Greg interviews Jared

After minute 35 the American Jared Taylor talks about the founding fathers of his country and even mentioned Eisenhower as someone congenial to white interests! Compare this to what I say in ‘The Iron Throne’ that is now a kind of sticky post for this site, and to one of the final chapters of Pierce’s book that I have been linking to lately (where he also talks about the psychological toll of the Second World War).

The blindness of white nationalists is portrayed in this interview. Neither Jared nor Greg Johnson want to see that the founding myth of post-war whites has to do with the bestiality of the Hellstorm Holocaust, the de-Nazification of Germany and the lies that, through the media, reversed the story about what really happened in WW2. Greg, who interviews Jared, suffers from identical blindness throughout the interview. In the 40th minute, speaking of Eisenhower’s repatriation of Mexicans living in the US, he tacitly put that monster as a good president.

In the 45th minute Jared wondered ‘how white people have been tricked into thinking like this’ referring to the anti-white religion suffered by whites, ‘a church where there is no salvation’, only collective suicide. Neither of them realises that the story about WW2 that we have been telling each other for over seventy years triggered the final phase of white psychosis: a condition that was already underlying the collective unconscious of whites due to Christian-instilled guilt, but that has only recently metastasized.

By the way, the review of the book on feminism that will be published by my Daybreak Press is taking much longer than expected. Those who haven’t read Pierce’s book should print it out at home and study it while I am away from this blog.

Morgan’s flawed philosophy

Dr. Robert Morgan is a notable commenter on The Unz Review. His main mistake is his unilinear philosophy of history. In reality, as the historian Hugh Trevor Roper put it, history is not just what happened but what could have happened (for example, if whites hadn’t gone bananas after Constantine).

If a Jewish sect hadn’t seized the soul of the Greco-Romans, technology and military science wouldn’t have been interrupted. A horde of Mongols would have had no chance against a Roman Empire that hadn’t declined technologically. The West wouldn’t have been easy prey to invasions by non-whites as it was in the history we know.

Morgan’s anti-technological take of history is nonsense. When I attended a CSICOP conference in 1994, Carl Sagan said that the West inflicted on itself a prefrontal lobotomy with what it did to Hypatia and the Alexandria library during the hostile takeover of Christian fanatics. If what Morgan believes is true, the West wouldn’t have been on the verge of succumbing to Islam and, more specifically, to the Huns and Mongols after the Christians destroyed almost all the technological knowledge accumulated by the ancient Greeks and Romans. (We were spared by a historical miracle in the case of the Mongols!)

If I were a film director I would make films about this parallel world that didn’t exist: a Roman Empire without Christianity where eventually the scientific method that the Greeks were very close to discover would be discovered, and how without Christian ethics and the technology applied to the military whites wouldn’t have only pulverised the Huns and the nascent Islam but even the Mongols.

My pals who comment on The Unz Review (Morgan et al) haven’t been paying attention to what I said at the end of ‘The Iron Throne’, where I link to William Pierce’s history of the West. There is no point in arguing with them unless they read Pierce’s book.

Update of May 28

Yesterday I visited Morgan’s latest comments on The Unz Review and came across a crazy pronouncement regarding the Third Reich, responding to a guy using a Nietzschean penname.

Morgan said that over time, even if Hitler had won the war, the Nazis would’ve become corrupted by technology, allowing the loosening of customs, even racial purity, etc.

That is what I call megalomania in psychologicis: believing that one has psychological access to a parallel future where all roads lead to Aryan decline, even a triumphant Nazi Reich, due to tech and Morgan’s nasty philosophy of absolute determinism (which reminds me of the doctrine of those predestined to eternal damnation).

What madness. I think I’ll no longer be quoting what Morgan says.

What story did they tell you?

This is what you should know, white man!

Published in: on May 19, 2021 at 12:54 am  Comments (1)  

Exactly…

two years ago the finale of Game of Thrones, ‘The Iron Throne’, was released. Below, a transcription of Yezenirl’s video ‘The Power of Stories: How Bran the Broken was Always the Ending’ which can be seen on YouTube:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

‘Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of York’. —Richard III

Tyrion: ‘All hail Bran the Broken, First of his Name, King of the Andals and the First Men, Lord of the Six Kingdoms, Protector of the Realm’ [Editor’s note: in Yezen’s video these italicised words are brief audiovisual clips of different scenes; the sentences between the brackets are mine].

