Cuck James Cameron Gets Cucked for Condemning Kike Wonder Woman

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
October 1, 2017

James Cameron has been complaining that the new Wonder Woman movie wasn’t really feminist as all it did was play up the lead character’s sexuality.

And of course, now he’s being called-out on that.

There’s some deep cultural relevance here, if you were to think about it long enough, I’m sure of it.

Hold up I’ll try.

Fox News:

Lynda Carter, who portrayed Wonder Woman on the iconic 1970s television show, has slammed James Cameron for his continued criticism of the summer’s blockbuster reboot.

Last month, the “Avatar” director called the “Wonder Woman” movie a “step backwards.”

“All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over Wonder Woman has been so misguided,” Cameron said in an interview with The Guardian. “She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing! I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards.”

So this is what feminism was in the sixties – at least to men.

Boomers like Cameron are still chasing the dream.

Cameron went on to say that he believed one of his popular protagonists, Sarah Connor from the “Terminator” franchise, set a better example for female leading characters in movies.

“Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon. She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit,” he said. “And to me, [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”

Sarah Connor was effectively a male protagonist played by a female.

Linda Hamilton, who played the character in both Cameron-directed Terminator films, was not naturally very attractive to begin with, and in the films (particularly the second one) she appeared to either be on anabolic testosterone or a very extreme workout program.

So, the strength of the character – particularly in the second film, which I think is what he is talking about here – was in that it did not rely on sexuality, but masculine, male character traits.

Erstwhile, no men went to see the movie to see an attractive woman, they went for the violence and Arnold.

The posters for the Terminator films did not feature Linda Hamilton prominently if at all.

(Might as well go full memory lane here.)

Here are some from the first film:

And from the second:

And here’s the trailer for the first one:

And the second:

Though Hamilton’s character had more screentime than Arnold’s, she was not the star of these films.

Cameron also did a non-attractive female lead in Aliens.

But again, men had a whole lot of other reasons to go see that movie.

“Wonder Woman” director Patty Jenkins responded to Cameron’s comments and said the “Titanic” director did not understand what “Wonder Woman” stood for because he is not a woman.

Now that is very interesting. Because she is implying that the man is unable to understand “sexual empowerment

Cameron, 63, did not stop there. In a recent interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Cameron said Gal Gadot’s portrayal of the superhero did not “break ground.”

“She was Miss Israel, and she was wearing a kind of bustier costume that was very form-fitting,” Cameron said of Gadot. “She’s absolutely drop-dead gorgeous. To me, that’s not breaking ground. They had Raquel Welch doing stuff like that in the 60s.”

Carter, 66, responded to the director’s comments on “Wonder Woman” in a Facebook post Thursday.

Here’s that post.

And Carter’s Wonder Woman was the same as Gadot’s: a hyper-sexualized character that relies on sex for power and the drawing of a male audience.

The lesson here would be that women never viewed “women’s liberation” in the way that it was sold to men. They always viewed it in terms of overpowering and getting ahead of men – of gaining power over them – by any means necessary. And part of that process was to sell a fake concept of feminism to men. But the biggest part of the process was exploitation of male sexuality.

The other lesson is that Hollywood is admitting that men will not see movies that do not feature either a masculine male lead (or otherwise sympathetic – comedy leads work also) or an attractive female lead.

And if you can’t get men to see it, you can’t get couples to see it, so your film flops. Girls night out can’t carry a big budget film.

The Ghostbusters “remake” proved this.

They are celebrating the success of Wonder Woman as the success of feminism, and James Cameron is pointing out that it wasn’t success of the feminism that he’d been sold – the moral and intellectual equality of women – but instead just the same thing, selling a sex-up slut show.

There had been other blockbuster movies with female leads before, but they always had attractive leads.

Oh and another thing: two other actresses have played Sarah Connor since Hamilton, once on TV and once in a movie – the chick from the Game of Thrones and the other chick from the Game of Thrones – and both have been attractive, sexualized versions of the character.

Ghostbusters was the big attempt to sell a truly feminist film to the masses and it failed, miserably.

So they are now claiming that this is what Wonder Woman was, and Cameron is calling them out on that, saying “this is not the dream I was sold in the 60s.”

Well, they can’t give you the dream of the 60s, James, because that’s what it was – a dream. It doesn’t translate to real life. It doesn’t translate to cash money.

Of course, he will probably now be manshamed into apologizing for cucking, which will take cucking to a whole other level.