‘Racism is evil’

Barry Lyndon meets King George III

 
After Charlottesville only Tucker of Fox News is barely tolerable to watch, who yesterday mentioned once more The Daily Stormer in the context of free speech. I even find President Trump intolerable to watch. In his speech yesterday he said that ‘racism is evil’ in the context of ‘white supremacy’.

Yesterday I also watched some scenes of the 1975 film Barry Lyndon. I could not believe the beauty of many of the film’s exteriors, which were shot in Ireland, England and what was Prussia. Kubrick drew inspiration from the landscapes of painters such as Watteau and Gainsborough.

It is impossible not to compare the two images I saw yesterday: a brief shot of a Prussian city when Europe was healthy and awesomely beautiful, and the few seconds of the American president saying the exact opposite of the truth. (‘Racism’ should be considered the noblest of virtues in these dark times.)

I must paraphrase what Hunter Wallace said five years ago on the fourth of July: ‘We [Americans] invite King George III to come back and resume the throne. He could dissolve the Union, arrest the pretender in the White House, and round up our so-called “representatives” in Congress. In exchange for an apology and a promise to never misbehave again, we get lower taxes, a less intrusive government, secure borders, and an end to all the madness that has flowed from the “self evident” idea that “all men are created equal”.’

Alas, George is no longer with us.

Published in: on August 23, 2017 at 11:20 am  Comments (8)  
Tags:

Beware of Game of Thrones

In the last seasons of Games of Thrones:

1. A female knight, Brienne of Tarth, beats a couple of the best male knights: Ser Loras of House Tyrell (one of the great houses of Westeros) and The Hound (who was the personal bodyguard of king Joffrey Baratheon).

2. The wildling Ygritte, physically beautiful, goes to war as if she was just another guy. [1]

3. A few non-white, masculinized female warriors at Dorne are capable of inflicting a coup d’état on a society which architecture resembles Islam’s.

4. Daenerys Targaryen, the Queen of Dragons, a liberal-minded bimbo, thinks it’s her job to liberate the brown people from slavery. She lusts to conquer the Iron Throne and “break the wheel” (smash all Feudal Houses).

5. The adolescent Arya Stark (pic above) trains to become one of the two best assassins in Westeros.

6. Yara Greyjoy is depicted as smart and her castrated brother Theon as stupid. In the TV series Yara is lesbian or bisexual—though George R.R. Martin, the author of the novels A Song of Ice and Fire has confirmed that she is not in the novels. Of course: the hetero Theon has claimed that Yara, not he, is the one to be crowned as lord in the Iron Islands.

7. In what is perhaps the best battle ever filmed, Lady Sansa gives rational advice to Jon Snow, who fails to follow her advice and, in a rash decision to save his half-brother Rickon, lost the battle and almost got killed. Jon and his comrades in arms were rescued by the Knights of the Vale and Lord Petyr Baelish, popularly called Littlefinger, who surprisingly appeared in the last minute. (In real life it’s women who generally think with their emotions and men who think more coldly.)

8. The last season ended with blonde, bimbo Daenerys leading a mudvasion into the white part of Westeros.

Similarly, in the first episode of Season 7, which started tonight featuring the Lannisters (obviously Queen Cersei, not her twin brother Jaime, is the one who sits on the most emblematic symbol of the series, the Iron Throne):

9. The adolescent Arya—remember: she’s one of the best assassins in Westeros—is capable of wiping out an entire House (in the previous season she killed the Feudal Lord).

10. While preparing the defence of the North against the white walkers, a 12-year-old Lady Lyanna Mormont, the head of House Mormont, lectures a 60-year-old male: the head of another Feudal House.

“If the Jews speak the people must beware,” Goebbels warned. Well, well. The screenwriters of Game of Thrones are Jews. Beware of the subliminal messages of what has become the #1 television series!

__________________

[1] Compare it with Beowulf, a medieval epic poem and the most important piece of surviving literature in the Old English language. In the 2005 Icelandic film Beowulf & Grendel, Selma is abducted and tied around with a rope by the brute and handsome Beowulf, as used to happen in those times.

Aryans who no longer want to live

The following is the introduction to the fifth part of the coming 2017 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. For context, see “Two ways of looking at history.”

______ ______

 

Part V:

Nordicism

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK:

Aryans who no longer want to live

As we have seen with the comments by Jack Frost at The Occidental Observer, sometimes the entrails of a topic are shown in a lively, informal discussion. In the same Observer webzine a regular commenter, Franklin Ryckaert, said:

• Alexander the Great wanted to include all peoples of the Middle East in his Hellenistic ideal, even initiating miscegenation with them.

• The Romans included all non-European peoples in their Empire bequeathing Roman citizenship to all who they thought deserved it. They even had one time an Arab emperor (Philippus Arabs).

• When the Western European peoples began to colonize the world, they made the same mistake. The Spaniards and Portuguese miscegenated with the natives of their colonies on a mass scale and later also with their imported African slaves.

• The Dutch miscegenated with the Indonesians and accepted their mixed offspring as “Europeans.”

• The French accepted educated Blacks, the so-called évolués, as their equals. France doesn’t keep statistics about its ethnic and racial minorities because it considers them all as “Frenchmen.”

