The inevitability of a black Bond

Another possibility is that MP :afro: is pregnant and has Bond's love-child. As Craig looked like he was ready for the rocking chair in SF (appearance wise, not physicality wise), the nu, mixed-race Bond could succeed his daddy. Offspring looks like he might get some needed height from mother, too. The blue snuggers could be passed from father to son.

Actually this can't work. Baby Bond is just being born. It will be 40-45 years before he reaches the proper age for double-O license in the nu-Bond era.

===re Bond and Kissy. I know son of Bond-and-Kissy was pursued in some format or other. I will have to consult my Lane and Simpson, "The Bond Files." Actually I think the story might have been developed in one of Benson's short stories. Bond Jr gets killed in the adventure. So sad. I've only read one of the Benson short stories but Lane and Simpson provided summaries of everything published, including comics.

tiffanywint wrote:

Another possibility is that MP :afro: is pregnant and has Bond's love-child. As Craig looked like he was ready for the rocking chair in SF (appearance wise, not physicality wise), the nu, mixed-race Bond could succeed his daddy. Offspring looks like he might get some needed height from mother, too. The blue snuggers could be passed from father to son.

Actually this can't work. Baby Bond is just being born. It will be 40-45 years before he reaches the proper age for double-O license in the nu-Bond era.

===re Bond and Kissy. I know son of Bond-and-Kissy was pursued in some format or other. I will have to consult my Lane and Simpson, "The Bond Files." Actually I think the story might have been developed in one of Benson's short stories. Bond Jr gets killed in the adventure. So sad. I've only read one of the Benson short stories but Lane and Simpson provided summaries of everything published, including comics.

Is there an age requirement to be a 00-agent? The introduction of Bond's son could at least provide the springboard to spin-off the series with an "ethnic" Bond people have been allegedly clamoring for.

Speaking of clams.....someone at EON really needs to tell Naomie Harris to shut hers. She was quoted AGAIN last week about the possibility of a gay Bond and/or a female Bond, saying how she thought it would be great and very "open-minded". No, it's the height of stupidity really. Go make your own fictitious superhero and you'll have the right to cast that hero the way you think they should look. Until then, leave 007 alone.

I think you're right about Benson doing something with 007 Jr, but I didn't read it....yet. I've read all of the Fleming, Amis, and Gardner novels. Probably will start on Benson early next year. I've read 2 of his 6 novels (the first two). Have to admit, his short stories "Live at Five" and the one in the Playboy mansion turned me off at the time to reading anything else of his, but the first two novels I read seemed entertaining.

James Bond is arguably the last remaining white cultural icon. As such, he's the primary target of black cultural imperialists and their white fellow travelers who view the advent of a black Bond as a civil right. Or at the very least an index of "how far we've come." In reality, it would not be an indicator of how far we've come as a society but how far whites have fallen when it comes to defending their own civilization, culture and heritage. Black cultural imperialism and chauvenism: righteous and just. White defense against ethno-cultural encroachment: racist and criminal.

Well, to hell with that. Like Gravy, if Bond becomes black I'm quitsville with the series. And I probably won't return.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

how far whites have fallen when it comes to defending their own civilization, culture and heritage. Black cultural imperialism and chauvenism: righteous and just. White defense against ethno-cultural encroachment: racist and criminal.

That's bullshit, Khan. Disappointed to see you write that.

It doesn't follow that you and I have anything in common with other white people just because of the colour of our skin. Hell, white Europeans have been killing each other for ever.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

how far whites have fallen when it comes to defending their own civilization, culture and heritage. Black cultural imperialism and chauvenism: righteous and just. White defense against ethno-cultural encroachment: racist and criminal.

That's bullshit, Khan. Disappointed to see you write that.

It doesn't follow that you and I have anything in common with other white people just because of the colour of our skin. Hell, white Europeans have been killing each other for ever.

Actually, Ambler, it's an uncomfortable truth and I'm disappointed to see that you refuse to face up to it.

Yes, whites have been harming one another for millenia, but the casus belli, the Shoah excepted, was not race. The multi-culti extirpation of white culture, on the other hand, is driven expressly by race. This is getting off topic, but in the States, blacks are twice as likely to commit "hate crimes" against whites as vice versa. Among blacks there is a very real belief that "whitey has it coming." And one way to give it to us, legally, is to annihilate white culture, and there's no greater symbol of white culture than James Bond. Research the Frankfurt School of Marxism and you'll get some sense of what I'm talking about.

Well, I'm reluctant to get into debates where both sides have apparently unreconcilable views, but what am I supposed to face up to?

I don't accept that identical skin colour is any indicator of a common culture or set of values. Take my own island's history, for example. Britain looked beyond Europe to the wider world and that trading tradition, together with the continent's antipathy to parliamentary democracy, is part of the reason many Britons feel they have little in common with today's EU. Can you explain how that fits in with your idea of a common white civilisation and/or cause? To give another example, was the civil war between Tutsis and Hutus evidence of a united black front? I would say not. Africans enslaved each other long before the whites arrived.

