web analytics
2nd World War Film Karlheinz Deschner Racial right

The Last Jedi

For boomers like me Star Wars was never the epic film that has been for younger generations. For me the master film was 2001: A Space Odyssey, which exerted a tremendous influence on my life, especially because of its philosophical implications.

The Star Wars saga lies not in the serious science-fiction league. Rather, it resembles the space fantasy comics that became fashionable in the 1950s and 60s. There is nothing wrong with the comics genre, if we take into account that in a 2018 interview George Lucas told James Cameron in Story of Science Fiction that he had designed his project for twelve-year-old children.

But that genre that Lucas chose, like the most serious science-fiction, can produce good or bad movies. I agree with Richard Spencer that, from the point of view of the messages, Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope, of 1977, is the best as the protagonists are white and coloured heroes are missing. In addition, in the final minutes Princess Leia awards Luke and Han with medals for their heroism: visually, with slightly fashy tones.

From the strictly cinematographic point of view I believe that Star Wars: Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, that I saw with my family in 1980, is the only masterpiece of the eight episodes that have come out. It has a disadvantage: it introduces Lando Calrissian, a mulatoid character, as the administrator of Cloud City.

It was such an enthusiasm that that masterpiece caused me, that Star Wars: Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, which I saw on the big screen in 1983, caused me a huge disappointment. Darth Vader, so impressive in The Empire Strikes Back, here appears as the busboy of the emperor: an unpardonable blunder in Lucas’ story. I said above that the Star Wars genre was space comics taken to the screen. I still remember the American comics that came out in the 1970s and early 80s on Star Wars: infinitely better plots than the crap that occurred to Lucas when taking away all the aura of mystique from the figure of Vader.

So the series disappointed me since the eighties. When the first prequel was premiered in 1999, Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace, I was living in Manchester. If Lucas told Cameron that his original idea had been to make films for twelve-year-old children, in his first prequel he made it for children of even younger age: the age in which Anakin Skywalker appears in The Phantom Menace.

I saw on the big screen Star Wars: Episode II: Attack of the Clones, released in 2002. Although it seems more for teenagers, this second trilogy of Lucas can be summarized with these words: ‘Everything for the eye, nothing for the mind’. Unlike 2001: A Space Odyssey that can be described as ‘Everything for the eye and for the mind’, the new genre of space films do not leave food for thought.

When I saw the last of the prequels, Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, released in 2005, I told myself that the contemporary westerner knows nothing about the nature of evil (e.g., how Anakin became bad): a topic that I have pondered in my two books. That Lucas does not grasp evil is also apparent in his most recent interview by Cameron, another completely clueless guy.

Lucas is a white man. But since Jews bought the Disney Company, the messages have invariably become toxic. For that very reason I did not see, on the big screen, the sequels such as Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens, released in 2015.

At the corner of my house there is a travelling Mexican market of Indians every Monday, which includes stands of pirated DVDs. Only that way I dared to see part of The Force Awakens on my plasma television. Although Leia has behaved like a princess, in The Force Awakens the roles of the male hero are reversed to make room for a new heroine, the scavenger Rey. In this Greg Johnson, under the pseudonym of Trevor Lynch, has failed big time in his favourable reviews of the Star Wars sequels. With his tacit feminism Johnson seems to subscribe the Hollywood agenda of toxic messages.

Although Star Wars: Episode VIII: The Last Jedi was released in 2017, I saw it last week. For the ridiculous amount of $ 10 pesos (in dollars, 53 ¢) I bought a pirated DVD of The Last Jedi in the same travelling market (I would not give the Jews at so-called Disney more than a buck to watch both films).

There is something I would like to say about this latest movie. As I did with The Force Awakens, I did not even spend my time with the latest saga film, insofar as in most of these movies I used the fast-forward of my remote control! That’s how we should treat the films produced by Jewish firms: there is no point in pissing us off with their bad messages at normal speed. And regarding the special effects, we already saw all that in the pre-‘Disney’ Lucas prequels, right? So I still pressed the fast-forward button…

But that is not what I wanted to say. There are times that even in films with bad messages a master scene that contrasts with the garbage is sneaked. That scene happens almost at the end of The Last Jedi.