• Only the British kept aloof from the natives in their colonies and didn’t allow them to immigrate into the white settlement colonies or Britain itself. But that has now radically changed, the British having become the most extreme both in terms of immigration and miscegenation.

Ryckaert concluded: “We simply cannot ascribe this suicidal behaviour to Jewish machinations, rather it is the age-old inclination of Europeans to include the whole world in a universal ideal. And addressing me, he added: “You aptly describe Jewish destructive influence as an ‘epiphenomenon.’[1] It couldn’t function as it does without the above-described preconditions.”

Alas, many white nationalists are still inclined to include the whole Caucasian or semi-Caucasian population in an ideal.

Consider some scenes from the Godfather films and Goodfellas. Tommy DeVito (interpreted by Joe Pesci in Goodfellas), inspired in a mafia fellow of the real American world, is one of the most repulsive characters I have ever seen on the big screen. Because I have always found that Italian subculture nauseating, at the beginning of the second Godfather film, Senator Geary’s words, after he attended the First Communion celebration of the son of Michael Corleone, are my favorite lines of all mafia films: “I don’t like your kind of people. I don’t like to see you come out to this clean country with your oily hair, dressed up in those silk suits, passing yourselves off as decent Americans. I’ll do business with you, but the fact is that I despise your masquerade, the dishonest way you pose yourself. Yourself and your whole fucking family.”

Now visualize how, in the first Godfather movie—that according to Stanley Kubrick included the best cast in cinematic history—Vito Corleone, before the heads of the Five Families, opposes the heroin business and pleads for safety when his son Michael returns home from Sicily. Watch that scene on your homely screen. The visual experiment is addressed to those who call a spade a spade. You need to be extremely dishonest to call “Aryans” those mafia bosses sitting around the table. But as I have said, many white nationalists see whites where national socialists used to see mudbloods.

In 2013 a national socialist commenter who blogs under the penname of Vance Stubbs said in two different racial forums, including my own:

“Nordicism” among white nationalists is almost identical to the response to “racism” in society at large. Thus, White Nationalists treat Mediterraneans like Republicans treat Mestizos: they put emotional non-sequiturs up against biological facts, and they wind up trotting out “token Italians” because accusations of an organization being “Nordic” in white nationalism are taken like accusations of an organization being “all white” in the mainstream. We’ve just fallen into the same mentality…

The problem is white nationalists still have an equality-based mindset. Pointing out an obvious fact like some “Whites” being purer than others (did you really expect the people who were occupied by the Moors or Turks for 300 years to be comparable to the Swedes?) throws them into fits.

William Pierce was not properly a white nationalist. His ideas were much closer to the scholars of German national socialism (see for example the editorial by Pierce in National Socialist World Journal of Winter 1968). The term “white nationalist” became in vogue in the middle 1990s when Pierce’s reputation was well established for decades. Stubbs continues:

Pierce made eugenics the core of his religious outlook as a means of protecting the eugenically-selecting society. But I see little concern for the subject among modern white nationalists. Can you imagine a racial state with a comprehensive eugenic policy which didn’t consider the reversal of mongrelization to be a major objective? That it wouldn’t make its population look more like Swedes and less like Sicilians, as time goes on? It’s hard to do so, which is why I believe “anti-Nordicism” in white nationalism has, among other things, shut down much of the discussion on the subject.

I have been insulted in two major white nationalist forums for stating the obvious: that many Mediterraneans—like myself!—have our bloodline compromised. (Cf. the words of Helmut Stellrecht for the Hitler Youth in Section VII to see what Meds like us should do if we are “priests of the 14 words” indeed.) The vehemence of the vitriol of these anti-nordicist nationalists directed at Arthur Kemp and me only proves that Revilo Oliver was tragically right: Any attempt to reason with a people in the grip of suicidal mania is itself the greatest folly; these men evidently no longer want to live.

Unlike so many nordish white nationalists, national socialists and raciologists have not been ideologically suicidal. Quite the contrary. In this section I will include texts by Hans Günther and Arthur Kemp. However, the bulk of the section consists of Spanish-English translations of the very informative prose of the Catalonian author of the site Evropa Soberana. His long essay about a new racial classification may be a little boring for the casual reader. But it provides the scientific basis to understand the differences between Nordics and Mediterraneans, and why it is ethno-suicidal to grant racial amnesty to these folks.

The history of miscegenation in the Iberian peninsula has been downplayed by white nationalists (“He who controls the past controls the future”). Since they treat Meds as republicans treat mestizos, most white nationalists shy away from historical facts. For example, not only Semites but even Negroes have stained the blood of many Iberians since colonial times. I include my abridgement of Ray Smith’s “The black man’s gift to Portugal,” originally published in The Best of Attack and National Vanguard Tabloid (Ref: Issue No. 6, 1971). But first I reproduce “The Nordic ideal” by Günther.

________________________

[1] Ryckaert refers to the present editor’s statement: “The Jewish Problem is an epiphenomenon of the deranged altruism resulting from the secular fulfillment of universal Christian values.”

