web analytics
Film Stanley Kubrick

Stanley Kubrick

In his recent review of Kubrick’s most disgusting film, under the pen name of Trevor Lynch, Greg Johnson said: ‘A Clockwork Orange is obscene in the literal sense of the word: it should not be watched’.

He is right. The film only shows that the most talented film director of his time, Stanley Kubrick, after his masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey made an extremely toxic film for the mental health of whites: a typical psyop of non-gentiles like him.

But the perennial problem is white people who consume these things greedily, to the point of having crap like this on their list of cult movies. Most Hollywood movies should be forbidden in the ethnostate but, alas, even some white nationalists love A Clockwork Orange, as can be seen in the comments section of Johnson’s webzine. What’s the difference between them and the degenerate fans of Game of Thrones?

6 replies on “Stanley Kubrick”

2 questions came into my mind while reading this review of a bad movie. If a film like Clockwork should not be watched, then what is to be made of horror films? Once the White Imperium is established then what shall be done with the horror genre? Shall it be totally destroyed and forgotten or adapted to the New Normal?
In the case of the subject, it appears that any movie that critiques the society that surrounded it ends up with a rather vulgar nihilism that cannot actually transcend the problems of its native culture. Are stories critiquing the society of the White Imperium [that is, self-critique] going to be verboten unless they can somehow overcome a problem?

For instance, an issue comes to the White Imperium over the designation of being “fascist”. There is a rift between those who want an all-powerful ruler over those who want decentralization. If this becomes an issue, how is the media of the White Imperium going to handle the debate and portray both sides? Shall the display [and thus the critique] of one side be entirely wrong and the other absolutely right?

Alex DeLarge is the embodiment of Robert Taber’s “psychopathic revolutionary”. Despite all efforts of the dystopian postmodern British State as depicted in the film (seemingly indistinguishable from the current status-quo; art imitating life) to “rehabilitate” Alex by deracinating him from all the vigorous barbarian instincts that we admire in the Nietzschean blonde beast, he remains untampered (“I was cured, all right!”). The film illuminates on how the Four F’s of Evolution (especially “Fornicating” and “Fighting”) are demonized by Western Christendom in apropos to their employment by the repressed Saxon.

I may be wrong, but this sounds like the deranged things about Alex that Robert Morgan has been recently saying on The Unz Review: the same problem with all those in the pseudo-movement that admire Charles Manson, the American school shooters, etc. I’m glad that they’re not commenting here anymore (despite the fact that I quoted Morgan this morning).

Your concerns aren’t without merit. I think there is a dichotomy between admiring the polemic as opposed to fetishizing the psychosis. There is nothing redeemable in American school shooters, Elliot Rodger, or anybody in this new wave of “involuntary celibate/puritanical” terrorism. I remember a commenter here expressed admiration for Elliot Rodger, the half-Asian involuntary celibate who specifically targeted blonde sorority college girls. I can’t even begin to express how pathetic lionizing such individuals is.

> … ‘fetishizing the psychosis’.

This is a perfect expression and I must try to memorise it. In my recent GoT posts I was talking about how I’m unique among white advocates in exposing a family tragedy (in my books I even use photos and their private letters). I know that some of those who I’ve criticised about Manson & Co. had similar teenage experiences, but they’re as reluctant as the rest of mankind to speak out. It’s my belief that, as long as they don’t delve deeply into their past they’ll continue to fetishise those psychoses.

Comments are closed.