Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
It’s just totally banned to even say that a bitch doesn’t look good.
They will come for you. Then, a few months later, they’ll come for you a second time.
Dennis Harvey, the veteran film critic whose review of Promising Young Woman has sparked a furore across the industry, has hit back at accusations of misogyny amid calls for Variety to fire him.
Harvey’s review was published more than a year ago, following the film’s premiere at the Sundance film festival. Largely positive, it called Mulligan’s performance “skilful, entertaining and challenging” while also querying the central casting. While “a fine actress”, wrote Harvey, Mulligan “seems a bit of an odd choice as this admittedly many-layered apparent femme fatale”.
Discussing the character’s deliberate artifice in more depth, Harvey noted that “Margot Robbie is a producer here, and one can (perhaps too easily) imagine the role might once have been intended for her. Whereas with this star, Cassie wears her pickup-bait gear like bad drag; even her long blonde hair seems a put-on.”
Mulligan objected to the review, telling the New York Times in December: “I felt like it was basically saying that I wasn’t hot enough to pull off this kind of ruse.
“It drove me so crazy … I was like, ‘Really? For this film, you’re going to write something that is so transparent? Now? In 2020?’ I just couldn’t believe it.”
The whole “current year” meme should have been taken literally. It really highlighted how stupid it is when it is quoted the next year.
I will never forget the meme of the number one date-reminderer John Oliver having trouble hosting a new year’s event.
These people should just say: “it’s current year!”
It sounds less silly.
Variety responded by adding an editor’s note at the top of Harvey’s review, apologising for “insensitive language” but leaving his words intact.
Mulligan reiterated her discomfort at the review earlier this week in a video interview hosted by Variety, prompting renewed abuse of the critic on social media.
Speaking to the Guardian, Harvey said he was ill at ease with the way in which Mulligan’s words to the New York Times describing her anger at the review had become received wisdom as to what his review actually said. “I did not say or even mean to imply Mulligan is ‘not hot enough’ for the role,” Harvey said.
“I’m a 60-year-old gay man. I don’t actually go around dwelling on the comparative hotnesses of young actresses, let alone writing about that.”
Firstly, gay men do do that.
Virtually all of the people involved in gossip media are, traditionally, gay men. They definitely talk about who is hot and who isn’t. Or they used to. It used to be a whole genre of writing.
That said, I agree that he never said that she wasn’t hot. The whole thing is a totally fake thing.
Harvey added that he had been “appalled to be tarred as misogynist, which is something very alien to my personal beliefs or politics. This whole thing could not be more horrifying to me than if someone had claimed I was a gung-ho Trump supporter.”
Harvey said he avoided the social media discourse triggered by the fallout on the advice of friends who said nobody commenting appeared to have read the review and that some people had said “I must be advocating rape, was probably a predator like the men in the film”.
“What I was attempting to write about was the emphasis in the film and [Mulligan’s] performance on disguise, role-playing and deliberate narrative misdirection. Nor was bringing up Margot Robbie meant to be any comparison in ‘personal appearance’.
“Robbie is a producer on the film, and I mentioned her just to underline how casting contributes to the film’s subversive content – a star associated with a character like Harley Quinn [Robbie’s Suicide Squad character] might raise very specific expectations, but Mulligan is a chameleon and her very stylised performance keeps the viewer uncertain where the story is heading.”
He’s basically acting like he originally meant to compliment her, which I don’t think he did mean. He was just sort of saying she didn’t fit the role, which is clear in the film’s trailer.
The situation, if it’s not clear from The Guardian, is that this film was written for Robbie, who is a sex symbol, and due to scheduling conflicts or what have you, Mulligan ended up as the star of it. Even at a younger age, it wouldn’t have fit her.
The film is a feminist alternate reality sci-fi story about a universe where men prey on women by picking them up drunk at bars. I think the woman then accuses them of rape or kills them or something. It’s not clear from the trailer. What is clear from the trailer is that this woman is a rough rider, much too old to be doing this “deadly sexy” bit that Robbie has popularized as Harley Quinn.
By the way, just to comment on the subject of the film here: men do not “prey” on women. A man’s internal imperative is to have sex with a woman. This is a biological function. Women have a series of abilities to protect themselves from this. The first protection is the fact that our society has strong taboos against just punching the bitch in the mouth, grabbing her by the throat and dragging her into the bushes. They also have the ability to make a very loud noise, if they feel threatened. The man’s assumption is that if the woman is available for sex, she is available for sex. That is a biological assumption, projected by a man’s genes, into chemicals in his brain, which then create thoughts and actions. The biological reaction when a woman is drunk and alone at a disco bar, as is seen in this film trailer, is that she is available for sex. The thoughts in a man’s head while he goes through the nonviolent process of trying to get her to come home with him are no more relevant than the thoughts of a starving man stumbling into a McDonald’s and ordering a Quarter Pounder. If you were to ask a man about the morality of this, he would probably say: “she chose to come with me.” If you claimed that she was so drunk she couldn’t choose anything, he would say: “well, obviously I didn’t have any way to know that, but she chose to get drunk in a place where people go to find people to have sex with, so presumably, she wanted someone to pick her up.” This is obviously true.