Published in: on December 13, 2016 at 5:47 pm  Comments (16)  
Tags:

War of the sexes, 18

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

 

Why civilized society hates men

 
Back in 2009, before my full racial awakening, the following comment by a Swede in a Counter-Jihad site attracted my attention:

Well, what sort of men does it take to put things right in a lawless Wild West town? There is a very good movie that I recommend, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Lawrence Auster (just to mention his positive sides) pointed out the important analysis of that movie: “It’s about the idea that civilization depends on men who use violence, but that civilization, once it is founded and secure and no longer needs violent men, ignores and derides the very men without whom it wouldn’t exist.” The bumbling city slicker (James Stewart) wasn’t up to the job, the town had to be saved by the violent, marginal brute (John Wayne).

Auster again: “The image is not of restrained, upright men who just use force when absolutely required and within the rules, but of tough men, violent men, men who have something primal about them, men who can subdue Indians, men who can blow away the Liberty Valance types and rescue the softer, civilized Jimmy Stewart types, men who are ready, able and willing to kill barbarians and save society, men like Nelson, who used apocalyptic levels of violence to kill thousands of men and destroy Napoleon’s navy and prevent the invasion of England.”

Whenever you find such men, hold on to them. You cannot afford to be picky when it comes to choosing here. Only princesses in fairy tales can afford that… So in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance James Stewart is the civilized city-dweller that can build civilization. But John Wayne is the brute who makes civilization possible in the first place!

Without the men like John Wayne, the James Stewarts are therefore useless. It’s pretty pointless then to lament the John Waynes’s lack of Jimmy Stewart properties, isn’t it?

In his video “Why civilized society hates men” the blogger says: “Society is not gynocentric because of the Jews or a conspiracy. Society is gynocentric. Period.” Remember what I said about gynocentric Sparta in my previous post, or even better read the whole mini-book about Sparta that I translated to English.

turd-flinging-monkeyThe blogger adds that gynocentrism only perishes during war. Perhaps the most extreme example of this was the burning of the Gaul villages by the Gaul Vercingetorix to prevent the Romans from gathering food supplies. Vercingetorix also expelled Gaul women and children from his fortress during the Roman siege. The lives of soldiers, and soldiers alone, had value in the war!

Back to our times. Presently only the Jimmy Stewart types are allowed to thrive. The blogger does not mention The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance but he says that because the West only wants feminized white males “this is why marriage laws punish men but don’t punish women.” Those are laws designed to castrate the alpha male. The blogger maintains it is no coincidence that right after the Cold War ended in the 1990s together with the threat of nuclear annihilation came the third feminist wave. America did not need the Waynes anymore, or speaking plainly: “Respect of masculinity is directly proportional to the threats that a society faces.” And also: “As soon as the threat passes, masculinity is demonized.”

Giving women or feminized males positions of authority shoots us on the foot. In another video the blogger said: “Ethical leadership is a male characteristic. Women make terrible leaders because they are inherently selfish and so incapable of ethical leadership.”

If Clinton wins in a couple of days Americans will learn it the hard way. Of course: a woman is running for president because virtually all westerners believe in equality. Even most white nationalists don’t rebel against feminism. Who among them forbids women in their conferences? The grim truth is that nationalists are only partially awakened. In another video the blogger said: “Equality is a lie: a myth to appease the masses” and still in another one he claimed that he has seen more men destroyed by women than by bullets, even after he served in the Iraq war.

War of the sexes, 12

Update: The following text is rough draft. The series has been substantially revised and abridged, and the section by the YouTube blogger Turd Flinging Monkey is available in a single PDF: here.

______ 卐 ______

 

Are men superior to women?

 
turd-flinging-monkey
Those who design computer games depict warrior women as faster than robust men. The same with Hollywood. Remember one of the films of the Matrix trilogy? The black actress who plays Niobe is the best pilot of a Zion hovercraft. In reality women are slower. Men are not only stronger but faster, including reflexes.

The same with intelligence. I used to be a chess player. Generally, the sexes are separated in chess tournaments. Even those female child prodigies in China trained to become chess masters are no match for male grandmasters. (By the way, the 2016 world chess championship is scheduled to start this November 11 in New York City between Magnus Carlsen and challenger Sergey Karjakin: two male whites.)

The same can be said about the careers of physics, mathematics and computing. Men perform far better. The System’s solution? The blogger does not mention race but what is being done with the fair sex is exactly what is done with the niggers: “lower the math standard for women.” That is the official policy in the universities. Once again, Hollywood brainwashes us with poisonous films like Starship Troopers where the main characters, Johnny Rico and his girlfriend Carmen Ibañez, travel in a spaceship to conquer a bug planet. Johnny had obtained low math grades and has to work as a mere infantryman while the smarter Carmen got high math grades, obtaining a job to pilot a starship.

Independently of this shameful inversion of reality in Hollywood and computer games, the blogger says that emotional intelligence is bullshit, that it does not exist. But I agree with Schopenhauer on this point, that “women never see anything but what is closest to them. To consult women when you are in difficulties, as the ancient Teutons did, is by no means a bad idea: for their way of looking at things is quite different from ours, especially in their propensity for keeping in view the shortest road to a desired goal and in general what lies closest to hand, which we usually overlook precisely because it is right in front of our noses”.

The blogger continues to say that the only way that women can win against men is if the system is rigged, exactly what is happening now with the 2016 US election. Sean Hannity is virtually alone in the entire media to openly support Donald Trump!

