web analytics

Author: C .T.

Categories
A Song of Ice and Fire (novels) Feminism Film Game of Thrones

The long night

‘The Long Night’ is the third episode of the eighth season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 70th overall. Below, the most beautiful moment of the episode according to Yezen (including the music I’d add) in his video ‘Why Theon should have killed the Night King’.

I have said that Martin didn’t finish the last two novels of his epic when D&D were filming the series. If I had been the director, instead of what the D&D Jews did—trying to compact what Martin had confessed to them in a few episodes—I would have devised the script differently so as not to spoil the plot, as D&D spoiled it. I simply would have forgotten about the game of thrones, or the war between the two bitches, and focused solely on the threat that the army of the dead posed to Westeros once the Night King’s dragon brought down the Wall.

From that angle, the long night in the sense of the long battle that was fought at Winterfell would have appeared at the end of the last season. And instead of the ultra-feminist scene that D&D came up with—the girl Arya kills the Night King in this episode—I would have chosen Theon to be ‘The Hero of Winterfell’. That way we wouldn’t have seen packed together, in just six episodes, a complex plot—or rather plots—that should have been filmed over several seasons.

It’s no excuse that the directors have run out of Martin’s latest novels. If they had been good artists they would have simplified the plot, guillotining any war between Dany and Cersei from the script—that is, the ‘game of thrones’—so that the show would look more like ‘a song of ice and fire’. The Night King, the white walkers and the army of the dead live on ice on the north side of the Wall; and fire is represented by the character most loved by fans, Jon, who lives on the south side of the Wall. As we saw, in previous episodes it’s revealed that Jon is Aegon Targaryen, and in Martin’s universe the Targaryens represent fire.

Without Martin’s latest novels, that would have been the compromise a good screenwriter would have made.

In many respects, ‘The Long Night’ is the culmination of the entire series. The following episodes, # 71, # 72 and # 73 represent a huge anticlimax that disappointed the fandom. And while the battle against the army of the dead in this episode is the most exciting of all seasons, I suspect that the feminist agenda finally stretched the show’s credibility to breaking point (as we said above Theon, not a girl, should have killed the Night King).

Categories
Friedrich Nietzsche Racial right

Failure of nerve

In ‘America’s Cultural Collapse’, a YouTube audio, Gregory Hood recently joined Lipton Matthews to chronicle the demise of America. In about three minutes (starting from this moment) they touched on the subject I am so passionate about: the root of the dark hour.

Hood and Matthews suffer from the same failure of nerve as Tom Sunic, of whom I said something last week. They somehow recognise that the current psychosis of the West has Christian inspiration, but are reluctant to condemn the religion of their parents in unequivocal terms.

Nietzsche wrote: ‘The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul… I call Christianity the one great curse… the one immortal blemish upon the human race’. But these 21st century Americans haven’t reached the level of the German philosopher in 1888, when he wrote those lines.

Always remember: Christianity is the ultimate conclusion of Judaism.

Categories
PDF backup

WDH – pdf 388

Click: here

Categories
Feminism Game of Thrones Music

A knight of the seven kingdoms

‘A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms’ is the second episode of the eighth season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 69th overall. The first feminist message of the episode is seen in the Winterfell smithy, during the dialogue between Gendry and Arya. I don’t even want to detail it because, later, what happens between them is worse. As always, the woman is on top of the man in the sexual act, and in this case Arya was losing her virginity! By getting on top of him, she plays the role of the macho.

Later, speaking alone with Sansa, Dany tells her: ‘We have other things in common. We’ve both known what it means to lead people who aren’t inclined to accept a woman’s rule. And we’ve both done a damn good job of it, from what I can tell’.

But that’s nothing. The most offensive scene of the episode comes later, when Davos gives hot food to every commoner in Winterfell, outside the castle walls, in the winter. An adult male gets the soup with these words: ‘My lord, we’re no soldiers’. The men from the north are preparing to fight the Night King’s army, which has already crossed the Wall and is heading to Winterfell. Davos replies: ‘You are now’ and the man is stunned. Davos has to reassure him with personal anecdotes, as Davos isn’t a warrior either (although he has participated in important battles).

The next person who reaches out to Davos with an empty plate to receive the soup is a little girl, about ten years old, and she says to Davos with the accent of a little English girl: ‘All the children will be going below [of the castle] when the time comes. But… I want to fight’. There can be no clearer message.

Above, Podrick, Brienne’s squire, right before Jaime knighted Brienne, a woman, for the first time in Westeros history. That naming gave the episode its title, ‘A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms’.

In the next scene, Jorah Mormont asks his cousin Lyanna Mormont—the girl who, as we have seen, has admonished Jon several times in front of the lords—to stay in the crypt under the castle during the battle, along with the women and children. Lady Mormont replies that she will fight alongside her soldiers (in the next episode we will see that she dies heroically when the Night King’s army of the dead infiltrates the castle).

Perhaps what was most worth hearing from the episode was the song Podrick sings on the eve of the enemy army arriving at Winterfell, which can be heard: here. Many of those in the castle will die in a few hours. The song conveys a state of unusual relaxation before facing destiny.

Categories
NS booklets

Sieg der Waffen – Sieg des Kindes, 1

Die Innenseite des originalen Deckels:

Männer der SS und Polizei!

Zwei Waffen stehen im Kampf um’s Dasein einem jeden Volke zur Verfügung: Seine Wehrkraft und seine natürliche Fruchtbarkeit. Vergeβt nie, daβ die Wehrkraft allein dem Volke ein Fortleben in weite Zukunft nicht ermöglichen kann, sondern daβ dazu der unerschöpfliche Born seiner Fruchtbarkeit notwendig ist.

Lest die Schrift, die ich Euch übergeben lasse, und handelt danach, damit dem Sieg der deutschen Waffen nunmehr auch der Sieg des deutschen Kindes folge.

H. Himmler

(1935)

Categories
Kevin MacDonald

Morgan v. MacDonald

Kevin MacDonald:

‘Since I am not a believer…’

This is surely a strange admission for MacDonald to make, since in the preface to Giles Corey’s book, he endorsed Christianity as the way forward for whites, writing ‘I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centred around the adaptive aspects of Christianity…’

Is he dissembling here in an attempt to preserve the illusion of his scholarly objectivity, or does he really mean being a believing Christian is only for other whites, of lower IQ perhaps, a case of do as I say, not as I do?

Also, he doesn’t appear to have thought very carefully about the conclusion of that sentence in the preface I just quoted, which continues ‘the aspects that produced Western expansion, innovation, discovery, individual freedom, economic prosperity, and strong family bonds’.

The West was Christian, yes. But how did Christianity make any contribution at all to expansion, innovation, and discovery? Where does Jesus recommend his followers go conquer the world? Where does it say in the Bible that Christianity has anything to do with innovation or discovery? Nowhere, as far as I know.

Further, Christianity’s track record with such endeavours isn’t very good, to put it mildly. It destroyed all the beginnings of science in the ancient world, and those texts that survived only survived by accident, having been proscribed after the Christian takeover of the Roman Empire. Christianity has typically opposed scientific innovation, from Bruno and Galileo right up to Darwin, whose theory of evolution, ironically enough for an evolutionist such as MacDonald, it continues to oppose.

He concludes:

And it can scarcely be doubted that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism have been completely corrupted and actively subverted so that millions of White Americans have been swept up by the multiculturalism and replacement-level immigration as moral imperatives. Jewish activism has certainly been part of this, but traditional Christian universalism and moral egalitarianism are also part of the equation. One might say that Christianity, despite periods when it was highly adaptive, carried the seeds of its own destruction—a chink in its armour that made it relatively easy to subvert once the culture of the West had been subverted by our new hostile elite.

But what can he mean when he both affirms that traditional Christianity’s universalism and egalitarianism were ‘seeds of its own destruction’, and that it was at the same time ‘subverted’? One online dictionary defines the word subvert thusly: ‘To overthrow (something established or existing); to cause the downfall, ruin, or destruction of; to undermine the principles of; corrupt’.

Christianity’s principles of universalism and egalitarianism in this case are being implemented, not overthrown. Far from being ‘subverted’, that Christianity has been faithful to its principles is precisely what he’s complaining about! Insofar as I can make any sense at all of what he’s saying, it seems he advocates a revival of the old corrupt Christianity that, not always successfully, tried to ignore these principles.

Seems like a losing proposition all around.

Categories
Feminism Film Game of Thrones

Winterfell

‘Winterfell’ is the eighth season premiere episode of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 68th overall. It aired in 2019 and the previous season in 2017. What happened in 2018?

I have said several times that the slogan of contemporary cinema seems to be ‘everything for the eye, nothing for the mind’. Well, the show’s technicians spent all of 2018 doing the complicated CGI effects on the dragons for the final season. It was such a laborious task that they skipped an entire year leaving the eager audience in a long two-year wait!

Unsurprisingly, this ‘all for the eye, nothing for the mind’ practice, and in just six episodes for what should have been six more seasons, ruined the series from the point of view of a plausible narrative. However, from our point of view the series was already ruined from the first episode of the first season due to its bad messages.

If there is something ‘for the mind’ that the show left us, it is its feminist trickery. True, from a cinematic point of view, the opening scene of the eighth season is superb: from when we see a boy running in the first seconds until Jon kisses Bran on the forehead (Jon had not seen Bran since he left him comatose and his life hanging by a thread in the first season). George Lucas visited the set where the opening scene was filmed, in which Dany and Jon arrive at Winterfell with an impressive army.

But already in the great hall of Winterfell with the gathered lords we see the first ultra-feminist scene when the Mormont girl, who still doesn’t menstruate because of how young she is, reprimands Jon in front of everyone. At the time of the reprimand Jon is sitting in the hall flanked by two other women: Sansa and Dany. With these TV messages, should we be surprised that adolescent girls have become so insolent?

As is typical of the show, we then see Bronn sexually ridden by a woman (a prostitute), flanked by two other naked women. Politically correct directors seem to be reluctant to film a man riding a woman: their mission is to reverse reality even in bed.

Then we see a third feminist scene when Theon rescues Yara from Euron’s ship and, instead of thanking him Yara headbutts her brother (was it because he didn’t help her at the exact moment when Euron kidnapped her)? Already setting sail, Theon tells Yara that she is his queen, and that he will do what she orders, before a goodbye hug.

This is what fans waited patiently, for two years, to finally see…

Categories
Child abuse

WN ∩ child abuse = Ø?

Let’s remember the Venn Diagrams that we were taught in school. Many people believe that the issue of the mistreatment of children by their parents has nothing to do with white preservation. In set theory, that claim could be visualised by saying that the circles of white nationalism (WN) and child abuse don’t share any area, that they form an empty subset (symbolically, WN ∩ child abuse = Ø).

But that isn’t true. Let’s also remember my old essay ‘A body-snatched Spaniard’. And now that I was reviewing Erectus Walks Amongst Us I noticed that in Chapter 33, ‘Re-Classifying the Left’, Richard Fuerle wrote (square brackets are mine):

Before leaving this chapter, let us address the important question of why so many whites are anti-white. It has not escaped notice that the most fervent of the white white-haters are not only on the left politically, but many are Marxist. When the working class did not rise up against the exploiting capitalists, as predicted by Marx, the Marxists ideologues of the Frankfort school (Frankfort, Germany, which moved to Columbia University in New York City when Hitler came to power) sought out other classes of exploited victims who could be induced to rebel against the hated establishment. They settled on women, homosexuals, and minorities. The [Jewish] Marxists have no real concern with these oppressed classes, but find them handy weapons for weakening white societies so that they can be more easily overthrown. Why so many whites eagerly embrace white-hating, however, remains to be explained.

If you have been reading this book, you know that egalitarianism is clearly false—populations are not genetically the same and that is obvious even to small children. To hold a view that so clearly conflicts with reality is surely psychopathological, i.e., these people are mentally ill. Nor is it a trivial illness, as it perverts their most important biological function—passing on their alleles. It is only because psychologists and psychiatrists are also mired in the same psychopathology that egalitarians [as I have said elsewhere, psychiatry is pseudoscientific] do not have their own special place in the Manual [the shrinks’ DSM].

I have written elsewhere on this subject, where I argue that the problem has its genesis in the inevitable conflicts that children have with their parents. If children decide that it is the parents who are wrong, unfair, even evil, they readily identify with those whom they see as similarly oppressed, urging them to overthrow the ruling class, i.e., initially their white parents but, by projection, all whites, including themselves. The parent’s justification for ruling over them, that there are biological classes, in this case, children and adults, must be refuted, hence fervently held egalitarianism, that there are no biological classes. Marxism, which promotes class warfare and hatred of those who have and rule (i.e., for children, their parents), is just an extension of this psychopathology. Unfortunately, the egalitarians will be with us forever unless children can be raised to see their parents as wise and loving guardians, not as arbitrarily frustrating obstacles.

Never mind what Fuerle later said in endnotes 25-27 (he was no expert on the subject). Although the subject is huge, only those who have read my Day of Wrath will know what I have in mind. Suffice it to say that while Christian ethics is the basic aetiology of the dark hour, in cases of abject self-hatred like the Antifas I could assure that they were devastated by their parents, and presently are transferring their wrath onto a scapegoat: their own race.

Categories
3-eyed crow Game of Thrones

The dragon and the wolf

‘The Dragon and the Wolf’ is the seventh and final episode of the seventh season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 67th episode overall. It was written by series co-creators David Benioff and D. B. Weiss (hereafter referred to as D&D), and directed by Jeremy Podeswa. In this episode the two bitches meet for the first time and agree to a truce while the Night King is defeated. Note that when the series began, King Robert Baratheon ruled the Seven Kingdoms that these two queens now dispute, although the threat north of the Wall has become a distraction that will be resolved in the following season.

We see the climactic scene of this episode when Littlefinger is executed: the man who, with his lies, had started the war between the Starks and the Lannisters although before his trial we see a memorable dialogue between Theon and Jon in the main hall of Dragonstone.

D&D and/or the director deleted a crucial scene showing that the real hero in uncovering Littlefinger’s wiles had been Brandon Stark, as can be seen from what a fan wrote:

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.

Not all the audience filled the gap. Censoring that scene made some believe, at Littlefinger’s trial, that Sansa had understood for herself the betrayal of the master of intrigues. The confusion was such that some fans commented that Sansa would never have been able to outwit Littlefinger. Sometimes I wonder if D&D abandoned the already filmed scene because of their feminist agenda.

Categories
Blacks

Jared is sensitive

A couple of days ago I posted a chapter from Erectus Walks Amongst Us by Richard Fuerle. Jared Taylor wrote an interesting book review but it’s marred by this passage:

Erectus Walks Amongst Us is stuffed with so much information and so many good arguments it is a pity it suffers from several flaws. First and worst, the title and cover illustration are so insulting to blacks—implying that they are primitives just down from the trees—that one can hardly carry this book around in public. The writing can also be contemptuous of blacks and of people who accept the Out of Africa theory. No book that flouts as many orthodoxies as this one does can afford to aid its critics by indulging in intemperate language.

When I read passages like this, I think of an interview with Jared in which he said he had no idea what the dark hour of the West was due to, that he was absolutely clueless. This is my answer: to the Christian ethics that Jared himself accepts as axiomatic. And this regardless of whether or not he has given up the Christianity he learnt from his parents (a topic that he’s reluctant to discuss when asked in interviews).