I do get it. David Benioff and D.B. Weiss aren’t great writers. The ending was rushed, Season Eight was sloppy, and frankly I thought Season Six and Seven felt like fan-fiction. So it should come as no surprise that there’s a lot of complaints and confusion about the ending.

Still, Tyrion was right about one thing: stories are powerful. There’s nothing like a good story. And now, it seems there’s nothing like a bad one either. Yet, somehow Game of Thrones managed to be both. For years now it shocked us, captivated us, angered us and brought us together. And for all the flaws of the final season, this is the story we got. Books aside, all we can do now is to decide what to make of what the show gave us.

I know for many that means dissecting where the writers went wrong, and I’ll eventually get to that, but as for right now, I’m not interested in just joining the chorus of fanboy rage. Instead, as a guy who did call King Bran [Yezen was the only one who correctly predicted who would become king in the finale], let me try to explain why this was always the direction the story was headed, and try to make sense of just what the ending meant, as broken as it may have been.

Bran was always meant to climb to the top. And it’s pretty clear upon re-reading the first book that this was always the plan. Personally, I figured this several years ago, when George R.R. Martin’s editor Anne Groell revealed that Bran’s end point was the only one she knew.

Obviously, certain things will differ in the books. I expect how he’s chosen will be a little bit different, as well as how he acts, and book-Bran will probably rule from Harrenhal, not King’s Landing. But the question most people have is, what does this mean? Why write this tale of handsome princes and beautiful conquerors only to end with a crippled King?

One reason why King Bran is so controversial is that he’s probably the most poorly understood major character in the story. Bran’s character arc, at its core, is pretty straightforward: he’s a reference to Bran the Blessed, Frodo Baggins, and Rainbow Crow. It’s the tale of a boy who was deemed so broken by a society that he’s even mocked for not killing himself. So, believing the world will never have a place for him, he struggles to see value in his own life, eventually going beyond the Wall in search of purpose, merging with a godhood [the old religion] and fighting against the apocalypse [the white walkers]. Much like the audience, the Seven Kingdoms doesn’t really understand what Bran has become, or how he helped save the world.

Yet, when Bran returns, the Kingdom was broken just like him. And all of the things that once made him useless to the militaristic culture of Westeros, now make him the ideal Fisher King: an incorruptible figurehead to help usher in a new system. And thus, Bran the Broken is immortalised as a story around which the Kingdoms of Westeros can unite. The bittersweet irony is that when Bran is finally celebrated, he’s too consumed by godhood to feel his own triumph.

Bran: ‘You shouldn’t envy me. Mostly, I live it in the past’.

Bran’s emotional distance from the audience is very much the point. And so is the abruptness of his coronation. Bran’s arc doesn’t move towards Kingship; it’s the arc of the Seven Kingdoms that moves toward Bran the Broken. Essentially, the message here is one of humility—a reminder that each of us is bound by blessed and cursed fates. A once ridiculed woman (Brienne) can become the truest of knights [transcriber’s note: this is bullshit feminism], a despised imp (Tyrion) can be a brave hero, an exiled girl (Dany) can become a great liberator—and a great liberator (also Dany) can become an unstoppable tyrant. The capacity of outcasts to rise and fall means that we must learn to see value in everyone, including the cripples, bastards and broken things.

Of course, the big question about King Bran is whether he planned it all out. Was Bran a puppet master, or was he a puppet who could see the strings? Did the Three-Eyed Raven manipulate events to put itself into power?

Bran: ‘Why do you think I came all this way?’

Well, maybe?

The former Three-Eyed Raven [Ser Brynden Rivers in Martin’s novels, called Lord Bloodraven] seemed to know that Bran would eventually be Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, and hinted at it back in Season Six:

‘You won’t be here forever. You won’t be an old man in a tree’.

But in Season Seven, Bran seemingly doesn’t see it, and often admits to not knowing things.

Bran: ‘I can never be Lord of Winterfell. I can never be Lord of anything’ [words to Sansa in Season 7].

Bran: ‘I don’t know. No one’s ever tried’ [words of season 8, episode 2].

Bran: ‘His last name isn’t really Snow. It’s Sand’ [words to Sam in season 7, episode 7].

Bran: ‘I need to learn to see better’ [words to Sansa under Winterfell’s weirwood tree].