In his video the blogger has concluded that men are superior to women not only physically but mentally. In a follow-up video, “Men are smarter than women,” he adds that he received critics for his prior video even from the manosphere. He refutes the argument of deceiving IQ studies conducted by dishonest egalitarians showing that pubescent girls score better than boys of the same age. The dirty trick consists that girls reach physical maturity before boys, something that is reflected in IQ studies of the span of puberty where girls score better. But they reach their maximum brain volume at 10.5 years, and boys at 14. (“The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and more slowly does it mature. The man attains the maturity of his reasoning powers and spiritual faculties hardly before his twenty-eight year; the woman with her eighteenth” —Schopenhauer.) Adult men have a brain ten percent larger than women, and five more points of IQ (again, the antiracist blogger simply ignores IQ studies among the races). In the case of those humans who reach the Himalayas of IQ, say from 140 to 160, they are all males. “In conclusion, men are smarter than women, period.”

I would add that we men are not only physically and intellectually superior, but morally (honor, nobility) as well—and thus objectively superior.

But like white nationalists MGTOWers are still plugged in the Matrix of political correctness. Remember the hysterical fuss at The Daily Stormer that Andrew Anglin suffered for stating the obvious about women? Exactly the same happened to this blogger in the manosphere community. In a follow-up video, “False stereotypes,” the blogger says that in the comments sections of his YouTube channel he was accused of incredible claims: that he was probably gay; an ugly fellow incapable of getting laid; an unredeemable misogynist who lived in his mom’s basement, etcetera. All false, ad hoc stereotypes coming from those who cannot stand hard facts.

Still in another follow-up, “Men are smarter than women 2,” the blogger responds to another tactic from utterly dismayed viewers: the denial of the validity of the science of sexual dimorphism.

anas_platyrhynchos

Natural science impossible to refute:
male and female mallards. The male mallard
has an unmistakable green head.

In this follow-up video the blogger responds to a feminist that made a career in so-called gender studies. The woman claimed that men have larger brains because the brains are proportionate to their larger bodies in general. The blogger counters with the fact that even children have more cranial capacity than girls, and the same can be said about adults: the difference between the male and the female brains is of the size of a soup bar. Liberals want us to believe that this has zero relevance for their egalitarian dogma.

The blogger then mentions a crude test for cranial size that we could use at home: measuring tape around the heads of family males and females. But as the staunch antiracist he is, the blogger fails to present the perfect argument. Even tall and robust, muscular niggers have a smaller brain size than skinny Caucasians!

So far for the proportional argument that the feminist used. Finally, remember once more Schopenhauer’s wise words about the fair sex:

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, “Man”.

In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of his life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy.

In another video, “Women are children,” the blogger implies that today’s westerners are slaves of the egalitarian dogma: a dogma they pursue independently of the data we can gather from nature. Gender equality simply cannot be enforced in the real world, and he concludes his video with the words “Women will always be children.”

Coming with the wind

“Patriarchy is coming back. It’s just a question of whether it will be a White Patriarchy or an Islamic one.”

Brothermattiex

 
Watching the hypocritical Fox News these months I’ve seen many times Sean Hannity criticizing what he calls “radical Islam.” He has been saying that the clash of our civilizations consists that Muslims under Sharia don’t allow women to go outside their homes without a male companion. He has also been saying that, unlike us, Sharia Muslims don’t castigate marital rape or the “denigration” of women as second-class citizens; and that in Saudi Arabia women must cover themselves as their husbands want, etcetera.

I am about the age of Hannity and use the word “hypocrite” because the guy is concealing the fact that, in the last decades, sexual mores have shifted almost a hundred and eighty degrees in this continent.

Gone-With-The-Wind-PosterIn a couple of those opera-like theatres, I saw Gone with the Wind as a child and then in my teens. Many scenes of Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) with Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) made a deep impression in my juvenile mind:

• Throughout the film, since the opening scenes in Georgia, the costumes of women of society always hid the sexual appeal of their bodies, especially the southern belle dresses; and I am talking not only about Scarlett and the female elements in her family but of Ashley’s fiancée and the other society women (Melanie Hamilton, who eventually married Ashley, is the perfect model of how women should behave in the West)

• At the Twelve Oaks party, before the barbecue is disrupted by the declaration of war all women are taking their mandatory nap (except Scarlett who escapes the upstairs bedroom) while men discuss serious matters. It was unthinkable that a woman had a voice in such matters

• Even after Scarlett is widowed she is called “Mrs. Charles Hamilton” in the sense that her reputation still belonged to the shadow of a man who died in uniform

• Similarly, after the Entr’acte Frank (Scarlett’s second husband), Ashley, Rhett and several other accomplices make a night raid on a shanty town after Scarlett is attacked while driving through it alone, resulting in Frank’s death. It goes without saying that in that night the women of these brave men stayed at home sewing and reading decent literature: what women were expected to do

• Once married with Rhett Butler, “Captain Butler” was always greeted first by street pedestrians while walking with Scarlett. She, faithfully beside her husband in those street walks, was only mentioned after the pedestrians greeted Rhett

• Never forget the marital rape of Scarlett when Rhett carried her up in his arms telling her, “This is one night you’re not turning me out.”

In those fancy theatres of yore when I was young, the film depicted very healthy Occidental mores—before values got corrupted and completely inverted in this darkest hour of ours.

