Marlon Brando (right) and Al Pacino as Don Vito and Michael Corleone.
It could be said that in recent times I have taken my vows as a priest of the sacred words, in the sense that being an NS ideologue after 1945 implies constant activity for the cause, and never allowing myself to burn out, and I plan to live like that until death parts me from this world.
But more than an act of will, when one begins the lifestyle of a true NS (which to distinguish it from the pre-1945 Germans I call the priesthood of the sacred words, after the priestess Savitri Devi) the mind begins to metamorphose.
I have often said that when I was younger I wanted to be a film director. And indeed, I have seen a lot of cinema over the decades. But when I heard about the West’s darkest hour, in the sense that it occurred to the Aryan to commit ethnic suicide because of what I said about the new Sacrificial Lamb at midnight, my taste for the Seventh Art began to change. Films I had loved I began to see as containers of very bad messages: part of the brainwashing process to convince the Aryan to immolate himself.
When I took my vows, so to speak, I began to realise not only that I was beginning to detect those bad messages, but that I could no longer enjoy almost any film in my DVD collection, to the extent that I recently gave my nephew my big TV, where I used to watch films. I did this because a lot of times it occurred to me to go through the titles of my DVD collection and, to my surprise, I didn’t feel like watching almost any film again.
At the time of the COVID-19 epidemic, a European asked me what my favourite films were at the time, and I made a list of fifty of them. A few years later I can no longer watch most of them! It’s amazing how taking vows gradually, but forcefully, changes a priest’s tastes.
But given my past fondness for cinema, and that I spent so much time watching films and thinking about them, it occurs to me that I could start writing short reviews of each film on my list of fifty. But I’d like to start with one that doesn’t appear on the list, The Godfather.
______ 卐 ______
Once upon a time in the US the Western was the favourite film genre for family consumption, but with time it was replaced by the mob story as the central epic of America. The Godfather is considered the best film of this genre. Some fans of American cinema even consider it the best film made in that country, even ahead of Citizen Kane. Well, below we see a brief review from the point of view of National Socialism, or rather, the POV of the priest of the sacred words.
Taking into account what we say in this post about transvaluation (‘L’art pour l’art’ values must be transvalued to Art practised in conformity with the cultural task), the message of The Godfather couldn’t be more wrong. Michael Corleone is the antithesis of what the hero of an Aryan lad who goes to the movies to have fun should be. In fact, the fictional Michael Corleone is an enemy of the sacred words. There is a scene in which the capo Clemenza teaches Michael how to shoot and casually tells him that Hitler should have been stopped before the time when the Allies finally stopped him. Remember that the film opens in 1945, when Michael is dressed in a soldier’s uniform at his sister’s wedding because, decorated, he had just returned from fighting the Germans!
That alone would be enough to ban The Godfather in an ethnostate emerging in North America. But it doesn’t end there. Francis Ford Coppola, the director, is Italian-American and his film represents the interests of his ethnic group, not those of the Anglo-Germans who originally conquered and populated the US (see e.g., what I wrote ten years ago about The Godfather Part II). In an ethnostate that imitated the Third Reich only the Nordics, or fans of the Nordics (say, like me), would be allowed to practice art in conformity with the NS task. It is absurd that someone who represents the interests of another ethnic group should have cinematic power over the youth of Nordic stock, and this is even more so in the case of the Jewry that dominates Hollywood.
As you can see, from this angle the reviews that I could write about American cult films are the antithesis of what Trevor Lynch (Greg Johnson) does in Counter-Currents. But as we have said many times, from the NS POV white nationalism (WN) is intellectual quackery for people stuck in the middle of what we call the psychological Rubicon (cf. my featured post, ‘The River Nymph’).
There are many other things I could say about the Godfather trilogy. For example, Moe Greene, who is shot in the eye by Michael’s triggerman at the end of the first film while being massaged, in Mario Puzo’s novel is a Jewish gangster. So in the sequel Michael’s rival, the Jew Hyman Roth, wants to avenge him. In other words, for political correctness in the Godfather trilogy the tension between the Italian-American mafia and the Jewish-American mafia is more or less disguised.
I was also annoyed, but this is natural since the director is Italian-American, that the viewpoint of the family of Kay Adams Corleone, Michael’s second wife, a pure Aryan, was one hundred per cent absent. If one compares her with the Sicilian Apollonia Vitelli Corleone, Michael’s first wife, one can see the difference between a Mediterranean and a Nordic.
Keep in mind that when the SS invaded the USSR, the commanders were careful that the young soldiers didn’t marry mudblood women (remember: when we were young we thought with our cocks, not with our heads!). That distinction between Meds and Norsemen has been lost on many contemporary racialists because, I reiterate, WN is virtually intellectual quackery.
These brief words give an idea of what, in forthcoming posts, I will do with most of the 50 films I used to recommend a few years ago. When the priest fulfills the revaluation of art (‘L’art pour l’art’ values must be transvalued to Art practised in conformity with the cultural task) there is very little art to rescue—and much art to repudiate!
15 replies on “The Godfather”
At least for my part I find them both very beautiful although yes the fairer Nordic girl is always more beautiful, adding a touch of aristocracy and refinement compared to the Mediterranean girl more associated with being a peasant. As far as I am concerned I consider that the Aryan gene pool especially the Nordic one, with the features worthy of the man of tomorrow, must be a dominant and inextinguishable source. Although the residue and passage of these genes to the Mediterranean populations is not all bad (as long as pure Nordics are an ever increasing number) as they give rise to unparalleled Mediterranean beauties thanks to the Nordic genes.
I think the idea of the movie list is an excellent idea. For obvious reasons I also stopped consuming any audiovisual media years ago. Because of my age I don’t know old movies but I would like to know about them and especially know your opinion from a point of view in which we are like-minded. Greetings
If you look at how I start the second part of the article, ‘Once upon a time in the US the Western was the favourite film genre for family consumption…’, you will see that the Western genre I lived with as a child was healthy from the point of view of 14 words. I remember the television series Daniel Boone, a family of Anglo-Germans when the nation was being born and the colonists were fighting the Indians. I saw that series in the 1960s.
But then came the paradigm shift. The Americans were already forging another epic, by mudbloods, that replaced the Nordic one. Now it was the Italian gangsters who replaced the previous heroes. If you look at the Godfather trilogy, Michael Corleone treated his Nordic wife badly, and his Mediterranean wife well.
The whole thing is poisonous to our sacred words, and it seems obvious to me that Hollywood must be rejected, something that Greg Johnson and the other white nationalists don’t do because, as I said, their movement is charlatanism.
See this post of mine from 2018 to understand what I mean!
I don’t understand this sudden but repetitive paradigm shift at all.
Like 200 years ago, there was racial sense and the north American colonists were sensible enough to exterminate the amerinds, but then later they imported thousands of negroes for which they waged a destructive civil war, and “equalized” them as a result.
Then a 100 years lated (despite having negroes and some mongoloids around), they produced men like Madison Grant whose racial studies and immigration policies will inspired Hitler and its 3th Reich into the realization of the Nordic ideal, and then that country declared another war! And against the very heart of Europa motherland!
Now, today, they worship negroes, jews and pretty much everything that is degenerate, low life and filthy. Whatever that seems to support the opposite of “muh evil Natzis”, including their own racial demise.
It is just so contradictory that blows my mind.
How did the bastion of the Nordics in the new world became such a self hating, nigger loving country?
Due to the Christian—now, neo-Christian—mandate that the last will be first and the first will be last. Tom Holland’s book that I have been advertising so much on this site describes well how this inversion of all values occurred through recent history (although unlike Nietzsche, Holland subscribes to the values of the Christian Era).
True U R…! In Toronto, there are approximately 1,000,000 Italians (and descendents), that originally arrived after WWI. English Canada was VERY WASPish at the time…..Orange Masonic Lodges dotted the city, ALL was closed on Sundays, ONLY WASPs were privvy to government jobs, and all were free masons! But the Italians did NOT assimilate, and even in my high school days (mid-’70’s), an Italian girl’s parents would NOT allow her to date a non-Italian, and this after being 3rd generation! Their men thought they could take and …… any non-Italian girl in high school, that they wished, but their girls were off limits to others! They did NOT assimilate and they acted just like in the, “God Father”, “Sopranos”….they mistreated any non-Mediterranean female..!
One thing that I really want to understand is why this Christian nonsense was, and still is, so effective on Aryans. It doesn’t seem to work so well in Asians an niggers. There’s something on the Aryans psyche that goes beyond greatest tolerance and empathy, perhaps, and make them so susceptible to this drug, and this particularity must be properly understood and dealt with.
I don’t think there’s something specifically wrong with the Aryan psyche, since Christianity was imposed by force, courtesy of some traitors in the Roman Empire. No Roman Empire, no Xtianity.
You’re probably right, but I still think there is something. I understand that the main method used to impose Christianity on Europe for quite a long time was a liberal use of fire and steel, and the “conversion” of savages and sub-humans was definitely “softer”, but the Aryans internalized the damned thing so thoroughly that I can’t help but wonder if there is something else.
You’re right about the Roman Empire making the last move. But the Christian mentality was already in Europeans before the Roman Empire. At least theologically. As far as I know, Platonism started it.
Now I have not read Plato and Socrates etc. in their original languages, so please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, Platonism is a transcendental and universalist proposition. This is completely incompatible with Heathenism and basic Indo-European theology in general.
Heathenism is natural and determined by a clear immanent understanding of cosmology. When myths say that you die, go to Hel to be judged and then reincarnate, you cannot apply a philosophy that says the opposite. This is by definition a perverted understanding of the sources. The idea that the soul pilots the flesh and that the physical body is unimportant is an axial age phenomenon, not part of traditional pagan belief. In fact, the distinction between the so-called material (real) and immaterial (false) world is a heresy. (Socrates was executed and Xenophenes was sent into exile for this very reason).
Platonists try to overcome this by saying that myths are only metaphors. Myths are the inherited story of a race of people. If myths don’t matter, then our creation doesn’t matter and who we are as a people doesn’t matter. It is only one step further that gender, borders and race do not matter.
This is objectively the line from Plato to Christianity, from Liberalism to the death cult.
Obviously Plato is a much more sympathetic figure than the freaks having transgender throuples today but the lineage is there.
Universalism is 100% heretical to the heathen worldview. One universal truth, one universal morality is the foundation that globalism and transhumanism stands on. Which is the opposite of our Germanic ancestors who were fiercly tribal.
This worldview is of course too familiar with Christianity. Christianity is not only a universal religion, but an absolutist one, its truth depends upon everything else being false. In Christianity, the words of Christ are true BECAUSE others are false, its one true God is true BECAUSE the others are false idols and demons etc. It’s quite circular in that it bootstraps its own validity, it is true because it states that it is true. This is also how Atheism has born.
Going back to Platonism; Heathens don’t need it. All of the important questions of the human experience can be answered within heathen sources. At best it’s a distraction and at worst it’s completely incompatible in places.
What you say about Platonism is true, but it has a difficulty.
If you read the books on the criminal history of Christianity linked in ‘The River Nymph’, you will see that almost no one knows the history of the Imperial Church of the first millennium c.e. Specifically, almost no one knows that Christians burned entire libraries of the classical world, and left philosophies related, or at least not so different, to their own (such as Platonism). If there had not been so much burning of libraries, would philosophies more related to NS have been preserved? Impossible to know.
In any case, Plato’s books were not the axis of classical culture but those of Homer. How I would like to know what so many authors were proposing, some of whom at least we have their names…!
Also I have to make myself clear. When I say “this mentality was already present in Europeans”, I do not mean that it was a widely accepted fact. Of course it was not. The Greeks chose the paganism of Hesiod and Homer over the false faith of Platonism. I am only saying, in connection with Jorge’s question, that the Aryans had no God-given resistance to Christian teachings.
Yes, there was resistance, and strong, but the Christians cancelled all of them (cancel culture in the 4th century)! What remained of Porphyry’s criticism of Christianity, for example? And at least we got Porphyry’s name. Could there have been other critics whose names didn’t even reach us? Catherine Nixey says in The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World that only 1% of Latin texts survived the Aryan apocalypse perpetrated by Christians. I haven’t had a way to corroborate that percentage but I think that every NS man should read her book…
Yes, Nixey’s book is good. I haven’t had time to read Deschner’s whole work, but I will. Have you read James C. Russell’s The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity? Here are some excerpts from it that I find valuable:
“The primary appeal of a universal religion to a ruling elite may be its potential as a force for enhanced social cohesion. … It appears that this utilitarian view contributed toward the popularization of Zoroastrianism throughout the Persian Empire by King Cyrus (d. 431 B.C.), in Alexander the Great’s advocacy of Hellenistic ecumenism, in the expansion of Hinayana Buddhism during the reign of the Indian Emperor Asoka (d. 232 BC), in the expansion of Mahayana Buddhism throughout China during the Tang dynasty (620-907), in the legitimizing of Christianity by Constantine in 313, and in the military-religious expansion of Islam under the Caliphate (632-661) and the Umayyad Dynasty (661-750). Also, as will be discussed in Part II, some Germanic leaders appear to have utilized Arian Christianity to preserve their ethnocultural identity, while others utilized Roman Christianity to enhance the level of social cohesion throughout their realms.”
“The primary contribution of Bellah to the current inquiry is his analysis of ‘the phenomenon of religious rejection of the world characterized by extremely negative evaluation of man and society and the exaltation of another realm of reality as alone true and infinitely valuable.’ This word rejecting orientation tends to be manifested in universal religions and is contrasted by Bellah with the world-accepting orientation of primitive religion, which is “concerned with the maintenance of personal, social and cosmic harmony and with attaining specific goods – rain, harvest, children, health – as men have always been. But the overriding goal of salvation that dominates the world-rejecting religions is almost absent in primitive religion and life after death tends to be a shadowy semi-existence in some vague designated place in the single world.”
“In certain instances, ‘the breakdown of internal order led to messianic expectations of the coming of a savior king.’ These destabilizing social developments seem to have contributed to the emergence of the historical, universal religions, which are distinguished from the archaic, folk religions by their transcendental, world-rejecting character. Bellah explicates:
‘For the masses, at least, the new dualism is above all expressed in the difference between this world and the life after death. Religious concern, focused on this life in primitive and archaic religions, now tends to focus on life in the other realm, which may be either infinitely superior or, under certain circumstances, with the emergence of various conceptions of hell, infinitely worse. Under these circumstances the religious goal of salvation (or enlightenment, release and so forth) is for the first time the central religious preoccupation…
From the point of view of these religions a man is no longer defined chiefly in terms of what clan he comes from or what particular god he serves but rather as a being capable of salvation…’
This description of historical, universal religions is significant, since it also describes the ideological milieu from which Christianity emerged. It may be compared with the earlier observations of Ernst Troeltsch:
‘A new era of creative religious experience and sensitiveness to religious influences characterized the close of the ancient world. The way had been prepared for this change by a number of factors, which may be briefly enumerated: the destruction of national religions, which was a natural result of the loss of national independence; the mingling of races, which led naturally to the mingling of various cults; the rise of mystery religions with their exclusive emphasis upon the inner life, and their independence of questions of nationality and birth; the fusion of various fragments of religion which had broken away from their national foundation; the philosophical religion of culture with its varied forms of assimilation to the popular religions; the need of a world empire for a world religion, a need which was only partially satisfied by worship of the Emperor.'”
The long and short of this is that Christianity emerged from the breakdown of social order in the ancient world, the detachment of religion from ethnic and national identity, and the mixing of various races and ideas together, leading to cosmopolitan mystery cults and the need for an historical saviour king and unifying world religion.
What you say about Alexander the Great and Buddhism is true: and that’s why Alexander ‘the Great’ appears as the bad guy in our movie (cf. William Pierce’s book about the white race); and Buddhism also as bad for Revilo Oliver in an essay that we have reproduced here.
Regarding the Arianism of the Germanic leaders, what you say is also true but these brutes didn’t realise that they ate a poisoned apple.
And what you say about the idea of hell reminds me of Hitler’s words: that Christianity introduced spiritual terror, with its vivid infernal imagery, into the psyche of the (previously healthy) Aryan. All religions of personal salvation appear in decadent times, as historian Will Durant observed.
Your quote is correct in blaming miscegenation for the decline of the indigenous religions of the Aryans, especially if we refer to the Roman Empire. Without miscegenation, or even better with a policy of ethnic cleansing like what Himmler and the SS wanted, there would be no danger for the Aryan conquerors.
Judeo Christianity was written to exploit Aryan weaknesses, not the oriental or african ones.
Aryans are by nature welcoming, kind and naive. Ruthless when provoked but generous and good willed. (That’s why when you move to a white area, you can leave your doors unlock and feel safe while walking at night. )
The jew, as a parasite and expert manipulator, understood well how to exploit these traits and use them in their favor.
The only way to get rid of the depravation of Christianity is through years of state enforced ban and intolerance to anything that might promote its values, which means tolerance to anything degenerate and weak.