I'm trying to understand your opinion, but I can't see any intellectual basis for it.

Europeans, white Europeans from numerous nations, engaged in trade, even before the Brits established their glorious empire. Indeed, this trading tradition as you call it, is a hallmark of western civilization. And it was cultural curiousity, a double-edged sword that is arguably the basis for today's destructive multi-culti, which was probably the afflatus for trade and exploration. This too is distinctly Western. And like it or not, whiteness is perhaps the key identifier of Western Civilization. Whites, like all races, share a common genetic history and inheritance that has persevered and evolved uniquely for many thousands of years. Consequently, various races are quite different in all sorts of ways. I would argue strenuously that Western Civilization and culture have been the greatest boon to humanity in all its history. We would do well to defend and preserve it rather than squander it in the name of "being nice."

Perilagu Khan wrote:

James Bond is arguably the last remaining white cultural icon. As such, he's the primary target of black cultural imperialists and their white fellow travelers who view the advent of a black Bond as a civil right. Or at the very least an index of "how far we've come." In reality, it would not be an indicator of how far we've come as a society but how far whites have fallen when it comes to defending their own civilization, culture and heritage. Black cultural imperialism and chauvenism: righteous and just. White defense against ethno-cultural encroachment: racist and criminal.

Well, to hell with that. Like Gravy, if Bond becomes black I'm quitsville with the series. And I probably won't return.

In total agreement. Whites aren't even allowed to think of, or speak to, "white culture". We're just supposed to accept the premise that it is racist to discuss white culture, because truthfully, if we start talking about the benefits of white people and their culture, then the discussion inevitably leads to the fact that almost no other culture out there can come close, and that in order to bring other cultures up to our standards may involve simply having to lower ours.

There's only one race I believe in, and that's the human race.

Man, you guys are getting all philosophical, it is making my tw@t queaf.

Here's a black James Bond...this guy is a real Casino Royale fanboy....

Khan and Ambler are the two smartest people any of us know. It's like two titans briefly engaging. Savour the exchange.

===As for black Bond I am all for it, especially if nu-Bond is too serious for Rog-and-Sean-style Bond. The hell with Babs and Craig then.

"Black-Bond" doesn't have to actually be Bond. Just be Bond-like with a similar name and number. Lawyers would have to suss out the inevitable copyright attack from Eon. But BB could easily defend by claiming that Eon is so far removed from the days of the Spectre volcano, that it has effectively relinquished any claim on that character or on that brand of exciting, fun, escapist spy-adventure.

There is room for both nu-Bond and black-Bond especially if black-Bond gets back to Bond basics, but under a diferent name. Someone call Idris Elba and get this thing going.

I would ask that Elba or whoever takes the role, try to work with the Connery Bond-model with a healthy dash of Rog too, if they want.

I think the first movie should attempt to outdue both YOLT and MR in one fell swoop. It could involve a supervillain with a secret moon-crater lair, Drax style Bond babes in streamlined, form-fitting lunar suits, bouncing about,armed with deadly space lasers. I'm not kidding. I've never been more serious in my life!

The whole presentation would be both dangerous and camp just like the original Bond series. :shock:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Speaking of clams.....someone at EON really needs to tell Naomie Harris to shut hers. She was quoted AGAIN last week about the possibility of a gay Bond and/or a female Bond, saying how she thought it would be great and very "open-minded".

Harris is a ditz. Doesn't she watch her own movies? Bond is already gay, if you want him to be. It's right there in SF. Silva teases it out of him. Now mind you, Bond could just have been posturing. But the point is we don't really know. Bond's sexuality is suddenly ambiguous, that is if you want it to be. Nu-Bond is very sly that way. He can also remain hyper-hetero, if you want him to be.

Craig/Babs/Mendes use the same technique with the question of "did Bond and MP sleep together?" back when we only knew her as Eve. We don't really know. The answer was left ambiguous. They could very well have, or they may not of. Again, you can have it whichever way you want. Nu-Bond is very flexible and accomodating this way. Might even help with their Oscar campaign. A Bond for all tastes. Gone is that tired old convention that Bond and MP are simply flirt-friends. Atlhough that is on the table too, if you want it. And Bond doesn't have to be hetero-straight, if you don't want him to be.

Me, I don't care what nu-Bond does. He can prop a chair against the new conveniently sound-proof padded door that M installed, and do the bumpy with MP right there on her desk; and later drop by and make eyes at Q, if Q is down with that. I'm willing to roll with the new vibe, wherever it might take us. Craig would ask no less of us.