Have Hannity et al lost memory of history by implying that our culture has always subscribed feminism? What is going on in their “conservative” minds? I tell you: they are liberals, phony traditionalists. Racists should treasure Gone with the Wind instead of a thousand movies of this century as every film today, and TV program without exception, contains ethnosuicidal messages. Mention any movie filmed after the 1960s and, if I’ve seen it, in the comments section I’ll tell you the ethnosuicidal message. But of course: this is something that phony traditionalists, like every Fox News host, will never acknowledge.

Pace conservatives and even quite a few white nationalists, patriarchy is coming back throughout the West with or without a great awakening in the white race. Demography is destiny and, with dozens of millions of Muslims in Europe, the wind has already started to change. The only question is if the coming patriarchs will behave like Clark Gable or, more probably, like towelhead decapitators.

Who’s the sane:

People inside or outside
the Fruit Cake Hospital?

In the movie 12 Monkeys, just when the TV set of a mental hospital’s recreational room shows poor white rabbits and evil humans doing lab experiments with the rabbits’ eyes, there’s a splendid dialogue between Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt:

James: “Maybe people deserved to be wiped out.”

Jeffrey (startled, turning): “Wiping out the human race? That’s a great idea! But it’s more of a long-term thing. Right now we have to focus on more immediate goals.”

See also my (unpublished) book.

Published in: on June 26, 2015 at 12:33 pm  Comments (4)  
Tags:

Botched episode

The finale of the 5th season of Game of Thrones

stannis

Had it not been for an accident in my teens, now I would be a consummate film director. My forte has always been the visual arts. Precisely because they are my forte I noticed, since childhood, the beauty of the Aryan race, especially girls. In a sea of mud in Mexico the very few blondes with delicate features seemed to me like lotus flowers floating on the sea.

As message, Game of Thrones (GoT) is quite bad. Like everything we see on television in our times, it makes equal man and woman by showing female warriors or female heads of state. To boot, GoT depicts promiscuity as normal, sometimes with scenes that are disgusting and I mean not only the homosexual, but heterosexual light porn alike. If I were the author of the books or the director I’d put the High Sparrow as the hero of the saga. After a couple of centuries of disbanding the Faith Militant, the military arm of the Faith of the Seven is restored, this time led by the sparrows thus ending the degeneration of royalty in the city King’s Landing.

The screenwriters of GoT will never do something similar in this darkest time of the West. (On the contrary, perhaps in the following season the Frankenstein that created Cersei’s doctor will terminate the sparrows.) But the writers of the ethnostate could do it in tales that retain the enormous beauty of some scenarios we’ve seen in GoT, with the difference that our values would be transvalued (goodbye Jesus—and forever).


Anesthetized spectator

From a strictly cinematic, not axiologic, viewpoint the first forty-nine episodes of GoT were well directed. In the last one, “Mother’s Mercy” released yesterday, the screenwriters blundered badly. Those who really understand film know that a masterpiece never exceeds in raucous scenes. Exceeding and overreaching was exactly what the screenwriters did in the final episode of the GoT season.

In real artistic film there cannot be a scene with very profound implications for the overall plot after another similar scene after another… A well-made film, such as the first Alien—incidentally, the only film by Ridley Scott that I like—maintains the suspense through slow scenes and only by the end it bursts with extreme violence. Instead, in “Mother’s Mercy” the screenwriters committed the fashionable sin in Hollywood and television programs today: they conflated several tremendous events in a single hour:

  • The defeat on the battlefield and apparent death of Stannis (pic above);
  • the Arya girl turned into a sadist of the kind of Tarantino films (Arya stabbed in both eyes a despicable subject);
  • the prolonged degradation of Queen Cersei along the streets of King’s Landing.

In the internet, the feminists today are angrily commenting on yesterday’s episode. Although Cersei is one of the oldest villains of all seasons in GoT, she is a woman, and they are horrified to see her degraded by orders of the High Sparrow in the walk of shame. The truth is that we urgently need this type of action in disciplining all sorts of degenerates in the ethnostate, including white nationalists. The laws of morality should grab them all, including the heads of state. That’s why I so admire the High Sparrow as depicted in the fifth season. “The sign of the times is degeneracy,” said a regular visitor of this blog. “This term—degeneracy—sums up all that is happening to the West.”

The scene of the appropriate punishment of Cersei—adulterous, incestuous, involved in the death of her husband, the king, and countless other misdeeds that ruined the lives of others—is well-achieved if we see that scene strictly in isolation.

But in this final episode, after the military defeat of Stannis and the sadistic transformation of Arya (something one does not expect from a child even if her list of villains to kill is well intentioned), the viewer is completely confused and numbed when this later scene arrives. After such extremely disturbing scenes (we had hoped that Stannis defeated Ramsey, who skins men and women alive), when finally arriving at the walk of shame this late scene has completely lost its momentum. The previous scenes had left us confused and anesthetized before a new brutality. In none of the previous nearly fifty episodes the screenwriters indulged themselves in such excess, and the same could be said of

  • the apparent murder (some fans think that the Red Witch will rise him from the dead in the next season) of Jon Snow in the final minutes of the episode.

A good screenwriter would have spent four episodes for each of these four gruesome themes marked with bullets. But they put them all together, one after another, to the degree of bungling the episode.