I refer when Luke appears to help escape the few remaining survivors of the Resistance. A frozen image after he walks straight ahead toward a row of Imperial Walkers, a few seconds after Kylo orders them to stop, is very artistic and deserves to be kept in our memories. (To me, it evokes the isolated white nationalist confronting single-handedly all the power of ZOG…)

Then the madman Kylo orders that all Imperial Walkers’ cannons shoot at Luke. But after an orgy of shots he appears unscathed among the reddish smoke that evaporates, slightly shaking something off his shoulder, in challenge to Kylo. The latter makes a gesture of shocked surprise, and decides to go down his haughty ship, against all advice from his envious second-in-command, to confront him alone.

He then engages Luke in a lightsaber duel never seen before in any of the other Star Wars films: as the swords never collide but Luke, wielding his blue lightsaber, deftly evades all the onslaught from the fire colour of Kylo’s lightsaber. There comes a time when Luke turns off his lightsaber to talk to him, and Kylo runs toward him to cut his body in twain. Upon striking Luke, in the climactic scenes of the movie Kylo realises he has been fighting a Force projection of Luke and shouts, defeated, ‘Nooo!’ as he comprehends Luke’s plan to save the Resistance (including his sister Leia) by buying time with the duel distraction.

In the subsequent scene, Luke, exhausted, becomes one with the Force and dies light-years away from his phantasmagorical encounter with Kylo, peacefully and purposely, on the planet of the first Jedi.

All those scenes I loved, but you have to see them ignoring almost the rest of the film to appreciate them—something very difficult, because in one of the climactic moments there is a cut and the white Rey girl allows a long hug from a Negro that has also been featured in another Star Wars film. (Sometimes I would like to edit my home DVDs and cut off all the offensive segments: about 95 percent, or more, from most films.)

Many fans have complained on YouTube that the personality of the Luke of the first films was betrayed in the latest film. I disagree. My previous entry referred to the life of Karlheinz Deschner, who was a parachutist who fought for the Third Reich as a young man and, much later, became a critical scholar of Christianity. I myself admired St Francis in 1974. But when I read the first Jedi books, so to speak, I transvalued my values and started to admire Himmler’s SS.

What Star Wars fans ignore is that the mind matures over the decades. If any of those who knew me as a teenager saw me now, they would be shocked by the changes, both external and internal.

If we think about the battles that Deschner waged as a young man in the Second World War, all that remains of the Resistance are a few nationalists. What happened in Charlottesville last year should move what’s left of the Jedi knights to consider that, perhaps, it is time for more reading rather than direct legal action. If they read the collection of The Fair Race (which includes a section from William Pierce’s Who We Are), along with Hitler’s Table Talk, Mason’s Siege (or The Turner Diaries); what Deschner and others unearthed from the true story of Christianity, and even Goodrich’s Hellstorm, the internal force that the initiate would develop would be equivalent to that of a hermit Jedi.

A single example will clarify the above. In The Fair Race it is explained that in the historical Republic blond and blue-eyed Romans were the good guys. When Rome became a racial melting-pot for all the peoples of the Empire, including the subversive Semites, they became really bad. Conversely, the later Star Wars trilogy depicts the Empire as whites and the Republic as practitioners of miscegenation: the exact opposite of what history tells us!

Internal Jihad (see Luke above with his books) must precede external Jihad. The time has come to do an internal work in the sacred island where the last Jedi became wise and powerful before confronting ZOG.

38 replies on “The Last Jedi”

I haven’t been to a cinema since 2007, and even at that time I had grown disillusioned with Hollywood. There just hasn’t been anything worth seeing. It’s al forgettable trash with no re-watch value, although you get the occasional gems, but they’re invariably comedies like Hot Fuzz. I’d say it was around about the mid-2000s that Hollywood become the cinematic equivalent of the fast food industry, pumping out an endless supply of cheap, processed, disposable “junk culture” providing no long-term nourishment. Plus there’s the aesthetic degradation, exemplified by the fact that the majority of movies for the past 12 years or so have been drenched in a nauseating orange-and-teal colour palette, not to mention an endless avalanche of CGI that destroys any suspension of disbelief in the viewer.