So, it’s likely that if the Three-Eyed Raven did set things up, then for Bran it’s something like a half-remembered dream. That said, in Jon’s final dialogue, we do get one last hint that the Three-Eyed Raven was in fact the Lord of Light.

Jon: ‘I’m sorry I wasn’t there when you needed me’.

Bran: ‘You were exactly where you were supposed to be’.

This interaction references several conversations about characters serving the Lord’s purpose. And thus seems to imply that the Lord of Light’s plan was also the Three-Eyed Raven’s plan. So, Jon was in fact there for Bran all along, as a soldier in the Three-Eyed Raven’s war, which provides the closest thing we can get to an answer over that burning question: Did Bran do anything, or did Bran do everything? [Transcriber & editor’s notes: Here follows a few words we won’t quote that Yezen apparently picked up from an episode in Futurama where God speaks to the main character.]

By leaving Bran’s actions ambiguous, the story actually upholds the choices made by the characters. After Hodor, Bran seemingly learns to never again violate another human being’s autonomy. So, regardless of whether the characters were playing the Raven’s game, or whether this universe is just random, each of them had free will and made their own choices.

The big misconception here is the idea that the problem of ruling has been resolved by a god, when in actuality Bran doesn’t solve the problem of ruling. He’s mostly a figurehead who subtly empowers people to fix the world themselves. The problem of ruling is left to Tyrion and his council of former outcasts.

Which brings me to the third element that needs to be discussed, which is the small thing Bran does bring to the table. In my prediction video [see our transcript: here] I talked about Bran’s wisdom as capacity for understanding. But the ending, rushed as it was, suddenly brought up another thing which I really hoped it would. And that is the nature of justice. Throughout the episode, there’s the dilemma presented about what justice really means. Can we forgive those who have done us wrong? Is the world we need one of mercy?

If you recall, Game of Thrones begins with Bran going to see his first execution: a man has deserted the Night’s Watch. As is the law, Lord Eddard Stark hears his last words and executes him. Afterwards, Ned prompts Bran that one day this justice will fall to him. And in the end, it does. But where the story opens on an act of retributive justice—a form of justice framed around punishment—Bran’s first act as King is to shift his Kingdom towards a justice that is more restorative, as in, justice which focuses on rehabilitating the offender and reconciling with the community.

Grey Worm: ‘This man is a criminal. He deserves justice’.

Bran: ‘He just got it. He’s made many terrible mistakes. He’s going to spend the rest of his life fixing them’.

Justice for Tyrion is to fix the problems he’s brought upon Westeros, by becoming Hand of the King. Justice for Jon is to return to the place he functioned best and act as King-beyond-the-Wall. Once again, Bran puts Jon exactly where he’s supposed to be. And while the show explore these ideas so sloppily that it’s hard to register, there’s really nothing we can do about that. The time where internet rage [the fans hated this season as Yezen explains: here] could have shifted the direction of the show’s writing is long gone. And I understand why that’s a frustrating reality for so many: especially those who’ve invested a ton of time and thought into this story. But all we can do now is try to make the most of the ending we got. Maybe I’m a little number to this because I’ve not been a fan of the writing for the past three seasons. For me, I’ve mainly looked at the show as a spoiler-filled preview of books that may never come.

Sam: ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’.

And you know, from that perspective, there’s a lot to be hopeful for about the ending. King Bran feels so true for Martin’s philosophy that I can no longer see how the ending could have been anything else. So although the Kingdoms of Westeros have been broken by war, it seems they may have learned a little something along the way. And you know? Hopefully we did too.

Jon: ‘It doesn’t feel right’.

Tyrion: ‘Ask me again in ten years’.

Anyways I got more content coming… In the meantime I’m also kind of sad that the ending turned out being so unpopular. And I hope this helped. Peace out. Thanks for watching.

Published in: on May 19, 2021 at 12:01 am  Comments (2)  

Morgan quotes

‘The question is whether anti-racism is built into Christianity as a fundamental premise, and I think it’s clear that it is. If so, anti-nationalism and white genocide are also built in, and always were. No need for any church-capturing conspiracy to make it so. No need for any attacker to infiltrate or subvert it, as it must eventually subvert itself, containing “the seeds of its own destruction”, as MacDonald puts it in his review above’ (Source: here).

In another thread Morgan made the point of what I’ve said in ‘The Iron Throne’ this month, with very different words:

‘You can’t argue someone out of a worldview, since it is the worldview itself that sets the rules for what kind of arguments are convincing or even permissible. Hence, as we see to be the case, arguments for racism or sexism will be rejected out of hand by the vast majority of those with a Christian or post-Christian worldview’ (Source: here).