Terrible! The adroitness of the creators of GoT completely failed. However, as was clear from my first entry about the series, GoT subscribes a suicidal ideology (see yesterday’s post on egalitarianism). In the real world we are not “equal” on race, gender or sexual orientation; nor should prevail the principle of “non-discrimination” for the inferior races, women or the inverts. Unlike GoT, women should not be warriors (as red-haired Ygritte and some non-white, masculinized female warriors at Dorne) or female knights! (Brienne of Tarth); nor try to make a career of professional assassins (Arya), nor the fans should hope that a blonde bimbo (Daenerys) conquers the Iron Throne…

A frustrated filmmaker as I am I will continue to see the next season but only as visual inspiration of Aryan scenery that could be used if the race is saved from an almost certain fate.

________________

Update of June 24

Now that I watched again episode 48 I realised that it was botched as well. You simply cannot show the most disturbing scene ever seen on TV (burning your child alive) and right after that showing another scene of great action (riding the dragon for the first time in the series): a subject unrelated to the most heinous crime in GoT: offering your child as a sacrifice to the God.

With malice aforethought

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief

 

A review of the movie The Crying Game, American Dissident
Voices (September 18, 1993). The following text of a radio
address by Pierce is taken from Kevin Strom’s archive.

 

Today I want to talk with you about morality… about standards… about values.

Most of us have heard it said that the reason America is in such a mess today is that our people have lost the values we used to have, and that we need to regain them—that we need to begin teaching values to our kids in the schools.

And I guess I’ll agree with that… but there’s more to it. It’s certainly true that as a nation, or as a race, we’ve lost our values. Or, more accurately, we had them stolen from us. And now, unfortunately, the values we used to have are being replaced by new values which are worse than no values at all.

America hasn’t so much lost its sense of direction as it’s had all the road signs changed while it wasn’t looking. Values are our problem today… but even more, our problem is the people who have deliberately changed our values, deliberately perverted them.

I don’t want to beat around the bush or keep you guessing what I’m getting at, so I’ll come right out with it: the people who control the mass media in America have deliberately and consciously, with malice aforethought, used their influence over the thinking of the people who see their films, who watch their television programs, who read their newspapers and comic strips and popular magazines… they’ve used their influence to twist our values, to reorient our whole way of looking at the world.

Now, most of us have heard that too. We’ve heard about the destructive effect of television and the other mass media on public morality. We’ve heard that there’s too much violence and too much sex on television and that it isn’t good for us. And I guess that I’ll agree with that too… sort of. Too much television isn’t good for us, but it’s not just because of the sex and violence. It’s because television—and films and magazines and the rest of the controlled media—are used for propaganda aimed at subverting the values of our people, especially our young people. And they’re used with malice aforethought.

A lot of us have more or less realized this. We’ve sort of sensed that something was rotten in the media establishment. We felt that the media bosses who run Hollywood and the media bosses who control the TV networks were slyly twisting the view of the world they presented to us, slyly trying to change our attitudes. But the media bosses are clever and they’re subtle, and, of course, they denied everything. And so it often was difficult for ordinary people who felt they were being manipulated to really put their fingers on what the media bosses were trying to do.

And so people have jumped on the too-much-sex-and-violence bandwagon, but that really isn’t the problem at all. The sex and violence in films and television is simply pandering. It’s simply keeping the viewers distracted, so that they won’t complain about the real propaganda. The real propaganda the media bosses have been trying to slip into our minds is the idea of human sameness, the idea that the differences between Blacks and Whites, between men and women, between homosexuals and heterosexuals aren’t significant, aren’t important, that we ought not to notice these differences, and we certainly ought not to take them into account in choosing friends, associates, or lovers… that we ought not to feel any special affinity for people of our own sort, that, in fact, we ought to feel a little guilty if we still have any sense of racial or ethnic identity left, or if we regard homosexuals any differently than we do normal people.

TVThat’s the basic message. That’s the propaganda. But, as I said, the media bosses are subtle, and the average person usually doesn’t see that whole message in any single film or TV show, and so it’s difficult for him to recognize that he’s being manipulated.

The media bosses are getting bolder, however, and a film came out a few months ago which contains pretty much the whole message, and it contains it in a form that’s not at all subtle, that is in fact blatant enough for many people to see for what it is—at least, they should be able to see it once it’s pointed out to them. The film I’m referring to is The Crying Game. It was made by Miramax Pictures. That’s a film company in England which is owned by two Jewish brothers, Bob and Harvey Weinstein. When the film first came out I wasn’t interested in seeing it, because the reviewers in the NY Times and the other major media were all oohing and ahing over it. They considered it a very “sensitive” film, and so I figured it must be more of the same, old trash.

Well, I was wrong. A friend sent me a video of the film, and I viewed it a couple of days ago.

In case you haven’t seen the film, let me run briefly through the plot. It opens in present-day Northern Ireland. A British soldier is enticed by an Irish girl he meets at a carnival to head off into the bushes for a little sex, where he is immediately kidnapped by members of the Irish Republican Army, to be held as a hostage in retaliation for the arrest of an IRA man by the British Army. Nothing the matter with that as a movie plot, of course—except that the “British” soldier just happens to be Black. No one pays the least attention to that rather startling fact, even as the Black soldier kisses and fondles the blonde Irish girl in the midst of the carnival crowds. The message the filmmakers are sending us here is that the soldier’s race makes no difference, either as a soldier or as a lover. We are being told that we should see nothing amiss in a typical British soldier being Black, or in a Black man romancing a White girl.

