There was a huge variety of bright characters of all races and nationalities in Bondiana since the days of Fleming, as well as female characters acting on a par with Bond and often surpassing him. And no one did a separate PR campaign about it.
Why now is there such a fuss about the introduction of black and female characters, why are there so many disgruntled among the old fans of Bond? Probably, because for the first time, some non-white and female characters can appear in the film without any logic and connection with the plot, without any understanding of their sexual and national behaviour patterns and, accordingly, without any respect for these patterns. And even for white and male characters, every word is censored to erase their racial and national identity. And all this is being done for the sake of a ridiculous, misanthropic, mendacious ideology.
The bond created by Fleming is a white British, the son of a Scot and a French. All his actions, his every word and gesture, all his victories and his weaknesses – all these are manifestations of white British.
Bond is a gamer, he finds satisfaction in the game. Moreover, he finds the highest satisfaction in a fair game. In the absence of a worthy opponent, he plays with his own demons and his own death, and always judges himself more strictly than the rest. Bond is an icon of the British for foreigners who are interested in the British, as well as for the British who are interested in themselves.
In Fleming’s novels, we find many other British characters and many other nationalities. All of these characters act in accordance with the national character, be it a hero or a villain – and this is another advantage of Fleming. Bondian always gave readers and viewers the opportunity to travel not only in places of the world but also in the infinite variety of human characters.
Fleming paid most attention to the British, of course – and thanks to him I understand why this nation and this country have achieved so much in this world, possessing so little – a small amount of land, heat, minerals, population and other resources. Thank him for this understanding! That’s why you need a writer.
I have a special taste for such descriptions and for understanding other races and peoples. I was born and lived in Rostov-on-Don, the southern Russian city, the capital of the Cossacks. Cossacks formed on the edge of the Russian Empire from those who fled there from slavery. Those who managed to reach the banks of our river, the Don, those are no longer officially pursued.
Our land is warm, the land is very fertile, and all sorts of people have long lived there. It is noteworthy that they lived there not only after the others but at the same time. That is, together. And so it is. I think more than 100 nationalities came to the Rostov region from the North Caucasus because Rostov is the capital of the Southern District of Russia. Plus, we have Armenians, Georgians, Azeris, Gypsies, Jews, Ukrainians, Belorussians who traditionally live throughout Russia. Even Assyrians we have.
For example, in my school class, there were children of eleven nationalities. Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Georgians, Armenians – and Russians themselves are very heterogeneous. For example, I descend mainly from the Russians who lived on the Volga, and they differ from Russians from other regions. In my city, it is still almost impossible to find a family where at least three or four nationalities would not have been mixed.
In my hometown, I have NEVER witnessed a manifestation of hostility based on nationality. Never witnessed discrimination based on nationality. Such a state of affairs was an exception if we talk about the USSR as a whole – but what is it to me? I grew up among people who did not need to preach about the equality of races and peoples. And few people in our country were so hated as communist agitators who tried to tell us about “proletarian internationalism” – and this after the communists resettled entire nations, transporting them in cattle cars and throwing them out to survive in the bare steppe.
Since childhood, I considered happiness to be able to live with such different people. And how fortunate it was to read and re-read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn! The life of the American South turned out to be very similar to the life of the South of Russia. True, we did not have blacks and Indians – but thanks to Mark Twain, I felt the taste of the “black” perception of the world, as if I myself had lived all my childhood with Jim.
Mark Twain managed to convey all this. I do not know which American white writers did it the same way or better than him. For example, Kurt Vonnegut, adored by me, apparently understood that he could not write authentically about blacks – and did not write. But Leni Riefenstahl made a breakthrough – and, as expected, she was harassed by leftist morons. The leftists pursued her for contact with the Nazis – but Nazism is only one of the forms of the leftist mentality, the Nazis also always offer simple solutions that are understandable to the crowd, and always end up with a proposal to simply exterminate all those who disagree.
Interest in other people, including black ones, has not faded in me to this day. And how can he even fade away? And no less than Mark Twain, I am grateful to the creators of high-quality “black” cinema, music, literature, the creators of real “black” art.
Do I see something comparable to “Huckleberry Finn” in contemporary films that come as “a breakthrough of political correctness”? Not. Absolutely not.
For example, Star Wars. What is black left in their black characters except for their skin colour? Does black Nick Fury really tell me something about the character of African Americans? He doesn’t tell me anything at all, to be honest. The same Samuel Jackson in “Pulp Fiction” shows a completely different class – and in the role of Fury this is complete nothing, even a dummy can voice his patterned intellect.