Published in: on May 17, 2021 at 1:09 pm  Comments (4)  

The Iron Throne

‘The Iron Throne’ is the series finale of the fantasy drama television series Game of Thrones. Written and directed by D&D, it aired on HBO on May 19, 2019. The wisest words of all the Game of Thrones seasons were uttered by Tyrion in this finale: words that fans have yet to understand:

What unites people? Armies? Gold? Flags?

Stories.

There’s nothing in the world more powerful than a good story. Nothing can stop it. No enemy can defeat it.

Although D&D were advised by the author about the finale, George R.R. Martin wasn’t the first to notice this. Ivan Illich (1926-2002), a critic of the school system, had said: ‘Neither revolution nor reformation can ultimately change a society, rather you must tell a new powerful tale, one so persuasive that it sweeps away the old myths and becomes the preferred story, one so inclusive that it gathers all the bits of our past and our present into a coherent whole, one that even shines some light into the future so that we can take the next step… If you want to change a society, then you have to tell an alternative story’.

Alas, the current story that whites are telling themselves is astronomically toxic for their mental health. In fact, the System has lied to us over the decades about what happened in the Second World War. The great lie of our times can be summed up in these words by Irmin Vinson about WW2:

In almost any war one side can be dishonestly demonised even by a truthful enumeration of its crimes, if the crimes of its adversaries are suppressed.

Thomas Goodrich’s Hellstorm opened my eyes by collecting testimonies from the 1940s about the genocide committed on the German people during and after the war. This is the story we must be telling ourselves: the events dating from 1944 to 1947 in what was left of Germany, and up to 1956 in the Soviet Union’s death and forced labour camps where countless Germans had been deported. Of the story of the genocide of millions of defenceless Germans we don’t see any museum, memorial, film or documentary in the media, newspaper articles or magazines. Nor is it talked about in history departments or even routinely in the major racialist forums. Why?

Because what we call a nation’s history is actually a struggle over who controls the social narrative, the official ‘story’. Such control unleashes great intellectual passions: it is practically an act of war.

In this light we might dare to say that, although there has been no more fighting since 1945, the war against the Aryan continues insofar as the story of the fallen continues to be suppressed today, and suppressed overwhelmingly. In the case of Germany there is no such thing as ‘the vision of the vanquished’.

We live in a totalitarian West where the most relevant stories about the Second World War have not reached the masses, not even at the cafes where we hang out with our friends to speak out privately. Those who win the war write history, and it shouldn’t surprise us that only and exclusively the crimes attributed to the losing side have been aired from the rooftops 24/7. On the other hand, the masses know nothing about the crimes committed by the winners. Only those who know the harshest literature of the last decades intuit what really happened.

The Gulag Archipelago was published when I was a teenager. One reviewer wrote: ‘To live now and not to know this work is to be a kind of historical fool’. We could say the same of those who ignore books like Hellstorm, published in 2010 and other books like it. Currently the story of the Jewish holocaust is taught on a religious level in the West. But the planned murder of millions of defenceless German men, women, and children has been kept from us despite that

What the Allies did in peacetime (after May 1945 to 1947) was incomparably more monstrous than the crimes attributed to the Germans in wartime—precisely because it was done in peacetime.

* * *

Before the apocryphal story about WW2, the Bible was the story that whites had been telling themselves. But if the story that the Old Testament preaches to the Jews is ethnocentrism as their evolutionary survival strategy, and the story that the New Testament preaches to the gentiles is guilt and universalist love, it shouldn’t surprise us if both stories culminate today as a self-fulfilling prophecy: the apocalypse for whites.

But there’s a last-minute solution. Start telling yourselves a new story that replaces the old one through William Pierce’s history of the West and Evropa Soberana’s essay on Judea vs. Rome.

Umwertung aller Werte!

Cancel culture

Under Justinian—emperor from 527 to 565—cancel culture went after paganism no holds barred. One of his laws ended imperial toleration of all religions… If you were a pagan [Christian Newspeak for adept to Greco-Roman civilisation], you’d better get ready for the death penalty. Pagan teachers—especially philosophers—were banned. They lost their parrhesia: their license to teach.

____________

Read it all: here.

