you will understand why it is not straightforward.
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/one-more-time/
Skinheads, biker gangs, tattoos, motorcycles, heavy/death metal, and muscle cars do nothing for me either. But prole tastes will dominate in such a collapse scenario, so it is entirely plausible as a vision of the future. What I really liked about this production is the steampunk/archeofuturist aesthetic, for which we Rightists can provide a rationale, and which we self-conscious Europeans need to appropriate as ours, because it already is ours, just as as the goth and post-goth aesthetic is ours as well.
I will see Ex Machina. Trevor is on a roll.
The reflexive misogyny in these circles is getting so tiresome. I’ll take a fighting woman any day of the week over some of the whiny weaklings that show up in these communities nowadays.
To anyone on the fence about this film, no, please don’t believe the hype that this is a “feminist” or solely a “girl-power” film. That is complete non-sense. This is a damn good film on multiple levels that offers a lot to chew on from a traditionalist perspective. The people in these communitues writing it off as feminist tripe are misreading the film, as are the actual mainstream feminists. In the case of the MRA-MGTOW crowd, based on past interactions with them, I suspect some of them are suffering from limitations that prevent them from being very discerning about film content in the first place.
I agree. If I had the power to censor this movie, it would have been different. But given the manosphere reaction, I have to ask them: if they remade this movie, what would differentiate their vision from Immortan Joe’s? Probably nothing. And that kind of oriental despotism and woman hatred is profoundly foreign to our race.
Faurisson once said that the fake holocaust created by Jews could become the blueprint for the real thing. (Just to be clear, I don’t subscribe to Faurisson’s views and think that much of the holocaust story is true.) I think that the fake Western patriarchy projected by feminists is becoming the blueprint for the reaction. Another reason for clear headed Right-wing metapolitics, rather than neurotic and hysterical reactionary posturing.
I just don’t have time to go into this topic, particularly because I don’t think it is important.
Greg, about your “frontier cooperation”. Here is why I disagree. She smirked at him while she requested the gun. If she were helping, she would have been the shoulder Max would have used to make the kill.
Jared, MRA means men’s rights activist/activism. Stupidest concept in the world. Its very existence being antithetical to being a man.
Lew, I’m guessing you are over 50 or 60 to make that comment with so much disdain. Reminds me of my great-uncle. My guess is that you had an entire lifetime (or Half Life) where you took many of the natural things of life for granted, including culture and your place in it.
Here’s a little perspective:
I’m 19. All the cartoons I watched growing up had boys playing second fiddle to “power girls.” At school, we (guys) were reprimanded for being competitive. Last year, our family had to change my younger brother from his school, since they were enforcing this rule for young boys to sit down while they pee-ed. Lately, all my comic book heroes are being turned into women (Thor) or non-whites (Spider-Man, Captain America). Video Games too, are now on the chopping block (for not being female-friendly). Now, coming to Mad Max… when I saw the trailer for Fury Road, I downloaded Road Warrior in anticipation. It was a moment of heaven. I could relate. I could see how a man fits in the world. How a good man stands up to the bad men, for the protection of the tribe, despite himself.
I was psyched for Mad Max: Fury Road. It was to be reprieve from this constant mental assault. Sadly, despite the phantasmagorical experience, I was left thinking, what was the point of Max in the movie. On one hand, you have a tyrannical patriarchy that grinds men into obedience. On the other you have a matriarchy that basically has NO men. Then you have two “good” male characters. One gets wooed by a girl, who treats him like a little boy, and for whom he sacrifices himself for no established reason. On the other, you have Max, who essentially plays sidekick to a much cooler Furiosa. So, let me get this straight. I have a choice of a) being a pawn for tyrants b) swooning for a girl who gives me nothing in return and for who I should sacrifice myself for the “cause” c) play second fiddle (if that) to a Furiosa or d) admire a matriarchy that has no room for men.
Yeah, I prefer finding the world of the Road Warrior. The tribe was balanced between men and women. Max is the hero with a cause. And if I have to be a bad guy, at least the wild boys seem more fair in their group structure. So no thank you, Lew, I hate the world you left my generation.
Once the emotional adrenaline of the film wears off, you might start seeing it more objectively.
Lastly, thank you for teaching me a new lesson Greg, namely: to trust no one. Your comments above to those other dissenters go against everything this website promotes. It sucks, but it’s a good lesson to learn at this age. I’ve learned another lesson from this too – never commit. So again, and I promise, I am sincere and serious, thank you.