Maybe something special will tell me a black spiderman in a new cartoon? I watched this cartoon with my child. And I really didn’t like it, for example, that as one of the manifestations of true African American charm, there was shown an obscene manner of harassing a girl – what is it, if not the humiliation of the entire black race? If someone does not understand, I mean the scene in which the uncle teaches his nephew the “arm-shoulder” technique – look, you will vomit too.
Fleming worked in a genre from which no one expected much realism. But his black characters, both in the books and on the screen, were simply breathtaking. Everyone remembers the funeral procession from New Orlean, Baron Samedi and the infernal, like Satan himself, the character played by Yafett Cotto.
But the closer to the present, the less realistic are the characters of Bondiana – less reliable in terms of national and racial behaviour. Frankly, I can not specify a character from the last dozen films, which would be remembered as a vivid example of a national or racial character.
The Chinese woman in “Tomorrow Never Dies”, the Frenchwoman in “The World Is Not Enough” – yes, they could easily be swapped, and no one would have noticed this change. Which of them is Chinese, and who is French is clear only from their appearance and names. Other features of national characters are unknown to scriptwriters and director. Jackie Chan, for example, is a much better ambassador of the Chinese national character in the world blockbusters. And Bond, in his time the former leader, surrendered all her positions without a fight.
Olga Kurylenko, apparently, was the favourite actress of scriptwriters – her character is generally devoid of any national traits. In other films, the nationality of the character can at least be somehow determined from the context, while the nationality of the Kurylenko’s character remains a mystery to the viewer. And for Bond, her sexuality remained a mystery – for the first time in the history of the Bondiana, instead of sex, he received primitive advice on “personal growth” from the “Bond girl”. For Craig, I think it took all his acting skills to play a deep interest in the scene of listening to this nonsense.
The mulatto style of Naomi Harris is good, beautiful and intriguing, Naomi has added new colours to the Bondiana. But not thanks to the writers. For the writers, the character of the girl with a piece of black blood remained a mystery – they did not even try to find out this character, and even more so, they did not try to show it. The roles of Naomi Harris in this regard are completely faceless. And if Naomi Harris herself hadn’t painted these roles with a stunning brilliance of her natural charm and acting skills, it would be another scenario and production failure, there are many of which in the Bondiana now. New Moneypenny performed by Naomi Harris turned out to be noticeably “black” – but not thanks to the script, but in spite of. Naomi’s black character breaks through the script, but he has nowhere to show yourself completely.
The main villain in Die Another Day is not a Korean with a white face. It can be seen that it is real in the “white” version only. And in the episodes where the Korean plays this character, there is nothing Korean in it except appearance. And the Korean actor was less fortunate here than Naomi Harris – he could not wade through the script, could not bring anything Korean into the image. Scriptwriters, apparently, did not even set such a task.
Russian Vlad in the same film was even less fortunate. The writers have not weighed down even the familiar “klukva» (the Russian word for cranberries) – as the Russians call the grotesque, wild features, assigned to the Russian characters by dishonest, illiterate and lazy scriptwriters. Vlad is a completely faceless character, he has only one truly Russian trait – a grim mug. The viewer is invited to independently fill this image with that “klukva”, which could have accumulated in the head from the previously watched films with Russian villains.
Yes, I am very interested in all «versions» of people – and black, and Indians, and Innuit. And I’m eagerly looking for where I can find out about them. I repeat I am grateful to Twain for black Jim and Indian Jo, I am grateful to Peter Hög for the Inuits. And I am very, very grateful to Fleming for the British, for those British who can not afford to come to business meetings in the British national dress, unlike all other nations of the world. When I open the book of Fleming or buy a ticket for the Bond movie, I look forward to learn more about the nature of those who created and maintain order in the world, after all.
Broccoli Sr. laid the foundations of Bond in the same international, free manner – three songs by Bondiana were sung by Shirley Bassey, the daughter of an Englishwoman and a Nigerian, she became almost the main part of the cinematic Bond canon. It was her unique voice with clearly black overtones that turned out to be what was needed. And did Broccoli make a separate PR show of her skin colour? No, never.
Did someone pay special attention to the fact that Armstrong, who performed one of the best songs of Bondiana, was also black? No, as far as I know. But Armstrong WAS BLACK – and, like Shirley Bassey, brought the full power of black music to the film. At that time, apparently, movies were made to make a movie, not a political poster.
