Wonder Woman was not a ground-breaking movie.

No, Wonder Woman was not a ground-breaking or revolutionary movie. And James Cameron, with whom I disagree on many matters, was correct to say it’s a step backwards.

See, Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman was not the first female lead in a movie. Wonder Woman was not the first female superhero movie. Wonder Woman did make a huge amount of money, but was not a leader in that regard either. It wasn’t a first in anything.

Was it a step backwards? Hell yes. The character is a teenage boy’s fantasy, a sexy, strong woman wearing bondage gear and tying up guys with a magic rope of confession. Certainly there’s nothing wrong with being sexy, and nothing wrong with sexy women. But Wonder Woman is literally a sexual fantasy figure, dreamed up by a pervert who was diddling one of his college students behind his wife’s back; he later convinced his wife to allow it to progress into an ongoing open marriage involving him and both women.

Here are a couple of very revealing quotes from Wonder Woman’s creator:

  • “Give men an alluring woman stronger than themselves to submit to and they’ll be proud to become her willing slaves.”
  • “A woman character without allure would be like a Superman without muscle.”

So, he’s saying a female character must be sexually appealing in order to be popular or interesting. And he’s revealing his dominatrix fantasies. This is what drove the creation of the deliberately sexual character Wonder Woman.

So, ah, yeah, Wonder Woman was hot. But ground-breaking? No.

You probably don’t even have morals.

If your morals consist of merely going along with everyone else, and are not based on a logical analysis of causes and effects, then you don’t have morals; you have submission to peer pressure, which means you have a weak, cowardly, and flawed character.

Proud to say I’m voting no.

Why I’m proud to say I’m voting no in the same sex marriage plebiscite.

Ok, so, Australia is currently going a little crazy about a plebiscite to provide the politicians with some indication of whether Australian citizens in their majority prefer to accept, or not, people of the same sex being permitted to marry each other. This is being referred to as the same sex marriage, or SSM, plebiscite. A plebiscite, for those of you who don’t know, is when the citizens of a nation who are eligible to vote, do so with the intention of deciding something affecting the nation and its people. Whether the politicians obey the outcome of this plebiscite, and the will of the people, is another matter. They may decide to completely ignore the plebiscite and form some legislation intended to appease the mainstream media and the minority lobbies.

As an example of how insane this matter is making the already intellectually bankrupt Australian people, check out the reaction to one young lady simply stating on her own webpage that it’s ok to vote no:

Canberra contractor sacked for ‘vote no’ Facebook post

A SMALL-BUSINESS owner has sacked a staff member who came out in support of the “no” campaign in the same-sex marriage postal plebiscite.

Madlin Sims, who runs a party entertainment company in Canberra, said she was taking a stand on the issue, likening it to employing a staff member who posted racist material online.

Source.

So this small business owner decided to fire someone, to end someone’s source of income, merely for voicing the opinion that in a democratic process in a democratic nation, it was ok to vote no, given the two options yes and no. In this democratic process, she has stated that any option other than that she supports is actually equivalent to racism, and that is sufficient reason for her to cut off someone’s source of income and potentially render them homeless.

Yes, that is how intellectually and morally bankrupt Australians have become. The state of our democracy has deteriorated to the extent that only those who support one ideology are permitted to have jobs. Yeah, that’s right. It’s Fascism. Madlin Sims, the business owner mentioned in the quoted article, is a Fascist.

Australians are also stupid because they actually want a government to control such things. Only a moron would want that. The government should not be involved with marriage at all. It should be up to individuals whether they wish to be married. It should be up to churches or others to perform marriage ceremonies as they wish, for whomever they wish. There is simply no reason for any government to be involved in such matters. To actually want a government to interfere in one’s private life requires a magnitude of stupidity which can not reasonably be attributed to a truly conscious, thinking being.

But back to the Fascist Madlim Sims and her ilk: For the very reason that such morally bankrupt, intellectually retarded and repugnant vermin want to screw over anyone with whom they disagree, I am proud to say openly that I will be voting no. I will of course be voting yes, due to my firm belief that all citizens should be precisely equal before the law. But I am stating publicly, at work and elsewhere, that I will be voting no.

How is your society or culture described?

When any entity, whether individual or collective, has lost or failed to achieve any quantifiable or logically supportable virtues, it applies to itself neutral adjectives which can not be logically proven or substantiated as virtues.  Such adjectives are intended not to be interrogated or examined, but to provide a sense of validation and satisfaction, provided nobody questions their logical foundation or supposed benefits.

Examples:

  • Diverse.
  • Multicultural.
  • Progressive.

None of those adjectives actually mean anything good or beneficial. They might, if some qualification or explanation were added. But on their own, they mean nothing.

The root of good and evil.

The ultimate good is long term or indefinite survival of one’s genetic code, or the closest matching genetic code.  This is confirmed by the basic rule of all life: all organisms which do not conform to the rule go extinct.  Any ideology which acts, or produces results, contrary to that rule is inherently evil in the objective sense, even if it provides one a brief feeling of satisfaction or hubris based on publicly demonstrating conformity to fashionable ideas of virtue.