Women are deeply aware of men’s sexuality. Their entire existence is based on manipulating men’s sexuality, so if there is one single thing on the earth that women understand, it is men’s sexuality. If they pretend to be innocent of such things, they are simply lying. The innocence thing is another layer of the sexual manipulation of men. Along with wanting to have sex with women, men have a drive to protect women. This is because along with recognizing a woman as something you are supposed to impregnate, you recognize her as something that produces children, and thus is very valuable, and should not be damaged or killed.
But I digress.
Basically, the takeaways of the Mulligan drama are these:
- It doesn’t matter what you say, what matters is how what you say makes a woman feel. You are responsible for how your words make her feel, even if her feelings are unrelated to what you actually said.
- You are never allowed to make a woman feel that she is unattractive. This includes not being allowed to say that a woman is unattractive, but also not being allowed to say something that will make a woman feel that you said that.
- Longer sentences (particularly those containing commas or hyphens) are difficult for some women to follow, and can lead to confusion among them, so be sure to always just clearly and plainly praise them as beautiful.
I didn’t even realize we were at this point.
Frankly, I didn’t even realize that it was official and explicit that you are not allowed to say that a woman doesn’t look good. Apparently, the implication here is that all women look great all the time, and that the role of men (even gay men) is to continually reinforce that, with everything they do and say.
Obviously, if any woman has the excuse to care about her appearance, it’s an actress, given that she is making money off of her body. But this is clearly personal for this bitch. She could have asked someone to explain the sentence otherwise. And she brought it up twice (two times)!
Ironically, she was in the film Pride & Prejudice, which starred another 35-year-old who is having troubles. She looked okay back then. Nothing special, but whatever.
I saw her in the horrible Leo version of The Great Gatsby (which had rap music). I thought she looked okay in that, as she was getting pretty ripe in years.
But now she’s literally 35 years old. You have to deal with the reality of biology.
Obviously, she is projecting this on gay guys. She herself is jealous of Margot Robbie, who is much more attractive than she is, as a matter of objective fact.
Even if they were the same age, Robbie has superior facial bone structure (which plastic surgery can’t change).
But they’re not the same age.
Robbie just hit thirty, so her ride is about to end as well.
And remember: these are actresses, meaning they have all of this professional makeup, the surgery, all the other tricks. Furthermore, they have the option of eating very well and having a good personal trainer. What all this gives them is about 7 years on a normal woman. Mulligan is 35, which is equivalent to an average woman’s 28 (actually much better than that, as the current average is much worse, but let’s say 90s average, when the average woman still looked like a human instead of a Dunwich horror).
This thing with women wanting to think they are attractive well past their sell date is extremely unfortunate for everyone. It’s especially unfortunate for them, frankly. Although I don’t care, and actually take pleasure in the suffering of women, it should be noted that they are less happy than they have been at any period in history. This is despite the fact that they have made all of these decisions guiding our society after being systematically given control over men by the government.
Men get more powerful as they age. Hopefully, a man develops himself to the point where he has a strong position in life in his 40s and 50s, which are typically considered the “prime” of a man’s life. He will then maintain his power and status into his old age (unless he collapses into alcoholism like Steve Bannon). Men who are considered to be “wise” in their 60s and 70s are those who went through that process, built their ark, and made themselves into something.
Conversely, women have this brief period between their teenage and early twenties where they have massive, almost magical power, and then it disappears. In nature, a woman is supposed to use that power to position herself as a dependent of a man who either is already powerful or on his way to power.
This is the order of nature. Trying to manipulate that order results in this:
What women want is to skip the part where they accept that their power must be surrendered if they are going to secure a man of value. They want to be seducing men forever. I can understand the frustration, actually. If I had the ability, as a teenage girl does, to effectively tell anyone, anywhere what to do and have them do it, and then that power just started to slowly disappear, that would be frustrating.
But they have destroyed the family unit, and that has triggered a domino effect, destroying everything in society.
Furthermore, putting “you can’t say a woman isn’t pretty” on the list of rules of political correctness isn’t going to bring back their lost power. It’s not going to take away the burning jealousy that Carey Mulligan has towards Margot Robbie.
We need to reevaluate this situation.
The good news is, society is on the verge of total collapse, so some of us will live to see a time when things are reevaluated, and the order of nature begins to force itself back into our lives, like a happy sunshine.
Then, we will have forced child marriage.
There will be no divorce.