Does anyone even take note of the fact that in six of the 25 “official” films of Bond the main theme, the “soul” of the entire film, is performed by singers with black roots?
Goldfinger – Shirley Bassey
Diamonds Are Forever – Shirley Bassey
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service – Louis Armstrong
Moonraker – Shirley Bassey
License to Kill – Gladys Knight
GoldenEye – Tina Turner
Quantum Of Solace – Alicia Keys, daughter of Italian and African-American.
Looking for examples of characters from other races and nations participating in Bondiana? Plenty: Tiger Tanaka, Kerim Bey, Quarrel, Vijay, Milos Columbo – they all appear in the history appropriately, logically, and with maximum emphasis on their national character. I listed only men, but I’ll talk about women separately. Bondian was the champion of “diversity” already when no one had heard this idiotic ideological imperative.
To say that the creators of Bond biased against the creators of different skin colors and nationalities – criminal stupidity. And, I think, I should not do stupid things in response and, for example, list representatives of different races that made up the other parts of the Albert Broccoli team.
Perhaps national and racial accents did so well, because both Fleming and Albert Broccoli, and other creators of the Bondiana, had personal experiences with people from different nations and races?
Women – “we all welcome the appearance of female characters in Bond, who are equal in rights with men, and we make a PR-show from this,” right? Only those who do not know anything about Bondiana can blame Bondiana for the absence of strong female characters, absolutely equal in rights with men. But it is the ignoramuses who shout the loudest today about the need for a new Bond – but they know nothing about the “old” one.
Bondiana has always been rich in bright female characters. Do you want women who are on a par with James Bond or even surpass him? You are welcome:
– Japanese girl, the agent of Tanaka in You Only Live Twice, and also brave divers, one of whom became Bond’s wife.
– Henchwomen in many movies – Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Goldeneye etc.
– Russian spy from The Man With The Golden Gun – the worthy rival of Bond.
– Pam Bouvier from License To Kill.
– Manipenny always assumes the full function of an agent when it fits perfectly into history — in «Diamonds Are Forever» and many other examples. There are also many other women — Secret Service employees who emerge from the plot quite naturally, without special PR support.
– Unforgettable Octopussy – the main villain in the same film, and her closest assistant. Plus, all her fighting female circus.
– Anya Amasova as Bond’s partner throughout the entire film, the best Russian agent – and in the British tradition it is usually accepted to rate the opponent higher than yourself.
Damn, I was tired of listing, but at the same time, I realized that almost all female characters in Bondiana are female versions of Bond or his opponents. Distinctly, believably feminine and usually much more dangerous, superior in everything.
I wonder if all this is known to those who are now talking about the “new, not-misogynic Bond”?
Since its inception, Bondiana was the favourite movie franchise of almost all normal people – normal, because they did not have to preach “tolerance”, they themselves felt a relationship with all the good people of the world, without differences in skin colour and even ideology.
In addition, fans of the Bondiana could always distinguish its deep meaning from the elements of the game, parody and stylization – and in the classic Bondiana, this was one of the main advantages. Now the creators of the new Bond are increasingly refusing to trust the viewer, and they are driving ideological slogans into our heads. The irony, humour, styling, games – all this in the Bondiana is getting smaller – «after all, someone can understand something wrong!».
Why now is there such a fuss about the introduction of black and female characters, why are there so many disgruntled among the old fans of Bond? Because it seems, that some characters are introduced without any logic and connection with the plot, without any understanding of their sexual and national behaviour patterns. And even white characters censor every word. All this is being done to please the absurd, misanthropic and mendacious ideology.
This ideology seeks to convince a huge audience of Bondiana that it consists of underdeveloped, undereducated savages, who do not know about either respect for women or about the equality of all the races and nations.
The preachers of this ideology have already disfigured everything they can reach because they themselves usually create shit that nobody wants to read and watch. Of course, it is much easier to be a “diversity consultant” than at your own risk to break with the original idea through the Hollywood leftist mafia.
Dear Barbara and Michael, why do you need consultants? You grew up next to Albert Broccoli – as far as I can tell from his own autobiography, his attitude towards women was immaculate by the standards of any time, and he somehow managed without consultants. In the same way, he did without consultants, gathering brilliant international teams for his films around the world over and over again.