===

As for Bond and Kissy's son. Benson did cover this off in his first Bond work, the short story, Blast From the Past (1997), which preceded his first novel. Benson expands the idea first raised by Pearson in the Authorized Biography (1973) that Kissy bore Bond a son. In the short story Bond is lured to New York City, by a phony message from Irma Bunt, purporting to be from his son James Suzuki. But when Bond arrives he finds that his son has been poisoned. Kissy btw is long dead from some illness.

Bunt is disguising herself as a bag-lady. Bond eventually engages Bunt and puts her down, once and for all. And so begins the Benson era of Bond. :D

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Man, you guys are getting all philosophical, it is making my tw@t queaf.

Here's a black James Bond...this guy is a real Casino Royale fanboy....

Bloody hell. Couldn't he find a gun that didn't look like it was out of Star Wars?

Still, all is forgiven thanks to the magnificent rack at 1:13.

Black Bond, on one condition only: that from now on, it's taught in schools that Malcolm X and Martin Luther King and Mohamed Ali were white.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Consequently, various races are quite different in all sorts of ways. I would argue strenuously that Western Civilization and culture have been the greatest boon to humanity in all its history. We would do well to defend and preserve it rather than squander it in the name of "being nice."

I hope you're not arguing for some sort of 'racial purity' ideology. Not only is much of that stuff completely unscientific, but to conflate what is good about Western civilisation with skin colour is arrant nonsense. Great cultures are inclusive not exclusive.

Quite apart from that, our 'great civilisation' carries the recent and horrific baggage of WWI, Nazism, Marxism, the European Union, pseudoscience and other associated psychobabble. If that's high culture then I'm at a loss as to what you think is low. One can make an intellectual argument for the Anglosphere, but continental Europe's contribution to the twentieth century has been horrific in every sense of the word.

Is this not an absolutely redundant argument? I don't mean Ambler or Khan, I mean both of you. For every tit there's a tat. Make love not war, people.

Well you have three tits. How is that fair exactly?

That means I win. I am superior intellectually, racially, sexually or any other way you choose to explore. Three tits is the way forward for civilisation.












Or maybe not.

Of course you win: woman is the superior sex. I can say that after careful and sustained study.

Also, how fortunate that I have three hands.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Consequently, various races are quite different in all sorts of ways. I would argue strenuously that Western Civilization and culture have been the greatest boon to humanity in all its history. We would do well to defend and preserve it rather than squander it in the name of "being nice."

I hope you're not arguing for some sort of 'racial purity' ideology. Not only is much of that stuff completely unscientific, but to conflate what is good about Western civilisation with skin colour is arrant nonsense. Great cultures are inclusive not exclusive.

Quite apart from that, our 'great civilisation' carries the recent and horrific baggage of WWI, Nazism, Marxism, the European Union, pseudoscience and other associated psychobabble. If that's high culture then I'm at a loss as to what you think is low. One can make an intellectual argument for the Anglosphere, but continental Europe's contribution to the twentieth century has been horrific in every sense of the word.

The errant nonsense is blithe dismissal of race's significance. It is critical and omnipresent. Only timid white souls blinkered by political correctness deny this. The evidence is all around you. At any rate, you seem to have little problem with sexual essentialism and determinism. That is merely the opposite side of the racial street I deal with.

Regarding Nazism, Marxism, et al., nobody denies Western Civilization has produced its horrors. In fact, all civilizations and cultures have evil in their past. The difference is that western pathologies have come in tandem with cultural achievements that have edified humanity and scientific/technological advances that have improved the human condition. The violence of other civilizations has resulted largely in stagnation. But if you believe in "inclusivity" (God, how I hate that word), by all means revel in your Londonistan. It won't be long before demographic reality overwhelms your willful naivete like a mortal tide. Thirty years from now I predict you will be singing a different tune; your censorious overlords, however, will not allow it to be heard.

By the way, Ambler, please don't take this personally. I still hold you in the highest regard; we simply share no common ground on this issue.

Quote :

The difference is that western pathologies have come in tandem with cultural achievements that have edified humanity and scientific/technological advances that have improved the human condition. The violence of other civilizations has resulted largely in stagnation.

Eeeek, that's rather sweeping. Not that I espouse particularly lefty views, but as an example Spain's time under Arab rule was by far its most advanced period as far as culture and education go. Once the 'western civilisations' took back over they set the country back centuries.

In other words, Khan, I see your point but suggest (cordially) that you're talking bollocks. :)

Perilagu Khan wrote:

By the way, Ambler, please don't take this personally. I still hold you in the highest regard; we simply share no common ground on this issue.

No,of course not, we go back too far for me to take any political disagreement personally. Besides, partly what's going on here is my rejection of your idea of a common Western civilization. I don't feel that the Protestant Anglosphere necessarily has much in common with Catholic Europe. In other words, a lot of divisions that you think are to do with skin colour I would argue have more to do with different religions and ethics.

BTW, full marks for managing to get two lines out of Santa; I rarely manage to get more than two words. I think you can guess what they are.

"Get off"?

"Had better"?