Published in: on May 6, 2021 at 11:59 am  Comments Off on Cancel culture  

The Bells

‘The Bells’ is the fifth and penultimate episode of the eighth season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 72nd overall. It was written by D&D and aired on May 12, 2019. ‘The Bells’ features the final battle for control of the Iron Throne, with Dany’s forces commencing their assault on Cersei’s forces at King’s Landing.

Quite apart from D&D’s big mistake of compacting the plots that were left unfinished in a couple of episodes, fans also erred big by misjudging the last two episodes of the show. Although it would’ve required more seasons for proper execution, it makes sense for Dany to burn King’s Landing in this penultimate episode. See Yezenirl’s video ‘Foreshadowing is not Character Development: The Rationalization of Tyranny’.

Instead of commenting on the bad messages from ‘The Bells’, I prefer to talk about one of the bad messages from the next episode, the finale.

Even at the show’s most interesting moment, Tyrion’s speech, the writers managed to insert a feminist message: Sansa’s little sermon that left her as Queen of the North! As Yezenirl observed in an interview, that is cheating on the profound message of that moment.

Incidentally, on the 19th of this month I’ll post a transcript of Yezenirl’s video on why Bran’s coronation was precisely where Martin’s story was headed.

Published in: on May 6, 2021 at 1:01 am  Comments (1)  

The war on whites

In yesterday’s featured article on The Occidental Observer (TOO), ‘The War on Whites: Harold Covington’s Northwest Novels’, Edmund Connelly used my old, now obsolete penname ‘Chechar’ (I currently use my initials, C.T.). I would like to comment on some of the things Connelly said:

The War on Whites is moving to a higher level—fast. Signs are everywhere; they are undeniable. First and foremost, understand and accept that this is happening. For many, there will be no escape. If you are White and don’t yet grasp what is happening, quickly find out from someone who does. Lives will depend on it.

In my previous TOO article, I reviewed ‘collapse’ novels by Matthew Bracken as a means to put average Whites in the frame of mind needed to accept that ‘our’ government is now fully ready to attack us. All institutions are now arrayed against the White Christian founding stock of the United States of America: from the government, to the media, to education, to corporations, to the military, to the churches—all of it. And I know many of you readers see this…

This war is being waged by the mainstream, organized Jewish community. This cannot be denied.

This is short-sighted. While what Connelly says is technically true, in the West there are more traitorous whites than subversive Jews. Before Jews came to Connelly’s country in substantial numbers, the US had already waged a bloody war of secession against the white and in favour of the black. The racialised right has been particularly blind to this history, as the American Robert Morgan has pointed out so many times in the comments section of The Unz Review. (A selection of Morgan’s ideas when he was commenting on TOO under another penname can be seen: here.)

To my amazement, however, a hefty majority who correctly write about the danger facing the White race either fail or refuse to take their analysis to its obvious conclusion: Who is behind this vast swatch of anti-White activism? I would have thought that with the release of Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on Jews in the 1990s and its subsequent filtering into the growing culture of the Dissident or Alt-Right, the matter of who is on the attack would be settled.

Technically true but still myopic, since what happens now is a re-enactment of what happened 1,700 years ago when other white traitors, incited by Christianised Semites, seized the power of the Roman Empire: as a few years ago we explained on this site with a series under the title ‘Apocalypse of whites’ (our core essay) which I recently linked on another thread at the TOO comments section.

Myopic I say because Connelly ignores not only what happened in Europe when Constantine came to power, but what happened in Latin America more than a millennium later.

By subscribing to the hypothesis that the JQ is the primary cause of the war against the white man, white nationalists have been reluctant to see that, in Mexico, its War of Independence (1810-1821) was consummated by white Criollos against the Peninsular whites, and its Revolution one hundred years later (1910-1917) lowered racial taboos and led to the rise of non-Criollos.

They don’t know either that the first president of Paraguay went to anti-white extremes that the US has not reached even in 2021: banning marriages among whites who were only allowed to marry mestizos or mulattos! Revilo Oliver knew better the history of Latin America. Who of the white nationalist pundits knows it now? It’s precisely because Connelly ignores the history of Europe from Constantine, or what happened in the Americas, that he writes:

This present essay names Jews as ‘the architects of this modern horror show’, the sponsors of this War on Whites…

Rather, I’d argue that Covington’s premises in his Northwest novels concerning a Jewish War on Whites are more relevant now.