The old guard of the fans of Bondiana perfectly understood the idea of the older Broccoli and took the children to Bond films in order to reinforce in them the correct view of equality and the equal importance of all genders, races and nationalities. And not in order to arouse in them a feeling of guilt and make them dependent on consultants for the rest of their lives.
Albert Broccoli and his team did without consultants, they had enough of their own souls to create a vivid picture with all the existing colours.
In all textbooks on writing and screenwriting, it is written that every detail should make sense, help to reveal the image. It’s hard to disagree. This is especially true for character traits. And race – doesn’t it mean anything now? All races are equal in their rights, but they are different in many other ways!
This new girl, who will appear as agent 007, is black. But why is she black? No, I’m serious – why is she exactly black? Do writers and directors have enough understanding of black culture and black characters to make this character exactly black? What does this add to the film? Why exactly in this place and in this role we will see a black actress? Does a new story about James Bond really require a black actress for this role? Will they show us something about blacks, which we did not know, would the film be a breakthrough in building bridges and mutual recognition between representatives of different races? Very, very doubtful.
I think that we will see absolutely nothing that a black woman would do – we will see the text and the version of the role, which just as could be played by a white actor, and a Chinese, and by anyone. The black actress will be invited only to “respect the racial balance.”
And it is very sad that today it is considered sufficient to simply observe the arithmetic proportion in the number of people of different races so that it would be considered a “work reflecting the diversity of cultures on the planet.”
I really do not want to think that this black actress should become just another “unit” of a certain race in this primitive equation. But the experience of the unforgivable simplification of the racial theme described above makes me fear that Lashana will simply not be needed as a person, a unique personality with unique sets of innate traits and talents.
What will be specifically black in this character? Do countless screenwriters and “consultants on political correctness” have the same talent as Mark Twain or Fleming? Judging by their previous works, they have no such talent.
Dear Barbara and Michael, dear Daniel – you had enough understanding and courage to make a qualitative leap, return Bond to Fleming, make him deeper, more serious, more dramatic – bravo! I am sure that for this you did not need to listen to consultants for anything. You listened to the tuning fork, which for more than half a century leads all creators of the Bond to success. Please listen to this tuning fork and on. And do not listen to anyone else! Do not do it, Please! And if you really really want to make Bondiana a guidebook not only for luxurious and exotic places but also for luxurious and exotic souls – find someone with Fleming’s talents, under the pen of which characters of all races and nationalities will come alive.
In the meantime, I personally feel no anticipation of the pleasure of a new film, but a fear. The fear that my beloved Bondiana will become nothing more than another useless support for the sham building of “political correctness.”
I am very frightened by the idea that Lashana will be simply used, used just as they used slaves or prisoners of the GULAG – to do work that completely ignores dignity and individuality, but takes only the ability to perform simple movements, to understand simple commands. But I have many reasons to think that this is exactly what will happen. Because I have already seen many such examples.
In the past, nobody hid from slaves and prisoners that they are used as slaves and deprived of their freedom. And now those who are used are told that this depersonalization is the victory over racism. “War is peace, peace is war” – somewhere I already read it.
A black actress can be told that her appearance in Bond is a great victory of equality, although in reality, this could be another blow to Black’s unique soul and culture.
I am sure that the thinking representatives of other races will consider this another humiliation, another attempt to wipe them off the face of the Earth.
It is interesting that today it is just as difficult to object to such an understanding of “equality” as it was hundreds of years ago. Just like hundreds of years ago, one has to act contrary to the opinion of the crowd.
The crowd today wants to be not only well-fed (modern capitalism has made it full), but also a saint. Moreover, without feats and torment. By simply repeating primitive left-wing spells. The crowd has wonderful teachers – aged hippies who have not learned to see the world in all complexity, but they have perfectly mastered the parasitism on it.
Among film critics and film fans, there is the term “exploitation movie”. I would define the meaning of this term as follows: using (exploiting) powerful images, settings, characters, and other creative solutions created by someone else, without adding something of their own, improving, or revealing more fully these creative finds.
The bona fide creator takes on work to show the world something new, and the “exploiter”, on the contrary, uses what has been created by other people. Everything that the creator of an exploitation movie adds from itself usually only reduces the quality of the images used, erases their brightness. Exploitation is synonymous with the word “parasitism” – parasitism on another’s creative work, on others’ lives, spent on creating a new one and bringing it to people.
It is not the first time that Bond fans are experiencing a legitimate concern – will the continuation of Bondiana come into just an exploitation of the classical heritage? But never before have the grounds for such an alarm been so justified.
