web analytics

Author: C .T.

Categories
Charlemagne Christendom Kenneth Clark Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books)

Christianity’s Criminal History, 159

 
Charles I, known as the Great or Charlemagne, and the Popes

‘His hair was grey and beautiful, his face radiant and cheerful; his appearance was always imposing and dignified; his health always magnificent’. ‘The Christian religion, in which he was instructed from a young age, he always cultivated with great sanctity and piety (sanctissime et cum magna pietate coluit). He visited the church assiduously, morning and evening, also at night and during mass’. —Einhard

‘His most important interlocutors throughout his life were the popes. The pivot of Carolingian politics, around which everything revolved, was the relationship with the Holy See’. ‘It is curious that while Charles lived he was able to avoid any conflict with the papal see. Charles certainly never won the confidence of the Italian population; there he continued to be an enemy’. —Wolfgang Braunfels

‘The Merovingian state had been predominantly profane; the Carolingian empire, by contrast, was a theocracy’. —Christopher Dawson

‘The image of the Carolingian theocracy harmonised impressively with the Carolingian idea of peace and with the conception of the empire as a corpus christianum’. —Eugen Ewick

‘Then the hour of the man of Providence sounded’. ‘With Charles the Great, the victorious arms of the Franks were the forerunners of Catholic doctrine’. ‘To keep his subjects in harmony and to establish among men concord pacis were the ideal aims of that mighty monarch, under whose reign scarcely a year passed without war. But these ideals fully correspond to a Christian conception of his office’. —Daniel Rops

‘I would rate Charlemagne well up in the top five most evil characters of European history’. —Arthur Kemp (*)

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s Note:

While it is true that I believe Hitler to have been the greatest man in Western history (and the fact that whites currently defame him and continue to worship Yahweh can only mean that they have signed their death warrant), that doesn’t mean that Hitler was infallible. Politically and militarily, he blundered in invading the Soviet Union. But ideologically he also erred, though not so catastrophically, insofar as his opinion was limited to one of his after-dinner talks. I am referring to that evening with his friends when he approved that Charlemagne tamed the Saxons (others, like Himmler and the SS, believed exactly the opposite).

Although Hitler had a much better awareness of the Christian problem than those Americans who since the mid-1990s have called themselves white nationalists, his understanding of Christendom was limited. As far as I know, it was only until this century that Christianity began to be understood as the primary cause, not a secondary cause, of white decline.

Although the syntax correction of my books will take time (I am about to finish Daybreak), only when I have completed the revision of all the books of our Daybreak Press, which includes one by Savitri Devi, will the formal presentation of the new paradigm be available in acceptable English. In the meantime, I must say that our reading of history is diametrically opposed to Kenneth Clark’s not only as far as Charlemagne is concerned (featured on the cover of his book), but in how Clark represented Christendom.

Fortunately, non-Christian authors such as Karlheinz Deschner have shown us a different history of Christendom in general, and Charlemagne in particular, that differs not only from the historical conception of the normies, but of American white nationalists and even Hitler himself.

__________

(*) This last quote doesn’t appear in the original. Deschner usually puts several epigraphs of theologians and Christian historians in favour of a specific character at the beginning of a chapter, and he adds in the end one or two quotes from dissidents who say the opposite. It doesn’t hurt that I take the liberty of adding one more critical quote here because Kemp is the only living historian of the white race.

Categories
Autobiography

Dad and the queen

My father with Queen Elizabeth when she visited his music school in 1975 (the photo is of poor quality because it’s a newspaper clipping).

Categories
Catholic Church Christendom Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Monarchy

Christianity’s Criminal History, 158

– For the context of these translations click here –

 
A month after Charles Martel died, in December 741 Gregory III, the last Roman bishop to be confirmed by the Emperor of Byzantium, also died. His successor was Zacharias (741-752). Liutprand died at the beginning of 744, after thirty-twoyears of rule. Before the death of Charles Martel, Charles had divided the power of government between his sons Carloman, Pepin the Short and Grifo…