I determine what this website stands for: realism about the differences between the sexes, which leads to re-establishing the harmony of the two halves of humanity, not neurotic woman hatred, which is just the flip side of neurotic man hatred. There are other sites out there that are much more receptive to this kind of damaged boy hysteria. A smirk? Grow up a bit. We’ll still be here when you do.
Agree on principle even though I haven’t seen it yet. A smirk is never just a smirk anymore than a gun is ever just a gun (always part of the masculine mystique in most literature and art, especially the mythic like this movie). A smirk reveals you have no future with that person – if you are wise. The little things of life reveal so much. One can be saved from catastrophe by paying attention to them. People at bars or parties often say that trouble came out of nowhere. Usually not true, they just weren’t paying attention to the hard looks being thrown in their direction before it started.
A smirk is never just a smirk
A smirk? Heavens above, how dare she! I don’t know how you guys make it through a day without your heads exploding. That’s what my head would do if I were to read cosmic significance into every slight or social inconvenience. These are the unavoidable details of the tapestry of human experience. I don’t see how a man could other than break himself in the attempt to eradicate them. Resilience and humor seem to me a sounder way of dealing with them.
In short, a smirk.
If the situation was a black guy grabbing the gun of a white guy (to show him how it’s done) with a look of disdain/smirk/whatever that facial expression was suppose to be… you bunch would be singing a different song.
If the situation was a guy snatching away the rifle of a woman (to show her how it’s done), you would be singing a different song.
If we were living in sane times, where a sound balance guided us forwarded, and if the film were about Max as opposed to him being irrelevant, then yes, this could have been humorous.
No one smirks at Mad Max. And he doesn’t miss twice and then let some woman take his rifle. In the original movie, the a gorgeous warrior woman tries to buddy up with him – nothing doing. Like the Hero in Water World, Max is too alienated to procreate. He’ll only do so in the Promised Land, after the battle is won. Any martial arts movie fans here? In the movie about the creation of Tai Chi, the Heroine asks the Hero “Will I see you again?” He answers, “Who can say?” as he rides off into the West. That’s mythic.
You on the other hand must love politically correct Fairy Tales. I want boys to see and read stories about men larger than life. You want them to see and read about men who are smaller than life.
For the record, I have nothing against more conventional heroes who fight evil and then get the girl too. But in this most radical of times, we have to go back to the Source of our Traditions, the pure Hero and his Brothers. James J. O’Meara and others call it the Mannerbund. Girls on the side – where they have put themselves and where most of them belong in any case.
“When our race awakens and begins to fight for its survival, it is not pre-Raphaelite damsels and oriental lotus foots who will be our helpmeets, but women like Furiosa.”
Yes!! Thank you. Great movie, and I just don’t see how this is a “feminist” plot to take over a man’s movie.
I do take issue with this though;
“Theron’s character is the focus of a media kerfuffle about her allegedly “badass” superfeminist character, but it is entirely baseless and manufactured to sell tickets.”
It doesn’t seem to be completely manufactured, there seem to be some gents who are really upset about that character and are writing about it on different sites.
All of this depends on your standards of what counts as feminism. Compared to the feculent feminism of, say, G.I. Jane, this seems like mild stuff to me, and the manosphere complaints seem as manufactured as the feminist buzz. Again, I ask: given the complaints issuing from the manosphere, what wouldn’t be feminist? Does it have to play in Peshawar before these people will be happy? Would Joan of Arc or Wagner’s Ring be feminist propaganda as well? The manosphere has a strong odor of Oriental woman-hatred, which along with its wide stripe of yellow fever, basically spells a hatred of specifically white women, which is something that obviously should not go unchallenged in our circles.
This is the second good review i have read or heard. The other was from a Jewish conservative commentator on one of the morning shows. She also said despite the violence it had some good value. Maybe i will pay to go see it afterall.
I clearly see why people would find this movie to be just another feminist piece of propaganda. However, I think there are certain parts of the movie that would suggest that this is not the case.
I think the major reason people might see this as feminist propaganda is that Furiosa is the one who kills the villain and becomes ruler of the Citadel at the end of the film. If Furiosa’s situation is put into context it makes more sense why she would be the one to kill Joe and become ruler, instead of it just being an irrelevant plot point to further the feminist agenda. First off, at the beginning of the film she is already Imperator Furiosa, Joe has bestowed this title upon her. We later find out that she was kindnapped from the Green Place, her home, along with her mother when she was a child. Maybe Joe decided to make her Imperator instead of a wife because she was barren? He also might have trained her to become Imperator so she would not rebel against him for taking her from the Green Place. If these things are taken into context it makes sense why Furiosa would be the one to kill Joe and become ruler of the Citadel since she was already Imperator of the Citadel. Maybe her character could have been played by a male but I think that would have changed the relationship between Furiosa and Max. It might have changed the whole story. If Furiosa was a male Max probably would have been more inclined to dispose of Furiosa and the wives and get the hell out of dodge. I think if Furiosa was male he would have had the same inclination to kill Max and Nux to continue his journey with the wives. However, if this would have happened Furiosa and the wives would have perished in the salt flats or maybe even in the swampland.