However, Connelly’s article has good points. Earlier this year I complained that except for the retired writer Michael O’Meara, the pundits of white nationalism today are reactionary, not revolutionary. In his article, Connelly vindicates revolutionary thinking by introducing the TOO readership to the fiction of Harold Covington, especially the best of his novels, The Brigade.

One of the last chapters is [literally] an incendiary account titled ‘The Hotrod of the Apocalypse’… The point is that O’Meara has an unusually deep understanding of Covington’s intent in writing the Northwest novels.

Those who want to read my excerpts from The Brigade can do so: here. It’s on my list of must-read books.

Covington’s rendering of this White war for survival is gripping, compelling, and prescient beyond measure. I’ve read the book three times and without fail the 517 pages flew by as if it was only a few hours of reading.

After quoting some passages from The Brigade, Connelly tells us:

If I were to give you five narrow-lines pages of notepaper and let you loose on the Internet, how long would it take you to fill those pages with examples of how America is now lost to us? Not long, I suspect. And the main reason for this state of affairs is spelled out in MacDonald’s Culture of Critique and other works. We face a Jewish War on Whites.

Sorry but this is myopic once again. The pundits of white nationalism ignore the anti-Aryan war that the white man already waged both in the Roman Empire when it was Christianised and what happened in the Americas: an experiment that resulted in colossal miscegenation throughout this continent. (The Iberian whites irreparably polluted their DNA when the Inquisition kept even the crypto-Jews at bay!) I am not saying that Jewry doesn’t want to destroy the best of the Goyim, but that whites themselves have been their worst enemies because of Christian ethics: the paradigm of this site that replaces the paradigm of white nationalists.

And speaking of Christian ethics, a notable Christian among the pro-white forums is Hunter Wallace, who today published a piece, ‘Der Movement: Frazier Glenn Miller has Died in Prison of Natural Causes’, whose abstract reads: ‘The death of Glenn Miller is symbolic of the end of an era’. Wallace is the typical reactionary who rejects revolutionaries. As stupid as Glenn Miller’s act that landed him in jail may have been, Wallace picks on flawed revolutionaries like him instead of picking on mature intellectuals who advocate revolution like Michael O’Meara.

However, what Connelly later says under the heading ‘Media Silence and Distortion’ referring to Jewry is completely true. Regarding black-on-white crime, Connelly adds:

The truth is not hard to find—but paradoxically, it is impossible to see. Well, it seems paradoxical only to those who do not know about the evil surrounding the Jewish Question.

Unlike Revilo Oliver, monolingual racialists don’t realise that in Mexico newspapers like the Christian-owned Reforma are as subversive as Jewish-owned newspapers in the neighbouring country to the north. At least in the Americas, it isn’t only Jews but mestizos and Criollo traitors who promote the anti-white zeitgeist. The vast majority of Criollos I know are traitors to their race (see e.g., what I say in Spanish in a brief note: here).

Given that Connelly linked this site from TOO and some TOO visitors have come today to see what we say in the link that Conelly put in his article, I would suggest that visitors familiarise themselves with our new paradigm that doesn’t leave the JQ aside but rather expands it into what we call the CQ, the Christian Question (see the book The Fair Race whose PDF is available on the sidebar).

The last of the Starks

‘The Last of the Starks’ is the fourth episode of the eighth season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 71st overall.

As I said in the previous instalment of this series, ‘The Long Night’ is so exciting that the anticlimax is unwatchable. If I had directed the show, in addition to removing feminism from it; the soft-porn scenes, Arya’s psycho traits, and putting Theon as the late hero instead of an heroine, I would’ve ended the series by filming, in this episode, Bran’s coronation after Jon led a mass cremation funeral for the dead (the latter we do see in the HBO series).

In that way the series wouldn’t have ended in the eighth season but in the seventh, in 2017: this eleventh episode being the anticlimax (something common in masterpieces of literature).

If you look at the popularity statistics for Game of Thrones, after Arya killed the monarch of the white walkers and the wights, the Night King, the fan acceptance plummeted. On the one hand I am pleased, although anti-feminism wasn’t the cause of the repudiation of this season but the blunder of squeezing all the complex plots pending in a couple of episodes.

The feminist messages that continue in this episode are not worth describing further, except that while watching ‘The Last of the Starks’ tonight I counted two of them.

Published in: on May 5, 2021 at 1:22 am  Comments Off on The last of the Starks