While he is being held hostage, a friendship develops between the Black soldier and one of his Irish captors, a man named Fergus. Eventually the time comes to kill the captive, but before that the Black has shown Fergus a photograph of the girl back in London he really loves, a mulatto, and he makes Fergus promise to visit the mulatto girl and tell her that his last thoughts were of her.

Fergus keeps his promise—more or less. But he also falls in love with the mulatto girl. Then, in the course of trying to make love to her he discovers that she’s really a man: a homosexual female impersonator. At first that disconcerts Fergus rather badly, but by the film’s end he’s shed his prejudices, his bigotry, and he’s realized that it really doesn’t make any difference, that he loves the homosexual mulatto after all, just as the Black soldier had done before him.

Now, I’ve skipped a lot of the lurid details, which would get this program thrown off the air if I described them to you, but you get the picture: race doesn’t matter, sex doesn’t matter, sexual orientation doesn’t matter. All that matters is love. Every effort to discriminate—to distinguish—between Blacks and Whites, between men and women, between homosexuals and heterosexuals is bigotry, is prejudice, is hatred. We’re all human beings, the film tells us, and that’s the only thing that’s important. We should ignore everything else and love others, without regard for these superficial differences.

The people who made The Crying Game don’t believe that, of course. That’s just what they want us to believe. They understand that any race which absorbs their message, any nation which absorbs their message, any society which absorbs their message… has been morally disarmed and has been made helpless against its enemies. The race which absorbs and takes their message to heart has lost its ability to discriminate and therefore its ability to survive. It’s a race ripe for exploitation, ready to be plucked and slaughtered, a race unable to defend itself against the predatory tribe to which Bob and Harvey Weinstein belong.

As I said, the media bosses prepare their message for us with malice aforethought.

Now, if you think I overstate my case, if you think I exaggerate, if you think I’m being unfair to the media bosses, I invite you to view The Crying Game yourself. It’s available in video stores everywhere. View it for yourself. See if you don’t agree with me about what the Weinstein brothers are trying to tell us.

Their message, of course, is the same message we get from all of the controlled media these days. The only thing unique about The Crying Game is that it rubs our faces in their filth so much more forcefully than most other films do. Usually they don’t slap us right in the face with the whole message at once. Usually they sugarcoat it and slip in just a bit of it here and there. Usually they don’t let us see so clearly what they’re aiming at. Usually they just teach us to parrot a few of their Politically Correct clichés about the evils of “discrimination” and about how wonderful “multiculturalism” and “diversity” are.

After I viewed The Crying Game I reread the reviews of the film. I want to read you a few short extracts from these reviews. The NYT reviewer, Bernie Weinraub, bubbles about how the film explores “the blurred nature of love, trust, and compassion.”

Blurred, indeed, for Mr Weinraub and the Weinstein brothers!

Weinraub then goes on to quote the film’s director and scriptwriter, who says his film is “a love story, in the broadest possible sense. It’s about the extremes of love and the responsibilities of love, and how two characters find a way to love each other who are divided by many things. It’s also about how one person loses himself to find himself. The central character loses all the different facets of what he thought was his identity. Once he does that he finds the human being in himself.”

Newsweek magazine gushingly calls the film a “study of what constitutes moral virtue.” Newsweek tells us: “If the test of a good movie is how it makes an audience feel when the lights come up, The Crying Game is a very good movie indeed. It leaves one giddy.”

Isn’t that something! Not a mention of the film’s portrayal of homosexuality and miscegenation as normal, healthy behavior we all should feel good about. The film, according to the reviews, is about love, about finding the human being in oneself. It makes audiences feel so good they are giddy.

What are we to think about the people who made this film and the people who reviewed it and the people in Hollywood who awarded it several Oscars? The Weinstein brothers and Bernie Weinraub and the rest of their tribe are so arrogant as to tell us that every standard of quality, every standard of behavior, every standard of beauty and righteousness which has guided our race for thousands of years is bad because it discriminates, and that we have to throw them all out and be undiscriminating.

While laughing up their sleeves and smirking behind their hands they come into our country and tell us that it is wrong for us to discriminate between decent and indecent behavior, between our own race and other races, between what is natural and what is unnatural, between what is wholesome and beautiful and what is filthy and ugly. It’s all the same, they say; that’s the new morality.

How can anyone be so pushy? How do they get away with it? Why do we permit people who so clearly are working to destroy us morally to carry on their destructive activity? Why did we permit them to take over our newspapers and magazines, our film industry, our television?

Part of the answer to that question is, as I said before, that these people usually are not so obvious about their intentions as they were in The Crying Game. Usually they make films which simply entertain people, while slipping in just a little poison unnoticed by most of us.

And part of the answer lies in a peculiarity of human nature, a peculiarity which the great Danish storyteller Hans Christian Andersen commented on more than a century ago in his story titled “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” When the average person sees a film as shocking and evil as The Crying Game, he doesn’t simply say to himself, hey, that was a shocking and evil film, which aims at making us abandon our sense of right and wrong, our sense of discrimination.

