We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata moron of the day Here is a powerful new rationale for gun control from the macho actor, Daniel Craig, who is playing 007 in the upcoming James Bond release. Perry, it is time to change that Samizdata banner pic. Argument over:
I hate handguns. Handguns are used to shoot people and as long as they are around, people will shoot each other <...> Bullets have a nasty habit of finding their target and that’s what’s scary about them.
Prominent movie actors; under-informed and over-exposed since 1898.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
James Waterton – you are too kind! Too elegantly, Australianly understated. Craig is not a moron. He is a drooling cretin. “Guns kill people” – well as long as he doesn’t think they’re used for knitting with, that is a start.
“… and as long as they are around, people will shoot each other.” Hard for us to shoot each other in the absence of guns, but here, again, he has a certain primitive grasp. They are designed to be pointed and shot. Check.
How else does Daniel Craig think James Bond is going to kill villains who are trying to take over the world? Smack them with his handbag? Sit down and reason with them?
Does this drab, conventional, lefty puke face believe this lefty drivel is going to motivate people to go and watch him pretending to be James Bond? Sean Connery and Roger Moore must be exchanging ironic glances.
I still fail to see why Daniel Craig was selected for the part of Bond. The man just does not look the part at all, not at all suave, debonair, charming or any of the values that Fleming wrote into his character and far better suited to his roles in “Our Friends in the North” or “The Trench”. A very bizarre choice given the number of eminently suitable actors out there for the part.
He certainly has a very vapid face.
Bond faced the four hundred pounds of cold malignant fury that was the Cult’s enforcer.Slowly he slipped his right hand inside his immaculately tailored Saville Row suite,without making any sudden moves which would rouse the enforcer into action,he withdrew and elegant gunmetal card case from which he produced two pieces of printed card.
“I have two tickets for the ballet”,said Bond,”Perhaps dinner and back to my place for a nightcap?”
Tee hee.
Errr … actually, I can’t drive cars with gears either. I don’t see the point of going back to the Stone Age when god gave us automatic transmission.
Julian Taylor, well said. The guy does not look the part at all and the fact he spouts the usual gun-grabber nonsense only confirms my suspicion that the producers have goofed. I’d prefer it if they decided to call it quits. 007 likes stunning women, vodka, Turkish tobacco, fast cars, is proud to defend Britain, believes in good and evil….I mean, how un-PC is that!
Fleming would probably roll his eyes at this twerp.
Bad actors never seem to get their lines right. As if Islamists weren’t enough to make one puke.
The producers have said this little puke-face is going to be “a tougher, grittier Bond”. In other words, they’re going to make a typical unwatchable “gritty” British movie that no one is motivated to go and see. And they’re going to change the successful James Bond brand to some little lefty nitwit’s notions of “gritty”.
No! Automatic transmission is nowhere near as fun as manual. Also, manuals get better fuel economy and put more power through the wheels.
In his world, what he said is true. Guns are almost always used to shoot someone, usually within a few seconds.
His world is the movies and not reality.
Select someone wholly inappropriate for the lead role in the film series that includes some of the (IMHO) finest hokums of all time and sure as night follows day there’ll be an excellent protest website up in no time…I spotted this one last week and it explains (or purports to explain) why such a limpwristed flake was given the job…!
..oh, and re transmissions, forget manual or auto, this is the way forward!
In the Great Outback I’m sure that manual transmission is the thing but…..in areas where driving is no longer fun it’s the equivalent of B/W TV.
On track, Daniel Craig was even rubbished by German TV which was literally perplexed by the crassness of those who cast him for the part…..auch deutsche Ganoven brauchen ein glaubwürdige Gegner!
It is all a hoax. This wuss isn’t going to play Bond. Michael Moore is! Can’t drive a stick? Good lord, what’s the world coming to.
James Waterton says than manual gears get better petrol consumption. Well, I live in the land of cheap gas and I don’t care! Ha ha ha ha ha!
Tuscan Tony – Thanks for that website! Wow! I liked the bit where they morphed little puke-face’s face back and forth. With three-quarters of people polled giving a thumbs down, surely they will not proceed with this foolishness?
Verity, agree wholeheartedly about what you think “gritty” means. It means lack of glamour, style, fun. That does not, of course, mean the films have to be shorn of good acting, subtlety or so forth. I loved the early Connery films and got a bit fed up with the Roger Moore era, which was basically a send up most of the time. Tim Dalton looked good and tried to play the part in the original Fleming sense, and Brosnan is great, but now I fear getting too old.
Perhaps the truth is that the series has run its course. Time for something new.
In his world, what he said is true. Guns are almost always used to shoot someone, usually within a few seconds.
His world is the movies and not reality.
What, you missed that gripping blockbuster movie about Olympic free pistol?
In my world, guns are used to put holes in pieces of paper. I have put many thousands of holes in pieces of paper, and not once have I seen a gun put a hole in a person, and I hope that I never do. I wish that I lived in a world where I would be permitted to put a hole in a bad guy if necessary, even though in that case I would hope it would never happen…
Well, people rarely die due to gunfire in Bond films anymore. If by gritty they mean using fewer special effects, I’m all for it. Bond films have always poked fun at themselves. If by gritty they mean losing that, that’s sad. I agree Craig is the wrong choice.
Was there ever a list of “other” choices? A serious question – I haven’t been keeping up.
Daniel Craig says:
…having obviously never tried to shoot a gun in his life. In fact, bullets have a nasty habit of not finding their target unless the gun is handled with skill. That’s why bullseyes are somethun’ special in target shooting, dearie.
Verity writes:
In this day and age, it sadly might. They already castrated Bond pretty well in “Goldeneye;” he may have a different audience now. Some serious effort at recovery was made in later Brosnan, but I still think damage was done that this creep is obviously in no hurry to fix.
That’s not a bug; that’s a feature.
While Craig’s comments are rather pathetic for a wold be James Bond, I will give him this much…
He did a great Job in “Layer Cake”, where he starts out as a gun hating Cocaine chemist who by the end of the movie graduates to ruthless, gun using gangster.
So maybe not all is lost.
He’s just an actor. 99.9% of them are dingbats. They make a living by saying words other people write for them. He’s just mouthing the conventional anti-gun sentiments of a conventional leftist Englishman. They certainly don’t have to put their brains in gear to come out with this sort of drivel, I’m sure he can do it in his sleep.
Did you see the comment by a Dutch moonbat at the end of the article? He dislikes guns in the hands of brainless Americans, but thinks it’s OK for government officials to be armed. That’ll be government officials like Heydrich and Mengele will it? Next time round I think the brainless Americans will stay at home and let the Euros stew in their own shit.
Ah … so many moonbats, so little time …
Who is this Craig dude?
He looks like a pudding to me.
Come to think of it that’s what Joan Collins thought David Cameron looks like.
Tell you what, if Craig gets elbowed, we might get Dave Bond instead!
What a vote winner that would be.
By the way does anyone actually watch Bond films in the Cinema anymore? I havent been to one since Goldfinger.
I’ve seen them all, but in episodic bits, between clearing up after a granny or a dog that’s been sick on to many mince pies and sherry come five oclock of a Christmas day.
Perhaps we should also expect movies with Bond:
a) Breaking sinister conspiracies by evil American MNCs,
b) Bonding with agents from the Iranian intelligence service, (They’re just misunderstood!)
c) Unravel sinister American government conspiracy to cause global warming,
d) Receive an assist from a dashing young agent from the European Union’s secret service?
htjyang
Your expectations are absurd and inconceivable. Expect them to come to pass.
“Bullets have a nasty habit of finding their target”
Hmmm, has Craig given the plot of the next JB movie away? Just think, 007 is out to combat a weapon loaded with target-seeking bullets…
Could be popular if it saves on aiming.
But here’s another thought: when will 007 turn his attention to the Islamofascists? Or does that run the risk of offending someone noisy but insignificant?
The person who (at the moment) has the title of biggest scum bag in Hollywood is not this man – or even George C. (he of two “death to America” films this year alone).
No Billy Zane has the title at the moment.
“Valley of the Wolves” – most expensive film ever made by the Turks, Prime Minister wife their at the first showing – doing wildly good business in Turkey and in Germany (among the Turkish community anyway).
Evil Americans murder lots of innocent Muslims at wedding – Jewish American doctor complains they have not taken enough live prisoners (he wants their organs -which are the main reason for the Iraq war).
Noble Turk teams up with a Kurd (no kidding) and kills evil Americans – the end.
Even George Clooney would have a moral problem about working in this film.