It is not for the first time that producers of Bondiana are asking themselves the question: “Does the Bondiana have a place in the present and the future?” As far as I know, the first case of serious doubt occurred after the end of the era of Moore. Then the decision was to return to Fleming. Not for the first time – the first attempt was “At the Secret Service of Her Majesty”. But then no one doubted the Bondiana; Albert Broccoli offered Lazenby a contract for six or seven films at once.
The second return to Fleming and the invitation of Timothy Dalton received excellent fan reviews and excellent box-office results – but with the end (as they then thought) of the Cold War, the producers again had doubts about the place for Bond in today and tomorrow. Perhaps this was due to the departure of Albert Broccoli from vigorous activity.
GoldenEye showed that the correct understanding of the character of James Bond gives an excellent creative and box-office result even in changed circumstances. To this day, some consider Brosnan an unfortunate choice – but even those who thought so agreed to watch all his films.
I don’t remember any particular problems with the launch of the series with Craig – and the first film with him showed that there was a lot of creative progress in the Bondiana. The next return to Fleming again worked. And the subsequent films with Craig gave no reason to doubt the correctness of the main creative decisions. Despite all the shortcomings, the franchise also showed signs of life in the present and hopes for the future. The only thing that does not find a normal explanation is the huge pauses between the films.
The thing here, I think, is not in technical difficulties, but in doubts, again enveloping the producers. It also seems to me that it would be more correct for them to doubt not in Bond, but in the team of writers. These people, who keep scripts for Bond and “Agent Johnny English” on one desk, are increasingly confused with the pages from these folders.
But much more regret is caused by the fact that in order to overcome doubts, producers turn to the opinions of those who have never belonged to the fans of the Bondiana and will never belong to them.
I do not remember that reproaches of sexism and racism come from fans of Bond. However, everything that is said in connection with the “renewal” of the franchise has nothing to do with creativity or the Bondiana itself. These are only general ideological “mantras” that are made obligatory for everything in general – as was done in the USSR and Nazi Germany.
These mantras are simply forcibly incorporated, above all, into the most successful, popular works – and everywhere produce a devastating result.
I once again declare that the skin color of the actors is much more important than left-wing critics think. I want to say: if you take a black actor, then take the trouble to create an image for him that reflects the uniqueness of black culture.
But words like “create” or “work” are not for the left. And not for their teachers, who call it a job to write boring curses to «The System» for a professorship. They can only spoil. And when they take to create a “new”, then we get all the well-known examples of “hippie communities” or states like Cambodia under Pol Pot.
We see a clear danger for the Bondiana to turn into an “exploitation” movie, in which the classic Bond heritage will be the object of exploitation.
What happens when parasites promise a simple recipe for immediate happiness? Let us look at the example of the Bolsheviks, one of the most transparent and consistent historical forms of existence of the so-called “leftists”.
The Bolsheviks promised workers super-productivity of labor, promised that workers would live like millionaires – but they could only take away the factories already built by someone and rename them to “Bolshevik” and “Dawn of Communism.” Then a group of senior hierarchs appropriated the remnants of goods, and the workers began to queue for food and toilet paper.
Their current students and followers, the fruits of the same weed plant, want to do likewise – they want to appropriate the sincere creation of Fleming-Broccoli and many more sincere, talented and hardworking people. And leave a multi-million audience of fans with nothing.
The heartless mercenary conjuncturers, the common plague of all the creative professions and the creative work itself, they are preparing to destroy another beautiful artistic image and trample on the national and personal pride and identity of several black actors. White (not only) colonialists, who came to other nations only for profit, did just that.
This New Racism is no better than the racism of the past. The conquerors of the past took away property, land, and labor. And the church and other “enlighteners” irrevocably demolished the worlds in the heads and souls of the enslaved.
Modern racists do the same. But now an international team of holts from Hollywood and other “culture factories” has been added to the missionaries and merchants of labor. They process the culture and soul of races and peoples into a soulless, flat ideological poison – and feed it to new generations of those who are being colonized. The New Racists present it as the most useful product enriched with all Western vitamins. They take away the very possibility of being someone different from blacks, women, gays and other minorities.
The slogan of the New Racists is: “People of any race can do the same thing whites do!”. New Racists take a role, social or cinematic, which was previously rigidly associated with a white man, put it, for example, on black – and applaud:
– Hooray, you see – black can do exactly the same thing as white does!