I’ve always had a strong fondness for the extended cut of David Fincher’s Alien 3, which is perhaps the greatest cinematic achievement in depressive realism, yet it has only become appreciated as such in more recent years.

I have not watched the extended Alien 3 but the one I watched was clearly a betrayal of the previous two (at least Cameron had respected the design of Alien in Aliens).

On a side note, one of the extremely degraded characters of Alien 3 was a man represented by the actor Charles Dance. It was Dance who plays Tywin Lannister in Game of Thrones: a TV series replete of bad messages but at least it respects, visually, Aryan beauty—unlike the ‘nauseating orange-and-teal colour palette’ you mention.

The Tywin Lannister character is the perfect antipode of the extremely degraded guy that Charles Dance plays in Alien 3. In other words, in an ethno-state no movies like Alien 3 would be ever filmed, but series visually like Game of Thrones with good messages replacing the bad.

I notice a parallel, which I’m sure will unsettle you, between the strict moralising present in the Abrahamic faiths and the moralising tone you take with regard to storytelling. Human beings aren’t perfect, nor are they capable of being perfected, and any attempt to portray them as perfect will not resonate much with an audience. There’s nothing to identify with. Realise also that, although he may have been right about more things than not, the stifling grip Hitler had on culture would have prevented many aspects of post-war culture, from musical expression to film genres, from ever coming into existence. Many of my most cherished films and songs, no doubt, would have been dismissed on some paranoid ground. This obsession with keeping up a rigorous appearance of honour, valour and bravery at all times is in conflict with human nature, and it does, I’m sorry to say, smack of religion. By all means discourage race-mixing and criminality, things that are truly corrosive. But please don’t whitewash the human condition.

1. Seeing the recent depiction of Luke through the lens of knowing Deschner’s life is a truly unique evaluation! Indeed quite deep and important, although a bit unexpected.

I never fully understood the mind of a typical German of the WW2 era. They must have been Protestant/Catholic, they must have been nationalist, and they probably were “conservative,” but other than that, how did they see themselves in the world? A radical modern White racist seems to have a far more complete model.

There was, for example, a long debate about the script for the German language to use, Fraktur vs Antiqua. Hitler supported Antiqua in the end! And after the war, some “conservatives” did try to revive Fraktur!

2. What do you think of the movie Predator (1987)? I think it has merit if you consider it as a guide on how to fight. Fake, pretentious manliness gets punished, and so does hopeless defeatism – instead, humble and cold-blooded calculation wins out. It is symbolic that by the end of the movie, the hunter becomes the hunted, and Arnold becomes invisible to the alien’s eyes.

3. There is a YouTuber going by the name of E;R, he has made a few film reviews, including on Star Wars. He seems to be sympathetic to NS – in his review of a degenerate Jewish cartoon Steven Universe, he put Uncle Adolf’s speech at the end. 1.9 million people might have seen a positive and powerful depiction of the Führer!

P.S. There are a few typos in this entry.

there is no point in piss us off (pissing)

climatic (climactic)

how we should treat films produced by Jewish firms (the films?)

Typos fixed. Sometimes I wish English were my native tongue…

I loved Predator when I was much younger. Now the bad messages (the couple of Niggers and a male Amerindian in Arnold Schwarzenegger’ team) make for a pretty bad message. And beside Schwarzenegger only a mestiza survives the predator!

I don’t know why but it seems you can only reply so many times before the option to reply disappears. It’s annoying. Well the only degenerate music I would describe as degenerate are rap, hip hop, etc. There’s plenty of genres I don’t like, but unlike modern architecture and modern art, I don’t see them as especially dangerous. Looking back on the nefarious influence Hitler ascribed to negro jazz, well, it seems incredibly mild compared to what we have today. It makes his fears about jazz look quite laughable in retrospect. You could say jazz was the antecedent to the kind of genuinely degenerate hip hop shit we suffer today, but it’s still quite a gulf, I think.