Already in the year of the change of government, bishoprics were created in Hesse and Thuringia (planned by Boniface since 732), and in the years 743 and 744 three great synods were held in Austrasia and Neustria, in which the total elimination of ‘heresy’ and paganism was decreed. Charlemagne and Pepin—both educated in monasteries, Charlemagne probably in the monastery of Echternach by Willibrord, and Pepin in the monastery of Saint-Denis—carried the war far and wide. Both were, as Pope Zacharias says of his ‘most illustrious sons’, ‘companions and assistants’ of Boniface. Moreover, both were ‘under the inspiration of God’ (inspiratione divina). Thus, the holy father was able to guarantee the two great butchers also ‘an abundant reward in heaven’ for ‘blessed is the man by whom God is blessed’…

Even Pepin the Younger (741-768), who generally resided in the palaces of Quierzy, Attigny, Verberie and Compiégne and to whom Pope Zacharias had already given the title of christianissimus in 747, was ‘a good Christian’ (Daniel-Rops), ‘inspired entirely by the Christian spirit’ (Büttner). In his fight against the Saxons he reached the Weser in 753, in a campaign in which Hildegard, bishop of Cologne, perished on 8 August. In 758 he entered the territory of Münster and promised the Westphalians, on whom he had inflicted a heavy defeat, loyalty, an annual tribute of 300 horses and the free movement of Christian missionaries.

In eight campaigns, conducted between 760 and 768, he subdued Aquitaine, where he had once, and still in the company of Charlemagne, set fire to the suburbs of Bourges and destroyed Loches. Now he destroyed the castles and ruined the country. He set fire to Bourbon-l’Archambault as well as Clermont, setting fire to countless villages. He was accompanied by the eldest son of Pepin, Charles (‘the Great’, Charlemagne): quite a school of life! Year after year, the Franks systematically plundered and destroyed the entire region from one end to the other. And the devastating effects of these wars could be traced back for generations…
 

The most momentous event of the Middle Ages

Theodor Mayer writes about the state conception of the Carolingian period: ‘It is clear what happened in the royal period of Pepin and Charles. It is the conception of kingship as an office, which does not derive from the divine descent of the royal lineage nor a military kingship, but which was instituted by God and conferred by the pope’. It was not until the Carolingian era at the latest when kingship was given a theocratic foundation and the sovereign became ‘king by the grace of God’ (rex Dei gratia), which is a formula of legitimation. ‘The revived idea of “by the grace of God” had elevated and sanctified the royal dignity since the anointing of Pepin’ (Tellenbach). And ever since the sons of Pepin, who were Carloman and Charles ‘the Great’, all medieval kings bore the title gratia Dei rex Francorum, king by the grace of God.

The king was thus sharply separated from the people, to whose choice he originally owed his privileged position, and placed close to God. This means that, since ‘God’, properly understood and in a political vision, is only a symbol for the high clergy and their need for power, insofar as the king is separated from the people, he is linked to the priestly hierarchy and placed at their service.

The king became an organ of it, a sharer in its ministry, its creature: an ‘ecclesiastical person’. God meant de facto the Church, which gradually made its power more and more felt, which had even assigned the office of king, and the more the theocratic character of kingship was accentuated, the greater its influence.

But this collaboration with the king led to an ever more marked weakening of the people and their total powerlessness. For it was no longer the people who were to control the king, but the high clergy. The king was consciously distanced from the people and presented as majestas far above the people. The people ceased to be subjects of rights; they had only duties, absolutely subject to the sovereign, who was no longer accountable to them. In any case, this is what the models developed by the ecclesiastical hierarchy were intended to do, although they were only imposed in the following decades and centuries.

Categories
Axiology Free speech / association Liberalism Mexico City

On Juan María Alponte 


I had planned to publish post 158 of Deschner’s history of Christianity today, but found out that someone I knew personally had died several years ago.

Enrique Ruiz Garcia was the real name of ‘Juan María Alponte’. Ruiz took this alias because of his admiration for José María Apote, Cuba’s first freed slave! Enrique Ruiz, better known as Alponte in Mexico City and Spain, earned a doctorate in history from the University of Madrid and practised journalism in Mexico for half a century. He moved here after fleeing Franco’s regime in 1968; he published many books, and won important international recognition. That Franco’s Spain was the least bad country in Europe in the 1960s can be seen here and that was the Spain from which Alponte fled. Why?

Because Alponte was a perfect Spanish-speaking idiot.

Years ago a commenter told me on this site that the literature written in Spanish is a real disaster, in that all known authors are leftists; not a single one is right-wing. For the same reason, I call Latin America the subcontinent of the blue pill. Here everyone is asleep in the matrix that controls the West, and the projection of the West that is Latin America insofar as it was conquered by the Spanish and Portuguese.

I say that Alponte, who was considered a great humanist in Spanish-speaking intellectual circles, was an idiot because that is what he was along with the rest of the Spanish-speaking intelligentsia, and a single example will suffice for me to prove it.

In this article in Spanish, Alponte writes about Jean-Marie Le Pen siding one hundred per cent with a totalitarian France that doesn’t admit any historical revisionism regarding the Second World War. Alponte, and the rest of the Spanish-speaking intelligentsia, are idiots because it doesn’t occur to them that it is impossible to believe in freedom of speech, and at the same time, to applaud that the French state represses people like Jean-Marie Le Pen with fines and jail.

‘Idiots’ is an understatement. When I once visited Alponte at his home in Coyoacán (I wanted to publish my book and mistakenly believed he would help me), he was so busy that he told the maid that he wasn’t at home. But I peeked into his study and there was Alponte: reading in a study more than saturated with books.

But erudition isn’t directly proportional to wisdom. The case of Alponte and the rest of the Spanish-speaking intellectuals are paradigmatic of the point of view of this site. It was not the Jews who tricked us into subscribing to an anti-white ideology (think of the freed black slave that the idiot Ruiz used to change his name!). It was Christianity, or more precisely insofar as Ruiz/Alponte was a secular man, Christian ethics. I would like to illustrate this point with the latest email Gaedhal has sent to several correspondents:

When one fully deconverts from Christianity, one does not just reject the supernatural claims—nobody but nincompoops believe in Christianity’s supernatural claims. One also deconverts from Christianity’s axiology. Previous generations were content to give up the supernatural claims, and then attempt to out-christian the Christians on axiological matters.

My interpolated note: I, the atheist, am holier than thou, the Christian.

The term ‘axiology’ comes from the Greek word ‘agō’, which means ‘I drive’. Imagine the scales of justice. What is the driving force that balances these scales? This is what axiology asks. It was ex-Catholic César Tort who introduced me to this philosophical concept.

In my view, it is still Christian assumptions such as ‘the sanctity of human life’ and ‘human equality’ that is balancing the scales of justice in the West. The notion that everybody is equal comes from the notion of soul equality. As Alex Linder points out: if you believe that we are all equally created, then it kinda follows that we are all created equal.

However, as Revilo P. Oliver points out, once we reject Yahweh and his ‘special creation of man’, all notions of human equality should be abandoned also. In the same way that no two racehorses are equal, neither are any two humans.

And so even though fewer and fewer people believe in Yahweh, nevertheless, Jehovitic notions such as the sanctity of human life and human equality are still balancing the scales of justice. (In my view, I value blue whales more than most humans, and I value a rainforest more than a city teaming with the human virus.)

It’s a pity that I have so much work to do with correcting the syntax of our books before putting the links back in the featured post. I wish I had finished so that the critique of anthropocentrism in the book by Savitri Devi we recently translated would show, in a more formal way, what Gaedhal said above.

Update of 5:50 pm

When this guy was still living in Spain, the Spanish press was not in the hands of Jews. And yet, without Jews, the idiot changed his name, within Spanish culture, to a sort of virtuous BLM signal for Spanish speakers, decades before BLM emerged in the US. In other words, black lives were of the utmost importance to this neochristian.

Categories
Quotable quotes

Quotable quote

‘Christianity, in its current form, is White Genocide’. —Gaedhal

Categories
Catholic Church Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books)

Christianity’s Criminal History, 157

 
The formation of the Church-State by wars and pillage

‘But be vigilant, my children, strive earnestly to take part in what we desire! For you know that he who is on the other side will be excluded from eternal life’. —Pope Stephen II

‘The struggle for Christ and the Church is assigned to the Franks as their historic vocation’—John Haller


Plaque marking the casket containing Liutprand’s
bones in San Pietro in Ciel d’Oro in Pavia.

 

Papal negotiations between Byzantium, Longobards and Franks

While the dispute over the images was raging in Byzantium and its repercussions were shaking Byzantine Italy, King Liutprand was trying to seize the opportunity to extend the Longobard kingdom throughout Italy, especially in Emilia and Romagna. He systematically annexed Byzantine territory, conquered castle after castle, and strengthened his authority over the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento. In short, he continually increased his political power within and beyond his borders. And when in 732 (or 733) Liutprand first conquered Ravenna—which had been in Byzantine hands for almost two hundred years and the exarch fled to the Venetian lagoons—the ally proved too dangerous for the Papacy…

Liutprand was a pious person, a faithful Catholic, a friend of the priests and an outspoken promoter of the Church. He erected a domestic chapel in his palace and was the first Longobard king to procure private chaplains. He instituted ecclesiastics ‘to celebrate daily divine service for him’ (Paul the Deacon). One of his relatives was the bishop of Pavia. He was generous with the clergy. He founded monasteries, built many churches which he decorated and practised the superstitious cult of relics. A prologue to his laws opens with a biblical quotation. And in a later prologue he expressly presents himself as a defender of the Roman Catholic faith. Gregory II fought against the return of the nuns to civil life, and Liutprand supported him with a relevant law…

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note: Contrary to what we were told as children, Christianity was imposed on whites through royal power. This vindicates what I said yesterday: that only a brutal iconoclasm ordered by a Fourth Reich could cure the white man from the mental virus that is Christianity.

______ 卐 ______

Transamundus II had forcibly deposed his father Farvald in 724, imposing on him the tonsure and entry into the clerical state. When Liutprand advanced against him (738-739), set fire to the Pentapolis and ravaged Spoleto, Transamundus took refuge with the pope, who put the Roman army at his disposal against Liutprand. Liutprand in turn stormed into the Roman duchy, sacking it and conquering its castles on the northern frontier. And war broke out everywhere, both in Roman territory and in the lands of Ravenna. It is true that Transamundus provisionally (in December 740) conquered its capital and killed the new duke Hilderic, instituted by Liutprand. But the pope, who also used his bishops in the Longobard kingdom against his sovereign, was wary of the king’s power and appealed to the Frankish prince Charles Martell, who was far away but strong.

The Frankish steward, who from 720 undisputedly controlled the whole kingdom and fought almost without pause—also involving the Church to a large extent and using the monasteries as bridgeheads (Schwarzach, Gengenbach, Schuttem, the abbey of Reichenau)—saw the expansion of his authority and the spread of Christianity as inextricably linked. To put it briefly, Charles had become the most powerful man in Europe, and so accustomed was he to war and conquest that, as contemporary sources expressly note, there was hardly a year without war (namely 740). And that man appeared precisely as the true patron and protector of Christ’s representative.

So Gregory III tried repeatedly in 739 and 740 to incite Charles Martell against Liutprand, although the two were personal friends. The pope dreamed of unshackling Rome from the Byzantine empire and offered Charles the collation of the Roman consulship as well as the rank of patrician. Gregory III, who persisted in his efforts until his death (‘In no age’, a Frankish chronicler comments flatteringly, ‘was such a thing ever heard of or seen’) appealed in vain to Charles. The latter, who was little devoted to the Church, who was genealogically related to the Longobards, who was allied with and a friend of Liutprand, who in 737 adopted his son Pipin, remained completely deaf to the first call for papal help and died before a second could eventually reach him.

Among the ancestors of the Carolingians, Charles is the only one whom later ecclesiastical authors condemn, casting him into hell for all eternity because of the systematic reduction of the ecclesiastical patrimony due to him (precaria verba regis). In his lifetime this was interpreted in a completely different way, even if he had one of his ecclesiastical relatives beheaded, Abbot Wido, who, according to the monastic chronicle, was more fond of hunting and war than of divine service. Of course, he didn’t have him beheaded for that, but a conspiracy against Charles. What we know for sure is that he was far from being a stubborn enemy of the Church. We know of eight donations of goods, which he made to him personally.

European beauty

Lauterbrunnen, Switzerland

Categories
Christian art Constantinople Eastern Orthodox Church Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books)

Christianity’s Criminal History, 156

 
The papal revolution fails

The mass of the clergy naturally knew that their power rested above all on the magic of the cause, on the beautiful appearance, on the outward and sensible charm of religious services; therefore they had to stand by the people, who venerated the sacred images.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: This is a continuation of the pages on Byzantine iconoclasm. Religious art is propaganda and the lesson is clear. If you want the masses to change their paradigm, you have to destroy not only their Christian art, but their neochristian art as well (virtually all Hollywood movies, all American music and degenerate Western music of today, etc.). The burning of books should be as public as the Nazis did. But who among the so-called white nationalists thinks so radically? (a clue: they are still Judaeo-Christians or neochristians). Deschner continues:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Gregory’s irritation wasn’t exclusively for theological reasons, but also very specific material reasons. Emperor Leo III successfully defended Constantinople by land and sea (717-718) against the Arabs in one of the most decisive slaughters in world history. And so Asia Minor, which gradually freed itself from Islamic rule in a series of annual campaigns, remained Byzantine and Christian for almost seven centuries. To balance its finances after the war against the Arabs, new taxes had to be imposed; this affected above all the Roman Church, which with its extensive territorial holdings was the leading economic power in Italy…

The monarch had an image of Christ replaced by a cross at the entrance to his palace. But Pope Gregory II was the real leader of Italy in the uprising against his lord, he was ‘the head of the Italian revolution’ (Hartmann). So ‘Be subject to authority’ no longer counted; what counted was ‘It is necessary to obey God rather than men’. And in practice God is always where the pope is! And the pope not only encouraged the patriarch of Constantinople, St Germanus, to fight against the emperor, but he called on the whole world, and so civil war broke out everywhere…

Consequently the exarch Paulus was ordered to depose Gregory from his papal chair. But when the Ravenna militia arrived, the pope opposed them with a league of Italian soldiers and Longboards. Imperial governors and officials were expelled from Venice, Ravenna and Rome, and Byzantine troops in Benevento and Spoleto. The exarch Paulus was eliminated by murderous hands. His generals were also eliminated. Doge Exhileratus and his son Adrian, excommunicated for years by the pope because of irregular marriage, were seized and killed by the Roman militia. The Roman doge Petrus had his eyes gouged out for having written to the emperor ‘against the pope’. The uprising triumphed everywhere: His Holiness and the Longboards rose in common rebellion against the emperor…

But the emperor eventually overpowered the rebellion. He seized all the pope’s patrimony in southern Italy, with Sicily alone representing a loss of 350 pounds of gold.

The dispute over images continued throughout Leo’s reign and became even more acute under his son and successor Constantine V (741-776), called Ikonokiastes, the destroyer of images (and also Kopronymos, for having soiled the water at his baptism, and Caballinus because he liked the smell of horse manure). It is true that when in 742 an iconodule usurper rose, his brother-in-law Artabasdos kept Rome on the side of the iconoclast emperor and had the eyes of the vanquished and his sons gouged out, and Pope Zacharias bequeathed a generous donation of land. Constantine, who took an active part in the long-standing dispute and who showed a remarkable interest in theological questions, had the invocation of the saints and Mary banned and all images of the saints removed or destroyed from the churches.

This emperor especially persecuted the monks, who were all the more fanatical supporters of the cult of images because they had an economic monopoly on the manufacture of icons. The monasteries were expropriated and closed, transformed into barracks and bathing facilities, or destroyed, as was the case with the monasteries of Kallistratos, Dios, Maximinos, and others. Their inhabitants had to choose between giving up their habits and taking wives or being blinded and banished. In Ephesus, nuns and monks were forced to marry and others were executed with the backing of a council held in Constantinople in 754…

The ‘blood and fire’ struggle culminated in the 760s. Abbot Stephanos of Mount Auxentius, leader of the iconodule opposition, was lynched in the streets of Constantinople in November 765. In August 766 alone, sixteen high-ranking officials and officers, supporters of the cult of images, were executed. The following year the head of the patriarch Constantine was also rolled into the palace. The emperor had already had him flogged…

Constantine, clean-shaven and wearing a derisory sleeveless dress, was led through the streets on a donkey to the hippodrome, where he was insulted and spat upon by the entire Christian populace. The donkey was led by the halter by his nephew Constantine, whose nose had been cut off. ‘When he arrived in front of the circus games, they came down from their seats, spat on him and threw filth at him. At the stop in front of the imperial tribune, they threw him off his horse and stepped on the back of his neck’. At the end of the month the man disavowed his belief, and after demanding reparation, he was beheaded. His corpse was dragged through the streets to the slaughterhouse of the executed and his head hung by the ears for three days as a public chastisement.

Isn’t this kind Christianity? Yes: that happened in Byzantium, but how were things in Rome?

Categories
Theology

The Calvinist god

by Gaedhal

I am not overstating the case when I say that the Calvinist god hates you. It is a tenet of Calvinist theology that Yahweh is at enmity with his creation. We are born, children of wrath. Yahweh has us in his wrath scope from the moment that we are born. Calvinist idiots like Voddie Baucham speak of infants as ‘vipers in diapers’.

YouTuber Pinecreek (Doug) once said that he likes Voddie Baucham. I can honestly say that I like none of these people.

Why is Yahweh at enmity with his creation? Because he decreed this enmity with his creation even before the foundation of the world.

The stupidity and evilness of the Calvinist god! He decreed to be at enmity with his own creation instead of decreeing to be at peace and concord with his own creation.

Yahweh decreed the Fall, in Calvinism.

If a god is at enmity with you; if a god wants to damn you to hell forever, for his own sovereign glory, then, to me, this is the same thing as his hating you. The Calvinist god, although not real, might as well be, as he resides in the minds of millions of his deluded devotees, causing them to do some really harmful stuff. Thus, it is okay to hate the Calvinist god back.
 

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note:

As I recently said in the comments section of another article by Gaedhal, incredible as it may seem, the answer to all this could be found in my autobiography, on the page where I quote a Swiss writer who asks the question, ‘Why does mankind worship such horrible gods?’

The Swiss woman implies that it is precisely because we had horrible biological parents. Remember that the idea of divinity is nothing but a parental projection. If our parents behave well, we will have the gods of Olympus. But if they behave badly, as they have done since Constantine, the projection will be towards evil gods. Or hasn’t Gaedhal read what I wrote in Day of Wrath about psychohistory?

The key to all this is that white nationalists living in the US will never save their DNA as long as they continue to believe in and worship the Calvinist god.

Categories
Film

Second of His Name

‘Second of His Name’ is the third and last episode of House of the Dragon I watch. I have a movie-watching rule that I violated when watching the first three episodes: if a black man appears in a prominent position, stop watching the movie or the show. Next Sunday I will no longer watch the fourth episode. I don’t regret watching all 73 episodes of Game of Thrones because, at least in that series, the world was a white man’s world. The prequel on the other hand has already gone completely Woke.

The first scene that bothered me in this third and final episode of House of the Dragon that I watch shows us the blonde princess who doesn’t want to get married. When did that happen in medieval times? As usual, the producers of contemporary films only know how to retro-project the zeitgeist of our century into a non-existent past.

The king now has a blond, male toddler, and yet he doesn’t change his mind about leaving the throne to his daughter who doesn’t want to marry. Again: when in the Middle Ages did such a thing ever happen? ‘It is not my wish to command her, I want her to be happy’—the blonde king talking about his little blonde princess.

Then comes absolute surrealism.

Up to this point in the episode, everyone is a beautiful white human. A subject speaks to the king recommending that the princess marry Ser Laenor Velaryon. The problem is that the Jewish director, as we saw in my posts about the previous episodes, changed the skin colour of the Velaryon family: from hyper-Nordic to mulatto. But most surreal are the words of the subject advising the king: ‘Laenor is of pure Valyria descent’. By ‘Valyria descent’, the text in Martin’s universe on which that line might be based, the novelist would mean ‘pure Norse’. But Ser Laenor’s actor is nothing less than a mulatto. Again: if white people are fans of this new series it is because they are the worst generation of whites since prehistoric times.

Then, in the episode, the princess stabs a boar that attacked her. I’m sure the writers were inspired by real-life medieval events, especially considering that the virgin princess camped alone with a male knight in the middle of the night! Then the king’s wife influences the king to enter a direct war he had wanted to avoid. Again: cute women calling the shots for the crown. Then the Negroes appear for the first time in this episode, those nobles of House Velaryon who in Martin’s prose are hyper-Nordic (in the image above these Velaryon flank the rogue prince, who belongs to another feudal house).

Fortunately, the battle we see afterwards is so absurd that this prequel is probably not going to have anywhere near the fame that Game of Thrones had. One thing is clear: the Jew who has directed House of the Dragon is far worse than the pair of Jews who directed Game of Thrones.