But black cannot and should not behave like white – because black is black. Black is not worse, not weaker and no less worthy of all that is on this Earth – but black is still different, black has a different culture, a different mind, different emotions, a different soul. And making black white is a crime. Because white is already there, and if you need someone who leads himself as white, you should take white. But if you make whites out of all blacks, there will be one less treasure in the world.
Any human being is always unique. But uniqueness is too difficult for new racists, they do not need unique personalities, they need a crowd. The crowd, as the new racists hope, will be content with the same faceless crap that corporations deliver all over the world – and leftist “creators” and “leaders” will sit in inaccessible cabinets and decide how humanity should think and live.
Previously, minorities had at least their own truth, their originality. New racists are now taking away this last treasure — now, instead of identity, minorities are being imposed on a “politically correct”, sterile, image and character that is the same for everyone. There is NO “forbidden” in it – and no one is able to say, but what IS in it?
In such an environment, even whites quickly lose themselves. The opportunists erased white originality, replacing it with a tasteless mass with zero content of creative calories. They convince producers that this will provide maximum cash – even if this is the case, humanity will pay much more when it sees how little is left of its truly multi-ethnic culture.
I predict that the time will come when we will shoot and show films about real blacks, and about real whites clandestinely, marginally, under the threat of criminal punishment – as it was in the Soviet Union, where I grew up.
In these films, a woman can afford to differ from a man at least in some way, black can recognize black not only by skin color, and gays can finally afford a normal life, free from the need to endlessly declare their sexual preferences to everyone.
What awaits the «New racists» in the case of Bond? The same that the Bolsheviks received – the franchise will disappoint old fans, but will not acquire new ones.
In addition, social warriors do not like to pay for anything. They believe that the whole world is indebted to them for their kindness and holiness. Therefore, I do not expect a large box office for the new Bond from those who have complaints about its insufficient political correctness. Either they will not watch it at all, either they will download it from torrents, or they will pay pennies for streaming. And the 26th or 27th Bond will be shot (if it will) with a budget for “video-on-demand”.
But no one would call it a real name, a failure. It will be said that, despite the best efforts of progressive creators, the image has buried itself under its racist and misogynist legacy from the Cold War. As a result, there will be one less good thing in the world.
Dissenters from the Soviet Union could sometimes escape to the West. The Soviet Union itself constantly took in the West what it could not produce. But if the West turns into the Soviet Union, where will it be possible to escape and from where it will be possible to get the necessary?
By the way, this is a real, modern storyline for an uncompromising Bond, because Bond is usually one against all. Please note that the plot of all Bond novels and films is constructed in this way: in the beginning, society enthusiastically applauds the bastard who knows how to say the “right” words, and everyone prefers not to notice that his hands are in mud and blood.
And only Bond and a few other “canaries in the mine”, people with an uncompromising ethical tuning fork, see the true picture – and they enter the battle, having only the truth on their side. And win.
I wrote that Fleming could borrow this scheme from the modern history of the rise and fall of Hitler, who was initially applauded by all of Europe and the USSR, and politicians and the masses. It’s sad that nothing has changed. There is only hope that, as before, the immunity of humanity will produce enough antibodies against this infection. Bond in the version of Fleming is just such an “antibody”, in its British version.
If there is a genius who understands this topic and will be able to show us such hope of mankind with a black face and black character – fine! Such individuals can also be born as women or gays – only sincerity in the fight against lies is important here. Nothing else matters.
We need new Flemings. And new Bonds. Genuine. And let them be women, black, gay or Martians – there are never too many such creators and such characters.
P. S. People do not have to preach equality of races, men and women, and similar things. Normal people already treat everyone equally – recognizing differences, being able to notice and live in a world of difference, not identical people.
The “new racists” strive to make all people not equal, but standard. But are there any standards that can be applied to people? Little, almost nothing – we’re all different!
Unfortunately, I begin to resemble those whom I criticize – those who prove obvious. Because what I am saying is obvious to all normal people – the falsity of all this political correctness, the desire to get good and power without work and responsibility.
All normal people are busy looking for real solutions to establish peace, protect nature and free the world from villains. Therefore, they are almost not visible on the screens and pages of newspapers. But, unfortunately, there are many people who are not very bad, but also not very good, living in herd instincts, who think not with their head, but with the television. For these herd thinkers, it is the most terrible thing to be different from the herd. Therefore, they are so aggressive to anyone who is at least something different from their Goebbels totalitarian pseudo-holyness.