I hope so, otherwise it breaks up the flow of conversation. But about that rather long DM I sent you, do you have a response to that? I can reproduce it here, in quotations, so that others can read it and share their thoughts on the matter.

“Did it ever strike you as odd that female beauty is absent from the historical cultural record, not appearing as we understand it today until the second quarter of the 20th century? There is no beauty to be found, for instance, in the classical Greco-Roman depictions of women, who always seem to have the faces of men, with prominent noses and chins, which are ugly features in and of themselves, let alone on a woman. You could chalk this up to a lot of things, such as the homosexuality prevalent among the artistic elite since ancient times, to the use of male models as stand-ins for women, to the fact that women before the 20th century simply weren’t attractive, but I don’t think we can blame Abrahamic misogyny for such unflattering depictions, since it had no strong cultural footing in the days of the ancient Greeks and Romans, certainly not to the extent it did in Victorian times, at least. And yet Christian Europe continued to create sculptures and paintings based on the Greco-Roman canon, either out of some misplaced reverence for tradition and what came before, or simply because they found these depictions useful from an ideological perspective, since, unattractive as they were, they would not inspire the dreaded sin of lust. Have you ever given this phenomenon much thought, or even noticed it? I have been writing an essay about it for a year now, over 15000 words in length. It seems to have been completely overlooked by historians and biologists alike.”

Yes: I had read the above.

What are we to make of the fact that the Xtians burned 99% of Greco-Roman books (cf. Catherine Nixey’s recent book quoted in this site)? How can we be sure the classics never treasured Aryan female beauty?

(BTW, click above to reply.)

From the relics that are left behind, of course. Take the hideous Venus de Milo, for example.

Of ancient plastic arts, sculpture is a good medium to represent male muscles.

But you need painting to depict Aryan female beauty, and there are Roman frescos depicting it.

You can’t see the face on that one. In every classical-inspired fresco or painting that I’ve seen, they always have faces with masculine features. Perhaps this is a side effect of what I call genetic toxic masculinity, wherein there is too much testosterone in the gene pool and this makes the women phenotypically closer to men, craniofacially. This is one of the negative effects that can arise in a culture which puts more emphasis on the importance of masculinity. Genetically and hormonally speaking, it is always at the expense of femininity. It’s a delicate balance, like a see-saw, you see.

The thrust of my observation above is that the Xtians destroyed almost all art. That’s why we can’t see as many female beauties of classic times as in later art. This image was spared thanks to Pompeii’s ashes that buried it. How many more images representing the eternal feminine like this one were purposely destroyed is anybody’s guess.

Admittedly that one is better, but as far as contemporary artists go, I don’t personally know of many I’d recommend, but one I who’s work I do adore is Howard Rogers. Here’s an example of his painting style. He does both nude and clothed, of course. This is the kind of thing that I noticed was missing, most regrettably, from all European history until roughly the 1930s, and is the main reason I’m glad to be alive today rather than at any point in the past.

Things such as these do cast doubt on any ideology short of blind traditionalism, of adherence to those forms that worked. For this blog is not traditionalist. While reactionary and “hypermoral,” it does try not to spare critique for a lot of traditional culture’s features – such as child burning/beating, or the disregard for race, or, as you have noted, the disregard for female beauty.

It is dangerous and foolish to take things without question (who in their right mind would follow the words of a kike corpse on a stick?), and yet, a theory without proofs is no good either. That’s why, in part, Hitler’s example is so crucial. I wish the NS to have been more bold – they lost anyway, but they would’ve at least tried their racist anti-Christianity in practice. Or would’ve made an attempt to introduce polygamy and burqas.

Remember that WordPress software hates bare links and spams comments with them. I had to remove all of your links before approving your above comment. That’s why I urge commenters not to use bare URLs.

Sexuality taken beyond the tribal duty of birth, rearing, and growth of families is degenerate. That’s easy enough to answer the question of the lack of porny trash among past non-degenerated societies.

Sex is an important part of intimacy, and it always has been. Denying that is denying human nature, which is what SJWs do. You’re demonstrating a sex-phobic attitude which is Abrahamic to the core.

Nothing “sex-phobic” about it. What Maldo is very clearly trying to describe is loose sex, which is “Abrahamic to the core”. If the OT strikes you as prudish then I don’t want to know for one second what strikes you as sexually libertine lest I have a premature heart attack.

If I may, I would like to provide some evidence to the contrary, in the form of this article written by James Haught. Its opener is H.L. Mencken’s observation that “Christian endeavour is notoriously hard on female pulchritude.” It’s a damn good piece.

I stand corrected. But sex and the pleasure that stems from it should be between a man and the females closest to him. A woman should preserve herself for her husband only. If not her husband then the male who owns her (her lord or whoever owns her in that regard).

Promiscuity and nymphomania should be punished and it is the right and obligation of any nation to do so. That is how I interpreted Maldo’s comment, though it is for him to elaborate if he wishes to do so. However, I will say that I do not “hate” sex, but it isn’t something to be given away to anyone lightly. This especially is the case for Aryan females. Virginity in a woman is a very strong mark of her femininity and the best gift she can give to a worthy male.

If a nation endorses loose sex then the birth rate declines as people become nothing more than bottom feeders who do not want to deal with the consequences of their hedonism. What’s more, in our Western culture we have advancements in technology which makes such things easier, for example condoms, birth control pills ETC.

By the way, the part of that article criticising Comstock was ridiculous.

Señor César, how familiar are you with Fanisk’s ‘Noontide’, the greatest nat-soc music ever produced? While I agree that most metal is degeneracy, I think you should check this out; it’s Third Reich holism.

Thanks but no thanks. Real Nat-soc music would be listening Wagner at Bayreuth. Have you at least watched a single Wagner opera in DVD? Or Richard Strauss’ Thus Spake Zarathustra in a concert hall?

As it was a sincere recommendation of actually great music – genre is irrelevant, greatness (or lowliness) can be found almost anywhere – I think you are quite arrogant, but it’s your blog so let it be. I have not been at Bayreuth, but I’m more familiar than most with Wagner(music, writing etc.) Best Wagner in DVD is by far Boulez-Chéreau 1976. I have attended live performances of Bach, Schubert, des Prés, Liszt, Haydn, Bartok, Brahms etc.

One word on Strauss and your beloved 2001:

A shiny, vacuous design of soulless scientism, Kubrick fails at disproving faith with film’s ultimate display in ‘delusion of grandeur.’ Yes, thanks to technological globalism, we are now self-appointed Übermenschen having prescribed to this hallucinogenic illusion of solipsistic MTV compost in prostitution of generic classical music. Still, not his worst film.

At least this jew recognized the greatness of Hitler. Never knew it in his ‘work’ though.

Comstock himself was ridiculous, sir, hence he merits some haughty derision. About the links, whatever the problem is, I think you should get it solved, because it’s hard to facilitate a sharing of ideas over the internet if links are off limits for some silly reason.

“Ownership”? Well that’s straight up Abrahamic, I must say. If people are in a committed relationship and live together, their acts of intimacy and how frequently they engage in them are of no concern to me, married or not. I myself don’t understand why marriage even exists in a secular society, since it’s primarily a religious institution. Talking about virginity as some kind of “gift” to be bestowed sounds bizarre to me.

In the Greco-Roman world marriage was a rock-solid institution even before Xian takeover. There’s a whole category in this site on ‘marriage’, as you can see in the sidebar.

I see. But what advantages does marriage have over simply living together? Why is “putting a ring on it” any more than just symbolism, at the end of the day? I’ve always wondered that.

And I feel compelled to ask, why are the Greco-Romans the benchmark for our values? I mean, splendid architecture they had, that much is self-evident, but is it not also a fact that homosexuality, particularly among older men and younger boys, was a tolerated aspect of their culture?

Without solid marriage there’s no white race. You really have to read some stuff in this site about how marriage is fundamental. Remember, lo más importante en la vida es que las mujeres sean lindas Caperucitas (the most important thing in life is that women are cute Little Red Riding Hoods), and only marriage can do the trick.

There is nothing “straight up Abrahamic” about it. You are acting as if men owning women is biblical or Jewish in origin and I don’t think I have ever heard a comment so ignorant in a long time.

Women being treated as subordinates to and the “property” of men may be ancient, but I think the Abrahamic religions are the most notorious promoters of such attitudes. Sure, you have non-Abrahamic barbarism like the old Hindu practice of Suttee, but these seem to be few and far between, and not as infamous as the witch burnings of Christianity or the adultery stonings of Islam. But treating a human being as an item of ownership seems quite demeaning, to say the least.

“Demeaning” is it? Once upon a time in Missouri, a bunch of loud-mouthed women thought it was demeaning that they couldn’t vote. Men looking for pussy gave it to them, but tried to rationalise their weak will by saying that it was in fact demeaning not to give women what they want. The same thing happened in Britain where women got more and more “freedoms” and power over others over the reasoning that their previous situation was demeaning. Look at the result.

I am sure the English girls of many centuries ago who were the target of sexual slavery by the vikings thought their position was very demeaning, but what I notice is that the viking men didn’t bat an eyelid. In fact, all cultures which last for long periods of times have a tendency not to care about other peoples’ feelings, typically a woman’s. It isn’t just Human Beings who do this, but apes. Gorillas are patriarchal and the silverback has access to the most women in his society.

Personally, I find women being encouraged to have sex with whomever they fancy to be extremely demeaning. When this happens to White women, as is happening now, it is an attack against Aryans as a Race, female or otherwise. The other Races want to endorse loose sex? All the better for the ones who do not, as the former’s birthrate will decline and the latter’s will rise.

I also find it to be ridiculous to criticise the stoning of an adulterer, as I find it to be equally ridiculous to criticise Comstock who was fulfilling his obligation to go on the attack against whores and their “birth-control” pill.

@ Simon Elliot,

The ancient Romans had the right to kill their naughty wives at their discretion. I wonder if you have read this. (Incidentally, this is how links should appear on this site.)

That’s a long read. I am familiar with Turd Flinging Monkey and the broader manosphere ideology. I’m afraid Roger Devlin’s hypergamy theory makes little sense to me, as even if it were true, I don’t see how the sexual strategy of males is any less devious and self-serving. Human beings, much like the evolutionary system that created them, are selfish and exploitative creatures. It’s why I have my foot in two rather mutually exclusive ideological camps these days, that being this one, obviously, and the anti-natalist philosophy of David Benatar.

I disagree that using birth control makes a woman a whore. A whore (a term I dislike and refuse to use) is a prostitute, and merely using birth control isn’t enough to make you a prostitute. As for women voting, well, I don’t think anyone at all should bother with it. It’s a fruitless endeavour, as far as I see it. Comstock was a Puritanical tyrant who, like many of his time, succumbed to the mind pathogen of religion, much as many people succumb to the mind pathogen of SJW-ism today.

Incidentally, the marriage category must have disappeared from the sidebar inventory, as I cannot see it.

I read that link, although I didn’t see the words “Europa Soberana” anywhere. I’m afraid I don’t see how it’s any different from the sort of things Devlin says, nor am I sure what I’m supposed to take away from it. Incidentally, I don’t think you have to be a dyed-in-the-wool warrior in order to stand up for yourself, your people, your culture. I’ve never been in a fight in my life, but I don’t have any objection to the idea of murder on a mass scale, although I think it should be done in an efficient manner, and we should not indulge in gratuitous torture. In fact, the act of killing doesn’t even have to entail a breach of moral code anymore. Much like livestock, people can be rendered unconscious (without their knowledge) and killed, painlessly, in their sleep. I’ve always said that we need to view these conflicts in strictly biological terms. Our ethnic enemies are foreign bodies infecting the host organism, and we need to flush them out mercilessly and without remorse. In order to accomplish this, a masculine and militaristic mindset is required, that much is true. I don’t think it’s entirely within women’s nature to abhor violence and tribalism. I think it’s merely a matter of intelligence. For example, my mother, an intelligent woman, has no objection to the methods I just described.

Comments are closed.