This movie portrays Furiosa as a warrior, which may not sit well with some people, they may claim it’s just more feminist claptrap, however, the movie also displays her weak side, her human side. After leading the wives, Max, and Nux, to what she thought would be the Green Place, Furiosa realizes her folly. A shot is shown of her stumbling in the desert, with her prosthetic metal arm off, screaming into the wind. Yes she may be Imperator and warrior but she is also human, weak, foolish, frail, hopeless. If this movie was feminist propaganda she would have found the Green Place, her and the wives would have made Max and Nux their sex slaves, and the feminist utopia would thrive happily ever after. This doesn’t happen though and it’s only because of Max that they live. If it weren’t for Max the women would have perished in the salt flats like I’ve already said. If it weren’t for Max, the Bullet Farmer probably would have killed the women. If it weren’t for Nux’s mechanical skills the rig would have been useless and the women easily captured. The focus of this movie seems to be on the cooperation between the sexes instead of trying to make women seem superior to men. Max and Nux don’t just stand by and watch Furiosa do all the work, all of them have to depend on each other to make it back to the Citadel. The role of the women in this film is not to “emasculate” the men but to give them hope for a better future, a reason to fight.
There seems to be a traditionalist under tone throughout Mad Max as well. Furiosa wants to go back to the Green Place, her homeland, with fertile women, to start a better society. Max has visions of his dead daughter, which leads him to tell the women to return to the Citadel, and saves his life at one point. The elder women also have seeds they want to plant and talk about the olden days. The protagonists are motivated by the old world, the traditional world, the ideas of family and home.
However, I just read on IMDB that feminist Eve Ensler was consulted to enhance the portrayal of female characters in this movie, so maybe I’m wrong.
I see no evidence that she becomes the ruler at the end.
I’m middle aged white woman who has been following the men’s rights for a few years. I’m decidedly anti-feminist as a result of my life’s experience with it toxic effects. I slammed into the culture exactly as I reached puberty. I don’t think there are many people around who are more disgusted with feminism than I.
However the slow turn of men’s rights from criticism of feminist ideology to criticism of white women is truly scary. I kind of intuitively saw it coming, but now it is pretty blatant.
http://judgybitch.com/2015/05/21/fury-road-and-the-post-apocalyptic-landscape-of-a-destroyed-society-black-america-already-lives-there/
It seems to me that the recently popularized men’s rights memes are the plan b for the final atomization of white humanity as feminism loses its charms.
The turn against White Women was inevitable and necessary since they turned against us long ago. Consider: by the time a woman is 21, she’s watched thousands of hours of White Men being portrayed as either fools or wimps, or vicious monsters. And yes, they believe. That’s why it was done. And they act on their beliefs. Many young women even believe the kickass woman stuff and think women can become Rangers or Green Berets. When women flunk out, they put pressure on the Brass to lower the requirements. Reality becomes subjective you see – a classic female weakness.
Of course women are victims of Feminism and the Jewish Media, but instead of resisting and standing by Men they have succumbed by and large. So victims? Yes. Innocent? No. So we go our own way and will remake Society in our own image – as it should be. You all will come a running if and when we succeed or are ABOUT TO – pretending that you were always with us. I admit their are a small percentage of honorable exceptions, women who deserve the name comrade. A true female comrade will never defend what White Women have become (there is no distinction between the ideology and most women) or the choices they have made. They are with Us, come hell or high water until the end.
In my opinion, the main goal of feminism is to demoralize white women and men. Harm white children or to prevent their births entirely. For a large part, the men’s rights movement seems to share this goal. They use exactly the same tactics as 60s and 70s feminism. Create scare stories that are relevant to young women (or men in this case) horror stories of rape, male aggression yada yada. As the men’s rights folks have so carefully pointed out again and again. Feminist “facts” are false and not supported by data.
In the case of men, now that the laws have been changed to be extremely unfair to men, many of the male scare stories are actually true. They are now being used to drive the final wedge in happy pair bonding between white men and women and harm children or prevent their births.
When I look at the portion of the mainstream media that gives some support to “men’s issues” I go hum… because of where this support comes from and the type of so called resistance to it.
Things to keep in mind:
most women do not and didn’t support feminism even early on. it was imposed by incessant repetition in the media both mainstream and alternative. at school etc etc. Women’s magazines are a good start to see how these messages are delivered to understand what is being done and how expensive it must be to maintain. I hear women’s studies classes often get cancelled for lack of participation.
There are fewer feminists than what it appears due to the sheer amplification of feminist messaging. Women are bullied by each other to go along. Feminists both the male and female ones do the bullying.
What we all need to remember, is that feminism is not and never was installed for the benefit of women. I never accepted that framing and never will. I don’t know why anyone does. Even feminist critics like Christina Hoff Sommers say that feminism was necessary and helped women, then it went too far, and now the third world needs it, rather than privileged white women.
But my older male relatives seem convinced that feminism helps women more than many of my older female relatives. It is a hard sell to get them off this. My sons’ are not so naive. Young women are mainly engaged in a vanity battle with each other and will give up feminist crap when they realize they’ve been duped.
I will check out that movies to see for myself.
Piece of Hollywood trash, or should I say in Hollywood language “schmutz”
On my list to avoid !
I might be a little late to the party but I’ll comment just the same. Yes, modern white culture doesn’t usually promote “Oriental” despotism but that doesn’t stop the filmmakers from attacking whites head on in all their albino glory. With multi-culturalism promoted heavily in contemporary cinema, non-white representatives seemed to be absent from The Citadel “bad boys” but noticeably represented by the victim class. This was more political commentary on the evils of white patriarchy than patriarchy itself. To be fair, Human Trafficking does exist; white women exploited (by white men nonetheless) and “groomed” as the ultimate prize so the futuristic plot isn’t too far-fetched. That said, as Trevor states, even with all these factors the theme is about cohesion, not feminist separatism.
A few points:
1)Furiosa is beaten down and almost killed by Mad Max before she shows him up with bullet skills. Interpretation: Women are not as strong as men but they can learn how to defend themselves if needed.
Plausible? Yes. Feminist? No. If the sexes were equal, feminists wouldn’t be limited by their lack of physical strength.
2)After Max proved his ballsy White Knight intentions (no exploitation like the girls were used to) and joined their fight for a better life, he was respected and considered one of them. Furiosa wanted him soooooo badly. A woman will gladly give up full power of a new civilization and rule with a man she trusts will do the right thing. Remember, going back to The Citadel was HIS idea.
3)There is no difference between Mad Max and The Dark Knight. Bane errr Max is thrust unwillingly into a different world only to make it better at the possible expense of his own life. Does he stay and become Furiosa’s beta bitch? Nah, like Batman he’s too independent and mysteriously exits her frame and his own.
In conclusion, Mad Max: Fury Road plays more like a MGTOW wet dream than feminist propaganda.
Thanks for Greg’s excellent review of the movie. I’ve just watched it online in China, quite clear in image and with English subtitles. While I am largely in agreement with Greg on his analytic dissection of the main roles, story lines, and the denoted meanings of this movie, a few things in the film actually disturbed me. As pointed out by some reviewer there, I also harbor some doubt as about the real identity of the seemingly despotic Citadel. Admittedly the tyrannic rule, the harem of Immortan Joe, the monopoly and restriction of water to the populaces, the functioning slavery, the militarism etc. are stRiki-Eikingly resembling to historical Islam, yet they might not be exclusive to the Islam in the first place, and what’s more, the cardinal bad guy i.e. Immortan Joe is a White, blond chieftain-like figure though badly deformed and ugly, while his sinewy elder son looks like a real Aryan warrior, and the war boys are reflections of skinheads, all combined to denote and depict the White Nationalists negatively if I was not reading too much into it.
Furthermore, I don’t know if the film director or producer or whoever else in charge nurses some anti-Japanese sentiments, but a few names associated with the Citadel rulers show a patent disrespect and frivolous impudence of the Japanese culture which also constitutes a stupid, clownish, and clueless mockery of Japan and the Japanese people, namely, the war boys are being called something like “Kamikrazies” (in a dark reference to the heroically patriotic and self-sacrificing Japanese Kamikaze pilots near the end of WWII), and another name attached to them in the movie seems akin to “Fukushima” which also denotes and satirizes the nuclear accident damaged Fukushima of Japan during the huge earthquake disaster of March 2001. All in all, the two names cited as example above are both snide sneering remarks which are base and gross, and unreasonably provocative and affronting to Japan who obviously has nothing to do with the movie plot in the first place.
Are you Japanese? You know we Hwytes loves you, but you guys need thicker skins.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment