How did that alpha-bat soup taste?

The various nerd-news channels that I follow on YouTube have been abuzz with the recent news that Ruby Rose "quit" CW's Batwoman, and the rumour mill is running at full tilt trying to figure out what exactly happened with the whole situation:

As ME points out in the first video, the statement released by Warner Bros., DC, and the CW is far too terse and blunt to support the notion that Ms Rose quit on her own. It is far more likely that she was fired.

Why, exactly, was she fired, then?

Well, the fact that the series is appallingly bad probably had a lot to do with it:

Well now. Look at that - the critics generally like this flying rat-posterior of a show, but the audience absolutely HATES it.


That might have something to do with the fact that the showrunners made it transparently clear, from the very first trailer, that identity politics would be at the heart of the show and that the alphabet-soup people of the LGBTQWTFISTHISSHIT crowd would be pandered to as much as possible.

Meanwhile, the people who pay for shows like this - y'know, the actual FANS - could go take a flying leap, without a grapnel.

Yeah. Let's pose a question to the showrunners - how did that strategy work out for you, dickholes?

This commercial failure is not accidental and it is not at all undesirable, at least as far as the creators of the show are concerned. Most of the Longtime Readers here will know the truth of this and require no further explanation from me, but for the newer guys, here's a simple primer:

Social Justice Warrior types who create this sort of identity politics-driven garbage don't care if it makes money or not. They aren't interested in creating anything new or innovative. They aren't capable of doing anything useful with their lives. So what they end up doing is taking existing properties and ideas, and twisting them to serve their own agendas.

Remember - commercial success is not required for these people. They don't care about it. They would quite happily see these ventures fail, as long as they can indulge in their SJW fantasies and signal their virtue.

The thing about Batwoman is that it has problems at every level.

Take Ms Rose as an actress, for instance. I don't watch much TV, so I have no idea whether she was any good on that prison show that she was famous for, but I did see her in John Wick Chapter 2. That was probably her best film role - and you want to know why?

Because she never opened her mouth even once, and got killed by Badass Keanu Reeves near the end.

Everything that I have seen of her outside of movies and films indicates that she is thoroughly unpleasant. That tends to be a sad reality of lesbians in general - the ones who aren't fat and ugly, tend to be butch, overly masculine, and quite nasty to deal with.

(Guess what, Coomer: your porn lied to you.)

Then there is the fact that the show itself is, as I stated earlier, all about identity politics. Go check out the trailers for it. Try to watch them all the way through, if you can, without either laughing out loud in utter disbelief at the idea that a 120lb woman could possibly take on a man twice her size and three times as strong and beat the shit out of him, or being thoroughly disgusted by the ways in which the showrunners openly insult the Batman canon and legacy.

On top of that, the showrunners said in their statement that they would find someone else from the LBGTQWTFISTHISSHIT community to fill in the role in time for season 2 of the show. Given that Ruby Rose got slammed for not being diverse enough by the Twitterati, the only likely course of action is for the show to hire Michelle Rodriguez, which would tick off a whole bunch of virtue-signalling boxes.

And that's before we get to the third major problem facing the show:

Nobody likes it and nobody cares about it.

Audiences obviously hate it. They're tuning out in droves. They just don't want to watch it.

Even when the lead actress suffers a life-threatening injury, and a crew member is actually paralysed on set, the average TV watcher simply can't be arsed to care about the show.

Which means that, in the end, all of the virtue-signalling is for naught.

That's a very good thing. The faster and harder that these idiotic ventures fail, the faster the bean-counters will get the message. The danger of SJWs lies in their ability to get away with a lot of nonsense for a very long time - but ultimately, the mighty dollar talks louder than anything else, and even the most terminally stupid corporation will either face collapse or get rid of them.

The good news for us is that either scenario benefits us.

None of us care about Batwoman because the show is garbage and nobody is interested in watching shows about a lipstick lesbian playing dress-up and doing a man's job, only without the competence, skill, knowledge, or experience. We don't need to watch TV for that shit - this is our daily experience with our co-workers!

If the CW collapses because of these continued idiotic decisions, that's great. Money and resources get freed up to be used more profitably in other applications.

If the show is cancelled, that's great too. It will send a very loud and clear message to everyone in the industry: make money, or get out. And make no mistake: this show will be cancelled eventually. It's simply too badly written, too ugly to watch, and too stupidly executed for anything else to happen.

There is one final point to make here about the alphabet community.

They keep claiming that people like us - Christians who believe in that which is good, beautiful, and true - are "homophobic" or "transphobic" or whatever, as if we are afraid of queers and mentally ill freaks.

We are not afraid of them in the least. Homos and trannies can't do much to the rest of us. We outnumber them roughly 50-to-1; their very existence in a society that supposedly hates and fears them is testament to the fact that they are surrounded by people who quite happily tolerate their existence.

We simply do not like them.

Look, if you're gay, or a mentally ill tranny, or "intersexual", or "pansexual", or "sapiosexual", or "two-spirited", or whatever - people like me aren't afraid of you. We just think your way of life is disgusting, and we want nothing whatsoever to do with you. We're happy to let you exist and go about life and live in peace. You go live your life as you see fit; what you do behind closed doors is your business and may God bless you in all of your variety.

But don't try to push that shit on us and call it normal. It isn't. We don't want it, we find your sexual and lifestyle practices utterly revolting, and we have no interest whatsoever in supporting you or anything that you do.

And with that said - let's hope that Batwoman fails spectacularly and as soon as possible. It will be an abject lesson for the rest of the idiots who keep pushing this nonsense upon us.


  1. You may be willing to tolerate Homosexuality behind closed doors, but I am not.

    Homosexuals are like cockroaches... The moment you refuse to kill the first one you see, there will be 50 more before the week is out.
    The VERY first thing they do, always, and in every culture where they are not eliminated on sight, is to start corrupting the youth, raping them, and twisting their sexuality to be just as sick as their own. The spread, they recruit, and they pervert and destroy every single thing they touch.

    It doesn't matter if they 'do it behind closed doors', they are EVIL and their lord, their master, has ensured that they crave youth as much as their twisted contemporaries... Gay literature is always filled with older men corrupting boys or older women 'introducing young girls to the mysteries of witchcraft'.

    Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, and thou shalt not allow abominations to roam, sin, and corrupt freely. Because children are their favored prey, always, and you would not allow a child-eating wolf to sleep in your kennel, why would you allow a child-screwing faggot to live in your community?

    Is there fear? Yes, but it is not a phobia, it is the well-founded fear of the destruction of your most precious family members, the helpless young that cannot protect themselves from the depredations of Groomers. Any more than a sheep's fear of a cobra is some kind of reptile phobia.

  2. Fired due to people trying save a sinking ship, possibly due to an audience poll/etc that ranked her acting as (x). Yes, I think that snowflakism has doomed shows/movies to start with. The writers and backers put a lot of them offkilter to start. Woke=broke. Simplicity rules without adding rules.

  3. Post Alley Crackpot23 May 2020 at 20:30

    There's a Charles Cumming novel that deals with an Alphabet Letter Soup character in a very interesting way, although most readers won't understand what's likely to happen behind the scenes.

    The book's protagonist, Thomas Kell, has a team assembled around him in Turkey, and it just so happens that one of his assigned team members is covertly gay.

    And it just so happens that the Lady in Charge of providing the team to an in-but-not-quite-fully-in burnt spy doesn't even know, even though she's meant to be some sort of Stella Rimington type who should know these things.

    Some of the readership got their desired Identity Character ... or did they?

    The SIGINT part of the team found out first, relayed the information to the Lady in Charge, and had the gay agent pulled from front-line duty just as he was likely to be compromised by the likes of Turkey's MIT.

    In the book, all that happened to the gay agent was that he was "sent home", and that the character was never seen again, but ...

    In the service, however, this is the sort of revelation that isn't all that welcome or tolerated. Withholding interesting and potentially dangerous unconventional lifestyle choices from everyday people is one thing, but withholding that information from the service is quite another.

    And so we don't see the character again because of security pragmatism: the gay agent isn't employable anymore in front-line work, and may not also be trusted with ... no, we shouldn't make such puns, should we.

    But the point is this: although the gay agent may be employable in situations where there's a need for one, there wasn't a need for one in this situation, and in fact his presence could have compromised security for more than just one mission.

    You need to know going into these situations whether any of your team happen to be Queens who can be coerced into being Pawns.

    Failure to disclose signals a deeper failure of character, and it's interesting how Charles Cumming showed that could be an operational security issue with this particular community.

    The bigger problem: these people so badly want to pass for "normal" that they can't accept that the best thing they could do at this point in time is to maintain separate communities with negotiated exchanges.

    They so badly want their quasi-utopian revolutions now that they can't see that they need to maintain less hopeful but more survivable strategies.

    What activists within these communities especially don't understand in general is the notion of tolerance: people in general have been willing to tolerate their existence in theory as long as they don't have to become aware of their existence in fact.

    Push hard enough and many people will seek an actual absence when a theoretical absence won't suffice, because they'll see risks with no rewards and behave accordingly.

    I do have to admire the cleverness of the author: you Alphabet Letter Soup people at the publisher's and elsewhere got what you wanted, but that didn't mean that you were going to like it.


Post a comment

Contact the Didact:

Popular Posts