And he certainly doesn’t say that to his friends and neighbors. Instead he looks around to see what other people’s reaction to the film is. He listens to what the opinion molders are saying, the film reviewers. And if they say, hey, this was a wonderful, sensitive film about love, then he’ll simply suppress his own reaction to the film, and he’ll tell the people around him, oh, wasn’t that a sensitive film! Even sophisticated, educated, intelligent people will behave that way. Remember, in Hans Christian Andersen’s story it wasn’t a professor or a successful businessman but a child who said, “Mommy, mommy, look, the emperor is naked!” And then, if you remember the story, the other spectators who heard the child also began saying, yes, the child is right, the emperor is naked.

Perhaps Andersen was a little too optimistic about human nature if he really believed that one lone voice of truth and reason could shatter the whole fabric of lies and deceit which the masters of the controlled media have woven around us. But I believe, nevertheless, that individuals must speak out now: we must say to everyone around us, films like The Crying Game are not about love. They are about the abandonment of values and standards. They are about giving up our power to discriminate. They are about surrendering to evil.

We must say these things not just because they are right, but also because some people who hear us will wake up, just like the people in the crowd admiring the emperor’s new clothes woke up when they heard the child saying what should have been obvious to everyone. We must say that it is not love to permit Blacks to fondle and kiss White women or to treat a homosexual female impersonator as if he were a normal woman. It is racial suicide. It is filth and sickness. We must say that loudly and clearly. And we also must say that the people who have been trying to twist our values, the film-makers and the film reviewers and the television network bosses, are evil people, and we should not tolerate their presence in our society. We should rid ourselves of them by whatever means is necessary.

We should understand that those who want to rob us of our values are as dangerous to us as those who want to steal our possessions or our liberty. Those who try to make us believe that anything goes and that it’s wrong of us to discriminate are as much our enemies as any gang of terrorists bent on destroying our society. The Weinsteins and the Weinraubs and their ilk are trying to destroy us morally.

And they’re succeeding. Just look at the filth we elect to public office in this country. Look at what we tolerate in the White House and in the Congress.

You know, a single film and a few deceitful reviews seem like an inconsequential thing. It is, after all, just entertainment, and we might think that we can take it or leave it.

No, no, really—it’s more than that. It’s part of a vast, concerted, ongoing effort, and it does have consequences. We can see those consequences all around us, from the Clintonistas in Washington to the breakdown of order in our cities and the loss of discipline in our kids’ schools.

We don’t have to put up with that any longer. We don’t have to pretend that we don’t notice what’s been happening. We can stand up and speak out. We can make others wake up. We can begin taking this country back. It’s time to start doing it.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 189

the-real-hitler

 

1st March 1944, midday

A nursery for film actors—Futility of the art critics—Weber’s Freischütz and Bizet’s Carmen.
 

It is often said that among our film actors we have none capable of playing certain parts—that, for instance, of the hero. This type of artiste, they say, is non-existent. I have never heard such nonsense. But to find them, you must, of course, look for them. Producers make the mistake of seeking always in the same old circle—the stage and the theatrical agencies. If they would look elsewhere, they would soon find what they want. One has only to think of the splendid types of manhood to be found even now, after five years of war, in our regiments.

Some years ago, before the war, I passed a camp of the Labour Service at Bergdorf. Immediately my car was surrounded by a crowd of bronzed and laughing young men. I remember remarking to one of my companions: “Why don’t our film producers come to places like this in search of talent? In a year or two it would be possible to transform one of these lads into an accomplished actor, even if it were just for one particular part for which they are seeking a star.” In this respect Leni Riefenstahl has the right idea: she scours the villages in search of the peasant types she requires.

In the nature of things, the opinion of an art critic must not be accepted as an irrevocable and unassailable truth. His criticism is, after all, only the expression of his own personal opinion.

When in ten different newspapers ten different critics give their opinion on one and the same work, ten separate personal opinions emerge—unless, of course, they have previously received instructions from interested parties. Has such an opinion any value? I doubt it. We are too prone to forget that the ancients disregarded the art critic. They judged a work on its merits, as they saw them, which, after all, is the natural method of selection. Art criticism, as it has developed since the beginning of the nineteenth century, means either the death of a work of art, since the critics never cease to tear it to pieces; or the death of the press, since the public could have no faith in a press in which the critic of each individual newspaper gives a completely different story on exactly the same work.

If we were to be deprived of art critics, we should not lose very much! One single critique signed with a well-known name may destroy the aspirations of an artist for as long as twenty years.

Examples are not lacking. How many of the artists whom we admire greatly today were previously castigated by the oracles of the times! What is true of painters is true of artists in other fields.

Hoffmann was sufficient gravely to prejudice the chances of success of Der Freischütz. And yet this work, with its deep harmonies, had all the ingredients which should have appealed to the romanticism in Hoffmann. Think of Wagner and how he was torn to bits for ten years by the critics! Had there been no one who appreciated him, it is questionable whether he would have continued with his work. The same thing happened with Carmen. And now the critics who tore these masterpieces to shreds are completely and utterly forgotten, and the works live on.

_____________________________

Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

Published in: on March 12, 2015 at 11:07 am  Comments (7)  
Tags: