Negrolatry = Christian morality

Sixty-two percent of likely US voters now have a favourable opinion of Black Lives Matter? Am I dreaming? Is this a nightmare come true or is the poll just wrong? A week before the Game of Thrones (GoT) finale I added an entry that I now recycle and rephrase interpolating the new term, ‘negrolatry’:

2020 is the year of the total inversion of Aryan values into Christian values. Our historical season or climax of Christian values is similar to GoT’s ‘Sparrows’, the Faith Militant fanatics who believed in equality for all men (‘We’re all equal in the eyes of the Seven’, a rephrasing of the Christian ‘Every man is equal in God’s eyes’). George R.R. Martin obtained his inspiration from real events of Western history. In the Middle Ages, the Dulcinians were like the Sparrows. Inspired by pious Franciscan ideals, like today’s Antifa that occupy six blocks in Seattle, in real history the Dulcinians became thugs.

The ideals of the medieval Dulcinians were: (1) The fall of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, (2) The fall of the feudal system, and (3) The creation of a new egalitarian society based on mutual aid, holding property in common and respecting gender equality. Fra Dolcino (1250-1307) viewed the history of mankind as four epochs, culminating in the period of the Apostolics led by Dolcino. Like the ‘Sparrows’ in GoT, this is a period characterised by the absence of government (or police).

In Martin’s novels, after a couple of centuries of disbanding the Faith Militant, Cersei restores the military arm of the Faith of the Seven, just as today the elites are restoring a secular form of Stormtroopers with the empowered Antifa, with the noble goal of immanentizing the eschaton.

Just as today’s white negrolatres see Jesus in blacks, the white man must be degraded to equalise him with the Negro. In GoT the Sparrows attacked the noblest houses of Westeros: House Tyrell and then… Cersei herself!

Since in real life the Negro cannot be equalised by decree, the only way to equalise him before the white male is simply by degrading the latter’s status throughout the West: precisely what is happening. Westerners ignore that, after seven hundred years, our secular governments are implementing the core of the ideals of Fra Dolcino.

The Roman Catholic Church destroyed Fra Dolcino and the Dulcinians in the 14th century when the Church felt threatened by them, just as Queen Cersei destroyed the Sparrows in Season 6 of GoT50 seconds YouTube clip here.

Alas, there’s no Cersei on the horizon! In today’s West the ‘Sparrows’ who became negrolatres in the Great Neochristian Awakening of 2020 hold power in each Western government, media outlet and university. The only way to destroy them would be through a revaluation of all values. But very few white nationalists are willing to endorse it.

This comment by Mauricio motivated me to recycle what I said a year ago in today’s post. Regarding ‘Level 6’ in that comment, Mauricio refers to this post.

Empathy

Only the overman will be able to develop empathy at the level of what in my books I call the priest, or rather ruler, of the four words. But without going so far, the philosophical problem of who should govern arose from the times of Plato.

In popular culture that has reached the masses, only fiction writer George R.R. Martin apparently has dealt with the problem of this philosopher-king. The viewership for the finale of Game of Thrones, ‘The Iron Throne’, included 13.6 million people who watched the episode on HBO at 9 p.m. Sunday about a year ago, making it the most-watched telecast in the network’s history. But of all these millions of normies only one understood Martin’s philosophy: the vlogger who correctly predicted who would be crowned in the finale.

Below is a transcript of Yezen’s ‘Why Bran Stark will be King’ video, which was uploaded twenty days before the finale. Compared to Yezen, all the fans of the famous series who keep commenting on YouTube seem Neanderthals to me. Not only did they fail to predict who would be the king: they were angered by the finale because they don’t understand why only someone with sovereign empathy must rule.

For those who have already seen the above-linked video and are interested in a transcript, let me say that the emphasis of the red words is mine. Yezen said:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

First off, I want to say how much I appreciate all of the support this channel has been getting in the past couple weeks, so today I’m gonna try to drive everyone away by giving one of my more controversial predictions. In the end of Game of Thrones, the person who will sit in the Iron Throne and rule Westeros is… Bran Stark.

Yup. King Bran the Broken. The Bird Kid, First of our POV’s, Lord of the Awkward Stare, and Producer of the Memes, because ‘Chaos is a ladder’. And Bran is the best at climbing. Also, he’s the best at sitting… [LOL!]

Okay, but really, without getting into Children of the Forest conspiracies, or a convoluted lecture on the line of succession for Harrenhal, let me explain why it’ll be Bran. And before I get a million comments reminding me that he’s not Bran anymore—I get it, he’s not totally Bran. But it’s also not that simple. The actor Isaac Hempstead Wright has confirmed that there is some Bran ‘left over’ in the Three-eyed Raven, so it’s a complicated entity.

Anyways, hang in there. Here it goes.

Tommen: ‘It means I’ll become King’.

Tywin: ‘Yes, you will become King. What kind of King do you think you’ll be?’

Tommen: ‘A good King?’

Tywin: ‘Huh. I think so as well. You’ve got the right temperament for it. But what makes a good king, hmm? What is a good King’s single most important quality?’

In many ways, Game of Thrones was intended as a response to The Lord of the Rings. Bran is Frodo. Aegon is Aragorn. Arya is Aeowyn. The Night King is Sauron. Sam is Sam, and Sean Bean dies.

And George R.R. Martin’s equivalent for the titular Ring of Power has always been the Iron Throne. Like the One Ring, the Iron Throne is the central object of absolute power, around which the narrative revolves. Though not inherently evil like the Ring, the Iron Throne is isolating; it brings men to war, and tends to destroy those who hold or pursue it. And, at the end of The Lord of the Rings, the ring is cast into the fire that forged it, and destroyed forever, ridding the world of its corruption, and restoring moral order.

So why can’t we expect the same from Game of Thrones? Why can’t the Iron Throne simply be destroyed in the dragon-fire that forged it, thereby ending the evil of war?

Tommen: ‘Holiness?’

Tywin: ‘Hmm’.

Well, the answer lies in the differences between how Tolkien and Martin depict good and evil in relation to power.

In Tolkien’s world, good and evil are distinct, and the Ring represents power in a strictly evil sense. All power that is just or lawful is considered to be separate from the corruption of the Ring.

Yet, in Martin’s world, morality is ambiguous, and exists in shades of gray. The Iron Throne has no inherent moral alignment, and represents the power for both good and evil. Though there is certainly symbolism to destroying it; whether there’s a spiky metal chair or not, people will still seek power. And the Seven Kingdoms can still be conquered, and will still be ruled. Melting the Iron Throne isn’t a real solution. Power must pass to someone.

Of course, the obvious candidate would be King Aegon—Jon Snow Targaryen. After all, he is modelled after Aragorn, who is the King that returns. And in the season 8 opener, we already see Davos suggesting the possibility of Jon and Daenerys getting married, binding their alliance and forming a dream-team power couple to rule Westeros better and fairer than ever before.

Davos: ‘What if the Seven Kingdoms, for once in their whole shit history, were ruled by a just woman and an honourable man?’

Yet, as is typical of this story, the fact that someone has predicted this outcome in dialogue, implies that it’s unlikely to come to pass. The Northerners seem outright opposed to Targaryen rule, and whether or not Daenerys can accept joint rule with Jon, the story will not give us an ending exactly as Davos suggested.

And, to be totally frank, there is no way Martin created the feminist icon that is Daenerys Targaryen just to force her to give up her life ambition to her husband, whether it’s by bending the knee or by dying.

While the Lord of the Rings ends with Aragorn ruling, Aragorn is never charged with the Ring. Rather, just as Tolkien begins his story with the Ring passing to Frodo, Martin’s will end when the Throne passes to Bran.

Tommen: ‘Justice?’

Tywin: ‘Hmm. A good King must be just’.

After the catastrophe of the ending, House Targaryen as well as most of the other Great Houses, will be brought to ruin. And in the wake of that ruin, the Seven Kingdoms will need to restructure its leadership. And so, the Wolves [the Starks] will have their time.

Bran ‘I’m-not-Bran’ Stark, will be the enigmatic, apathetic Fisher King.

Sansa ‘I-learned-a-great-deal-from-her’ Stark, will leave Winterfell and govern the Seven Kingdoms through Bran, just as Cersei once governed on behalf of Tommen.

And Lady Arya ‘don’t-call-me-that’ Stark, will inherit the North and rule as the Warrior-Lady of Winterfell.

Essentially, Bran, Sansa and Arya, will be the Stark version of Aegon, Rhaenys and Visenya. Just without the dragons or the incest.

In the books, this is set up pretty early on by Ned Stark, who after Robert’s rebellion, inherits the life and position meant for his elder brother, who had died during the rebellion. This is also set up pretty well by Littlefinger, whose life goal is: ‘…a picture of me, on the Iron Throne, and you [Sansa] by my side’.

In the end, this vision will sort of come true. It just won’t be Littlefinger on the throne. But that’s all the time I’ll spend on evidence, because whether I’m right or wrong, there’s only about a month until we see this play out.

Tommen: ‘What about strength?’

Tywin: ‘Hmm, strength…’

On a fundamental level, Game of Thrones is an exploration of power, and different characters coming to power convey different messages about what it takes to rise up in the world.

The rise of Daenerys emphasises strength and justice and ambition.

Jon champions honour and righteousness.

Someone like Littlefinger, deception and opportunism.

While Cersei emphasizes ruthlessness and vanity.

Meanwhile, King Brandon would convey a more mysterious meaning that, although strength, lineage, deception and ruthlessness each play a part, all of them are bound up by FATE.

Not in a divine sense, but in the sense that, regardless of our flaws or virtues, the universe is chaotic and beyond our control. What may be in one place in time a virtue, is in another a flaw. And whoever rises to power is, to some extent, a consequence of being in the right place at the right time. Just as the Targaryens, Baratheons and Lannisters had their time, the Starks will have theirs, and so the throne will pass to Bran.

Tywin: ‘So, we have a man who starves himself to death, a man who lets his own brother murder him, and a man who thinks that winning and ruling are the same thing. What do they all lack?’

This ending would serve as a strange marriage of idealism and cynicism. In many ways, Bran begins the story as the most powerless character, lacking even basic bodily autonomy. And as fate would have it, Bran ends up the most powerful. Yet that power comes at the cost of isolating Bran from his own humanity, and never gives him the thing that he really wanted.

Arya: ‘He wants to be Knight of the King’s Guard. He can’t be one now, can he?’

Ned: ‘No’.

The story which built itself on the tragedy of the Starks will end in their triumph. But despite that triumph, the Starks never really get back the home or the innocence they once had. Yes, there’s the physical place [of a home], but never the feeling of having a complete family. Never the trust, innocence, or joy of childhood. In the deepest sense, what is lost in war, is never truly reclaimed in war.

And look, I know you probably still don’t buy it, or you still think it’s gonna be Jon, and you really might be right about that, but hear me out just a little longer, because there is a glimmer of idealism to this ending.

Though many will die, and the wheel might not break, Bran just might make a good king after all. Despite having lost so much of himself to the Three-eyed Raven, Bran, perhaps more than any other character, has grasped one of the most essential lessons of the story, which is the importance of EMPATHY.

Tommen: ‘Wisdom?’

Tywin: ‘Yes!’

Tommen: ‘Wisdom is what makes a good king’.

Tywin: ‘Yes, but what is wisdom, hmm?’

Despite their history, Bran is able to look at Jaime Lannister, the man who once shattered his life, and to see good in him, to see Jaime as a man who was protecting the people he loved. And to not only forgive him, but to protect him. This simple act of understanding demonstrates what the war-torn kingdoms of Westeros have been so lacking: not strength, or cunning, or even honour, but real wisdom.

For a world that’s been so damaged by people’s inability to see from one another’s perspective, maybe a broken boy is the right ruler to heal a broken kingdom.

Maybe not the one you want, certainly not the one we’d expect, but the one the ending needs. After years of war and hatred, I think maybe the Kingdoms of Westeros will get the little bit of understanding that they deserve. And that is an encouraging thought. [Music]

Bran: ‘Theon’,

Theon: ‘…’

Bran: ‘You’re a good man. Thank you’.

But okay, despite what I said earlier, don’t leave, stick around. If I’m wrong, which I probably am, you can come back later and leave a comment to tell me.

So you better subscribe just so you don’t forget. In the meantime, there is more to come. So, until next time. Peace.

Published in: on June 4, 2020 at 12:01 am  Comments (1)  
Tags:

Exactly a year ago…

it was the finale of Game of Thrones. Last May I wrote:

But why Game of Thrones resonates with whites? Why the novel and film of Ben-Hur resonated in the last centuries in the West? It doesn’t matter that one can say that the authors of Ivanhoe and Ben-Hur were silly Jew-admirers. The question remains: Why did their novels become such huge bestsellers?

White nationalists who presently are ignoring Game of Thrones are also ignoring the buttons the show has pressed in the white psyche to become so popular.

To me, it’s obvious what lies behind: a longing for pre-technological civilisation, when life was cruder but in many aspects fairer than the unnatural ways of today’s lifestyles; a return to a sort of idealised Middle Ages, the adolescence of the white people’s story, but without Christianity, as in the Game of Thrones universe there’s not a single Christian whatsoever.

Because by activating the correct archetypes in the collective unconscious lies the possibility of white awakening, nationalists are ignoring the Game of Thrones phenomenon at their own risk.

Quite regardless of the fact that the directors of Martin’s novels were Jews, we must highlight that something of the Aryan spirit sneaked into the TV series. Activating Aryan archetypes is so important that Adolf Hitler was a fan of Richard Wagner, despite the fact that a couple of his operas, including Parsifal, made concessions to Christian imagery. But the Third Reich didn’t repudiate Wagner and with good reason: what matters is to re-activate the Aryan archetype in the masses.

I would go further. A year after the finale of Game of Thrones white advocates should be talking about the Arthurian legends that inspired Martin, as I said a few posts ago. It is much more important to talk about these Celtic legends than to talk about the covid-19, which hijacks the mind not only of the zombies who watch MSM but of many who read white advocacy sites.

This post helps me make clear how a trans-valued anti-Christian like me differs from white nationalists. Re-activating the archetype is the important thing. That even millions of traitorous boomers die is not.

I have kept my promise not to read articles by racialists that do not honour Hitler’s memory. However, I know that both Christian Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent and neochristian Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents are extremely concerned that their boomer countrymen will die from the covid-19 pandemic. The anti-Christian priest of the 14 words, on the other hand, celebrates their deaths even though I, a boomer, am at risk of contagion and death! The wicked generation must pass away, and also so many millions of younger white traitors. What better way to despise the viral hysteria of ethno-suicidal whites than to watch the Game of Thrones finale at home again.

Even Andrew Anglin liked it. It’s a truly hilarious, typical Anglin piece that we must reread!

Changing the subject, I’m still busy reviewing the syntax of my books. But I came up with the idea that, although WDH articles are usually very short, I could post an essay of mine of some 5,000 words that could keep visitors busy while I finish the proof-reading. I am referring to an article that explains depression from a completely different point of view* from the nonsense that biological psychiatry sells us. It is an essay that I wrote the previous decade very critical of a Jewish writer who became depressed. This week I’ll reproduce it here…

___________

(*) Cf. a phrase in the indented quotation above: ‘the unnatural ways of today’s lifestyles…’

Game of Thrones’ finale revisited

For the other 42 entries about the TV series that I have posted since 2013 click: here. Very few visitors have understood how I use the Bran symbol. In a nutshell, whoever sees the past knows that the lies of Christianity and World War II are a lethal cocktail for the Aryan mind (here). The fact that not even most white advocates can see it is due to psychological resistance, as Vig wisely said a year ago (here).

In May of last year Game of Thrones fans saw the grand finale. But since fans have been steeped in idiotic culture for decades, almost none understood the author’s message. By author I don’t mean the Jews who filmed the HBO interpretation of A Song of Ice and Fire but the writer George R.R. Martin: whose ideas about the grand finale, to the fury of the toxic fandom, at least the directors respected.

Originally I also failed to understand the message. But as we saw on this site a year ago when I added several posts about the finale, Martin is a sort of Plato follower in the sense that A Song of Ice and Fire tries to answer the question, ‘How can mortal men be perfect kings?’

The answer is evident in Bran Stark’s story arc, ‘Bran the Broken’. As one of the very few Martin fans guessed years before the finale, to become the philosopher-king you must not be completely human but have godly and immortal things, such as the weirwood fused into your being. This is the only type of monarchy Martin gives legitimacy: the kind where the king suffers on his journey and is almost dehumanised for the sake of his people, as in the Arthurian legend the Fisher King (French: Roi pêcheur, Welsh: Brenin Pysgotwr), also known as the Wounded King or Maimed King (Roi blessé, in Old French Roi Méhaigié, Welsh: Brenin Clwyfedig), was the last in a long line charged with keeping the Grail. Richard Wagner also played with this idea in my favourite of his operas, Parsifal.

Perceval arrives at the Grail Castle to be greeted by the Fisher King in
an illustration for a 1330 manuscript of Perceval, the Story of the Grail.

If you watch YouTube videos of reactions to the Game of Thrones finale, you will find that some fans were enthusiastic when Sam proposed democracy as the ideal form of government, but were disappointed when Sam was publicly derided by Westeros’ lords.

Democracy was not what the author had in mind, but something closer to Plato that the Neanderthal white fans who mix with blacks and muds never understood. Greg Johnson once said that IQ is dropping in America precisely because of the proliferation of inferior races and miscegenation. But the sad thing is that not even Johnson and his group understood Martin’s profound message.

Quotable quote

‘Every flight begins with a fall, the crow said’.

―First book of A Song of Ice and Fire.

Published in: on January 10, 2020 at 12:26 am  Comments (1)  

The Red Wedding

A couple of posts ago I said that in 2013 Game of Thrones’ Red Wedding caused a tremendous stir among fans of the series, especially in women. Today watching this clip I thought that the abyss that separates me from white women is abysmal:

The woman’s reaction was because she was seeing the moment when Robb Stark’s pregnant mudblood was stabbed in the belly as a punishment that Robb broke his pact to marry a younger and prettier girl (a completely Aryan girl by the way).

As you will remember, one of the guidelines of conduct that I have developed for the priest of the 14 words is: ‘Speak only with Aryan men’. We can already imagine if, instead of comforting this woman as her partner did in the clip above, I tried to reason with her by saying: ‘I stabbed her for you; so beauty like yours never get lost. I can’t let the pregnant mudblood leave brown offspring instead of Robb’s white skin. All the blood that I spill is spilled indirectly for you…’ Obviously the white woman would look at me with pure hatred; she would block herself before my reasons, and would embrace the most progressive anti-racism we can imagine.

Let’s face it: Women think with their emotions, which is not bad at all. It’s just their nature. Cold and ruthless reason is up to men. What the partner of this disconsolate woman did is the proper way to treat our women. It is absolutely delusional to believe that they are able to reason with the ruthless coldness with which we can reason.

My guideline remains and it is a disgrace that, except Andrew Anglin, the people of white nationalism haven’t come to realise that we come from Mars and they from Venus. And that it makes no sense to use reasons and good judgment to try to persuade the fair sex in martial matters.

Unlike feminist products that demoralise Aryan males such as The Rise of Skywalker, when civilisation collapses later in this century the bloodthirsty warriors who recover the West will belong to a Boys Only Club.

Published in: on December 26, 2019 at 10:34 pm  Comments (8)  

Arya sucks

Countless times I have asked myself why I am able to hate and others who claim to defend the West not. The answer lies not only in my past but in how the System feminises men while manning women. That is why the movement needs a critique of the weapon of mass destruction known as gender ideology, which includes feminism. I will explain the manning of the girls, once again, with Game of Thrones.

Much of what appears in this HBO series contains terrible messages, especially feminism: a topic that I have already addressed in several entries about this popular series.

The most grotesque feminist arch is that of Arya Stark, Bran’s sister. I only own Martin’s first book, where Arya is just a girl. I don’t know what Martin has written about her later. But it is known that Martin subscribes at least some form of feminism in his other novels: a feminism that is magnified in the television series that the couple of Jews filmed. For example, unlike crowning Bran Stark, which is planned for Martin’s last novel, as far as Martin is known, he has not planned for Arya to kill the Night King: a character that doesn’t even appear in his novels. This killing was completely an invention of the Jews who directed the series.

Regarding the biographical arc of Arya, I don’t want to review all the visual and auditory offenses that I endured over the years while watching the eight seasons. If I had been the author of the novels, or the director of the series, I would have killed the alienated brat either at Braavos or in the Red Wedding.

The Red Wedding is a massacre at the wedding feast of Edmure Tully and Roslin Frey during the War of the Five Kings. The King in the North, Robb Stark, his mother Catelyn, and most of his three thousand five hundred soldiers are slaughtered. The event is orchestrated by its host, Lord Walder Frey, as revenge for Robb’s breaking of a marriage pact he made with House Frey. In the television series (YouTube clip here) the Red Wedding appeared in the penultimate episode of the third season of Game of Thrones, aired on June 2, 2013.

Although that day of 2013 the public became hysterical (watch some of the female hysterics here), I loved the Red Wedding. While Robb Stark could have married the very beautiful Aryan nymph Roslin Frey, he married a mudblood, breaking the aforementioned pact with Lord Walder Frey (pic). Robb was also stabbed with his mudblood wife during the wedding. The only thing that hurt my feelings was that they killed the caged wolves too.

Arya survived the Red Wedding, in which her mother and brother, the ‘King of the North’, lost their lives. In another season Arya embarked to train with a religious mentor in Braavos, where she studied the art to become an assassin. But the plot armour that the Jewish directors provided Arya in Seasons 5, 6 and 8 goes beyond the grotesque. In the climactic scene at Braavos, Arya survives the stabs in her belly like those received by Robb’s mudblood wife! Even after falling into a sewage river Arya’s open entrails were not fatally infected!

Such imbecile nonsense wasn’t enough. Already graduated as a trained assassin, the now-adolescent Arya, still a slim girl, not only kills Lord Walder Frey but all the male members of the Frey House! This too has the credibility of a Road Runner cartoon.

Of the entire series, these ‘girl power’ scenes are the most irritating and toxic for the fourteen words. But the toxic fandom loved them because they felt vindicated of what ol’ Frey had done at the Red Wedding.

I can see the good and the bad messages of the series. Toxic fans don’t see any of this. They didn’t realise the need to settle accounts with those who have married mudbloods. I believe it’s necessary to approach television hits such as Game of Thrones from the point of view of a priest of the sacred words.

Published in: on December 23, 2019 at 2:28 pm  Comments (7)  

The power to *see* the past

Recently I used the three-eyed raven symbol, a fictional character in A Song of Ice and Fire, to make a point. I would like to continue clarifying it.

Last week I mentioned three American junk culture fans who didn’t understand what Yezen wanted to convey about Game of Thrones. One of the criticisms of these guys refers to the penultimate season of GoT, the seventh, claiming that it was implausible that Sansa and Arya outwitted Littlefinger. The problem is that this season suppressed a crucial scene:

Bran Stark actor Isaac Hempstead Wright revealed in a past interview with Variety that he and his Game of Thrones co-star Sophie Turner, who plays Sansa, shot a sequence in which Sansa consults him ahead of Littlefinger’s trial. You see, Sansa was first convinced that her own sister, Arya, was out to murder her in attempts to become the Lady of Winterfell. Arya felt certain of the same—and it was all thanks to the master manipulator Littlefinger. Viewers were sweating buckets watching the season 7 finale, believing that one of the Stark girls would turn on the other and commit fratricide within the halls of their House’s ancestral seat. Sansa and Arya flipping the script and sentencing Littlefinger to death was a massive twist—and seemed to leave a wide plot hole that went completely unpatched. The deleted scene Hempstead Wright discussed with Variety would have stitched up the gap and detailed exactly how the Stark sisters knew what Littlefinger was up to and how they arrived at their plan to execute the former Master of Coin.

In the scene, Sansa consults Bran about what to do regarding the whole “I think our sister is going to kill me” dilemma. Using his newfound abilities as the Three-Eyed Raven, Bran peers into Littlefinger’s past and unearths every underhanded thing he’s done to secure power.

As Hempstead Wright describes it, “We actually did a scene that clearly got cut, a short scene with Sansa where she knocks on Bran’s door and says, ‘I need your help,’ or something along those lines. So basically, as far as I know, the story was that it suddenly occurred to Sansa that she had a huge CCTV department at her discretion and it might be a good idea to check with him first before she guts her own sister. So she goes to Bran, and Bran tells her everything she needs to know, and she’s like, ‘Oh, s***.’”

Though audiences can fill in the blanks without this scene, it makes Bran’s powers all the more real, and, frankly, terrifying. Nothing can be kept from him, and as a result, nothing can be kept from his family. There is no secret Bran cannot uncover—and the biggest skeleton he drew out of the proverbial closet was the truth behind Jon Snow’s birth. Bran knew of his brother-cousin Jon’s true parentage and real identity as Aegon Targaryen, the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark, and his rightful claim to the Iron Throne over the wannabe queen Daenerys Targaryen before others did. His knowledge spread to Samwell Tarly, then to Jon himself, and (spoiler alert) quickly made its way to Sansa and Arya themselves.

When I saw the scene of Season 7 when Littlefinger was executed after a summary trial, I filled the blank assuming they had consulted Bran. But apparently others did not fill it with their imagination, such as the aforementioned fans arguing with Yezen. But the point is that this fantastic story serves to explain the power of ‘seeing’ the past, the power of The West’s Darkest Hour (WDH).

The history of the West, as I have been saying, is as if the Night King had killed the three-eyed crows. (This is a title rather than a special person. Originally, the one who held the title was the old mummified guy among a tree’s roots. When he died his young pupil, Bran, inherited the title of the three-eyed raven—or ‘crow’ in George R.R. Martin’s novels.)

Unlike GoT, the real history of the West is tragic. It is as if Sansa, without consulting her brother Bran, would have gutted Arya by believing the apocryphal story of Littlefinger. This is so as, for more than a millennium, all westerners have believed the stories of martyrs, and that the Christianisation of southern Europe was peaceful. As we have seen on this site, it was actually a story as violent as the bloodthirsty conquest of India by Islam. Conversely, the Christian martyr stories are largely fictional. (In addition to Evropa Soberana’s essay of Judea against Rome in The Fair Race, see what Deschner says about the stories of martyrs in this book.) In other words, what the Aryans have believed about Christian history is an exact inversion of the facts, and the objective of inverting history in this way is for the Aryans to invert their values from these lies, as it tragically happened.

The metaphor makes sense. In this parallel GoT story, Arya (the Aryans) was killed by Sansa (her white sister) for believing the apocryphal story of Littlefinger (curiously, Littlefinger seemed like a Jew for a commenter on this site). The business of WDH is to set the record straight with respect to what happened in the 1st to 6th centuries of our era, when Christianity was imposed in southern Europe not through Jesus-like methods but through extremely violent and even genocidal methods. (Since I also mention the 1st century, I not only refer to the texts of Evropa Soberana or Deschner but also to what Richard Carrier wrote about the inexistence of Jesus.)

The problem is that not even the so-called anti-Semites of white nationalism believe Bran. They still believe Littlefinger so to speak. Who among them is interested in knowing what happened in the 1st to 6th centuries (this is one of the reasons I call them ‘Jew obeyers’)?

By the way, although on one occasion I identified myself with the three-eyed raven, since it is only a title, the identification is not absolute. On this continent, before me the crow was William Pierce, who died at 68, for having seen the past in Who We Are. And after I die the ‘title’ must pass to a younger pupil, a Bran so to speak.

I wouldn’t like to finish this symbolic post without the scene in which, thanks to Bran’s retrocognitive vision, his Stark House executes Littlefinger, the master of palatial intrigues and lies. In the real world, the equivalent would be for Westerners to take very seriously what Evropa Soberana (the ‘crow’ on the other side of the Atlantic) has written. The power to see the past as it happened has the potential to change the ethno-suicidal paradigm, and the first thing to do is to ‘execute’ the false story about early Christianity:

Published in: on December 17, 2019 at 2:02 pm  Comments (11)  

Hitler v Siege

Face it: The Aryan race is so starved of inspiring stories like LOTR that you ought not to be surprised that GOT (visually, pure Aryan esthetics), which was written as a response to Tolkien, became the most popular series of the decade. But since the grand finale it has come to my attention that, unlike Patrick, very few commenters add something substantial about what I have been saying about Game of Thrones.

I think that is due to a terrible way of understanding education. Except for Vig, few commenters have an artistic background. Unlike Hitler, who liked classical music, painting and the old architecture of Italy so much, the common white advocate lives under the mistaken impression that the West can be recovered using only the left hemisphere of his brain (say, the dry academic articles published by MacDonald in his webzine).

That could not be farther from the truth! Remember that it is the stories that galvanise the white population, like all those stories of the epics that inspired J.R.R. Tolkien and George R.R. Martin for their novels. Only this explains the tremendous success of LOTR and GOT in the Aryan community. Hitler also understood this by wanting to popularise the Germanic myths that Richard Wagner rescued for his people. What we see in the revolutionary wing of the white cause is exactly the opposite of Hitler’s spirit, and Siege’s case symbolizes it.

Before I distanced myself from James Mason because of his ignorance, I tried to Europeanise Siege a bit using, for my Daybreak Press, a cover with a painting by Spanish painter Francisco Goya.

But I was wrong: the stark illustration of the original (reproduced below) is the one that actually reflects the content of the book. Two days ago Krist Krusher said in the comments section of this site:

“Siege-tard” is a term I myself created to describe those who you would call crazed dogs howling at the moon [Note of the Ed.: see The Fair Race, pages 647-51]. In the past I read Siege around the same time I read Ironmarch and was not very impressed. I investigated James Mason and became thoroughly unimpressed after I noticed his sudden change of personal faith: he went from being an atheist to being a sucker for the Jebus myth after the Larsson interview! Why?

Sometimes I still try to read what former Ironmarchers write these days and the current “successor” website is a shell. Ironmarch had problems but it was a decent communication center for real fascists. The present “continuation” [like James Mason, they admire Charles Manson too – Ed.] is an abomination.

“Fascist Forge” is about as fascist as Deviantart; garish web design that even the Italian futurists would reject, hideous psychedelic imagery masquerading as art on one thread, degenerate stories with themes of homosex and vore on another, caricatures of real NS—men photoshopped to have glowing red eyes and inverted xtian symbols for user avatars—, it stands as a proud bastion of what Siege readers become as a group. They even call historical fascists like Jose Antonio Primo de Riveria and Mosley “archaeo-fascists” and think everything on the line of “those guys like Hitler are dead. We live therefore we decide everything”!

Even on /pol/ Siege is seen as a joke. To read or write anything on Siege—even regarding the merits of what it has to offer revolutionaries—is to be seen as the dumbest of subhumans.

But it is useless to ask these people to abandon their ways and begin to make some contact with the old culture.

I would like to confess something that happened in my mind in 1996, when I got in my car and drove to the border with the United States in order to emigrate. Already on the other side (I passed legally), the first thought that came to me was that what I saw was ‘the country of absolute Neandertalism’ in the sense that, compared to the old European architecture (and remember that that was Hitler’s inspiration for his New Europe), the US was an empty shell. That happened to me while I was already driving on the roads of Texas on my route to Houston.

The souls of the Siege-tards are as desolate as the landscape I saw from my Shadow Chrysler more than twenty years ago. And that is an endemic problem even among non-revolutionaries, who also don’t make deep contact with European art.

Before the accident that forced me to become the Three-Eyed Raven (I don’t mean Bran, but the old man entangled in the tree) I had wanted to be a film director. Had I reached the peak and filmed Game of Thrones, my adaptation of Martin’s novels would not have been plagued by the feminism we saw in the HBO series. But the art that can potentially captivate the white race is all there, in those epic stories adapted to visual stories for the contemporary palate. Something like a Wagner of the 21st century: television series that the Nazis would surely be filming if Hitler had won the war.

What I want to communicate is the great going astray that represents everything related to American psycho Charles Manson. I would paraphrase Jordan Peterson in the sense that the recovery of the West must be initiated by cleaning our bedroom, yes: but emphasising that the bedroom—our soul—must be arranged based on the best art created by the fair race.

A grim vision like the one on the book-cover that appears within Krusher’s quote will never captivate the race. It’s time to leave Siege in the bookshelf and order a copy of Hitler’s Table Talk. After all, ‘The sign of the times is degeneracy. This term—degeneracy—sums up all that is happening to the West’. This includes Manson fans and SIEGE-tards.

Forgive Game of Thrones

When I left the cinema when I was ten after seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey in the Latino D-150, perhaps the best movie theatre in the town, I told my dad that they spoiled the ending: an ending I did not understand. He immediately corrected me but, over time, upon hearing his talks with the most intelligent of my uncles, I gradually came to understand the profound message.

Exactly the same I can say now, more than half a century after having seen 2001 on the big screen. No one except Yezen, a YouTuber, has understood the message of George R.R. Martin: on whose novels a television series is based that this year disappointed most of the fans, Game of Thrones (GoT).

In several entries on this site I have talked about the message of GoT in the final episode: the power of stories. After all, it is a story that has been exterminating the white race: a story out of the pen of some first-century audacious Semites who dared to write the holy books for the white race! And it is precisely the repudiation of that story and embracing the Aryan one—Leonidas, Hermann, Hitler—what could save the Aryans, as with red letters I explained:

  • Jesus of Nazareth [the story that is killing whites] never existed.
  • Catholicism was imposed on the white race not through the peaceful message of the fictional Jesus, but through anti-Germanics holocausts.
  • Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the inversion of Aryan values into Semitic values for white consumption—Christian ethics—has been the primary cause of the white man’s ethno-suicidal behaviour.

I am not surprised that the most staunch GoT fans still fail to understand the moral of GoT that we saw when Tyrion Lannister proposed Bran Stark to be appointed as king after the apocalypse caused by Daenerys Targaryen’s dragon in King’s Landing. (Social justice warrior Daenerys Targaryen = the Allies. Think of Dresden and other allied bombings in Germany.) In this GoT video, for example, no matter how scholarly were these three staunch fans of Martin’s novels and the HBO series, over four hours they didn’t understand what Yezen wanted to say about the moral (for example, after 3:21). On the contrary: these three fans, despite their erudition, were left with the impression that there was no moral in Martin’s mind but that the end was the purest nihilism.

It didn’t take me long to realise the whys of such un-circumcision of the heart: they are all fans of the American junk culture, not of the history or real culture of the West. And how are they going to know the real history of the West if not even white nationalists know it, at least not as profoundly as Bran?

In yesterday’s article in The Occidental Observer, ‘The ABC’s of the Alt-Right: A Guide for Students’, among other things the author’s bibliography strives to challenge the so-called Holocaust. However, as we know, it is not enough to do so if we lack the framework of the whole history of the white race as Pierce put it in Who We Are. Without the story of Who We Are there is no salvation. It is as if the Night King had killed Bran (which did not happen in GoT, although he was about to do so). Isn’t it incredible that even white nationalists start from a Semitic story that is equivalent, in symbol, as if the Night King had killed Bran? In The Occidental Observer article, for example, a typical ethno-suicidal white, who mistakenly believes he is defending his race, commented:

I agree with being neutral on religion. You don’t need religion in order to defend white nationalism. But steeping yourself in Nietzsche is not “being neutral on religion.” And it is bound to alienate the majority of Americans who still consider themselves Christian. Not all Christians believe that their God is Jewish.

Not Jewish? Really? Following the GoT metaphor, this kind of whites are only possible in a world where Bran was killed and, according to the plot, the Night King achieved his goal: the ‘perpetual night’ in Westeros. These purportedly anti-Semitic commenters are as clueless as millions of GoT fans who didn’t get the moral of the final episode. Although, throughout the TV seasons, on this site I harshly criticised GoT because of its feminism, I now forgive Martin because of the great insight of the final. (The purpose of my compilation in The Fair Race is precisely to replace the Semitic story that’s killing whites for the Aryan story that might save them.)

Published in: on December 9, 2019 at 10:44 pm  Comments (2)