web analytics

Category: Film

Categories
Film

The power to *see* the past

Recently I used the three-eyed raven symbol, a fictional character in A Song of Ice and Fire, to make a point. I would like to continue clarifying it.

Last week I mentioned three American junk culture fans who didn’t understand what Yezen wanted to convey about Game of Thrones. One of the criticisms of these guys refers to the penultimate season of GoT, the seventh, claiming that it was implausible that Sansa and Arya outwitted Littlefinger. The problem is that this season suppressed a crucial scene:

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.

When I saw the scene of Season 7 when Littlefinger was executed after a summary trial, I filled the blank assuming they had consulted Bran. But apparently others did not fill it with their imagination, such as the aforementioned fans arguing with Yezen. But the point is that this fantastic story serves to explain the power of ‘seeing’ the past, the power of The West’s Darkest Hour (WDH).

The history of the West, as I have been saying, is as if the Night King had killed the three-eyed crows. (This is a title rather than a special person. Originally, the one who held the title was the old mummified guy among a tree’s roots. When he died his young pupil, Bran, inherited the title of the three-eyed raven—or ‘crow’ in George R.R. Martin’s novels.)

Unlike GoT, the real history of the West is tragic. It is as if Sansa, without consulting her brother Bran, would have gutted Arya by believing the apocryphal story of Littlefinger. This is so as, for more than a millennium, all westerners have believed the stories of martyrs, and that the Christianisation of southern Europe was peaceful. As we have seen on this site, it was actually a story as violent as the bloodthirsty conquest of India by Islam. Conversely, the Christian martyr stories are largely fictional. (In addition to Evropa Soberana’s essay of Judea against Rome in The Fair Race, see what Deschner says about the stories of martyrs in this book.) In other words, what the Aryans have believed about Christian history is an exact inversion of the facts, and the objective of inverting history in this way is for the Aryans to invert their values from these lies, as it tragically happened.

The metaphor makes sense. In this parallel GoT story, Arya (the Aryans) was killed by Sansa (her white sister) for believing the apocryphal story of Littlefinger (curiously, Littlefinger seemed like a Jew for a commenter on this site). The business of WDH is to set the record straight with respect to what happened in the 1st to 6th centuries of our era, when Christianity was imposed in southern Europe not through Jesus-like methods but through extremely violent and even genocidal methods. (Since I also mention the 1st century, I not only refer to the texts of Evropa Soberana or Deschner but also to what Richard Carrier wrote about the inexistence of Jesus.)

The problem is that not even the so-called anti-Semites of white nationalism believe Bran. They still believe Littlefinger so to speak. Who among them is interested in knowing what happened in the 1st to 6th centuries (this is one of the reasons I call them ‘Jew obeyers’)?

By the way, although on one occasion I identified myself with the three-eyed raven, since it is only a title, the identification is not absolute. On this continent, before me the crow was William Pierce, who died at 68, for having seen the past in Who We Are. And after I die the ‘title’ must pass to a younger pupil, a Bran so to speak.

I wouldn’t like to finish this symbolic post without the scene in which, thanks to Bran’s retrocognitive vision, his Stark House executes Littlefinger, the master of palatial intrigues and lies. In the real world, the equivalent would be for Westerners to take very seriously what Evropa Soberana (the ‘crow’ on the other side of the Atlantic) has written. The power to see the past as it happened has the potential to change the ethno-suicidal paradigm, and the first thing to do is to ‘execute’ the false story about early Christianity:

https://youtu.be/ExkPxHxcP3Q

Categories
Film

Andrei Rublev

As in my central article this day I mention Andrei Rublev, as an introduction I would like to quote the words of a young YouTube film critic: ‘…Andrei’s personal struggle and what he eventually learns. Andrei loses his faith not in God, but in man, and in rejecting man, he is without an audience. He has no voice, no one to communicate to. His [vow of] silence is more than literal. Without empathy for those he minsters to, he cannot effectively minister’.
 

Saturday postscript:

Yesterday I saw, once again, the prologue of Andrei Rublev, the hot air balloon ride, and the first part that film, ‘The Jester’: scenes located in the year 1400 (tonight I’ll probably continue to watch other parts).

When I turned on the television, before, I got to see a few moments of Batman v Superman and a thought occurred to me that could perfectly cover a much longer article, but here I will try to summarise it.

When I was a child in the 1960s I saw TV series like Daniel Boone and Custer. Alas, Jerry Siegel, born in Ohio to a Jewish family, inaugurated a new genre by creating the fictional superhero Superman: a genre that seeped through the decades, including Adventures of Superman that I also used to watch as a child.

Historical figures Boone and Custer would be equivalent, on American soil, to the message of Rublev on Russian soil; with the difference that Russia, as a nation, is much older than the US and therefore has much deeper roots. Regardless of whether the US is a young nation, the Jew Siegel inaugurated a super-toxic genre that injured American consciousness about epics such as the conflict with the Indians in Boone and Custer: the realistic heroes before the ‘superheroes’ multiplied among fans. (Now you see that many YouTubers show hundreds of plastic miniatures of such ‘superheroes’ as the background of their shows!)

As I said, this could be the basis for writing a longer article. But the contrast between those minutes that I came to see of the toxic Batman v Superman and, immediately afterwards, the Russian film cannot better describe what I want to convey. I mean the corruption of the mentality of the American people from the Jewish quarter and, let’s face it, from the Americans themselves who swallowed the terrible poison that the ‘superheroes’ has represented to replace the heroes of their real history, such as Boone and Custer.

Using my words, and pace Trevor Lynch (Greg Johnson), the priest of the 14 words should never watch poisonous pop culture but movies depicting flesh and blood men, like Rublev.

Categories
Egypt Film Hate James Mason

About Nick Fuentes (and more)

‘We are not the Alt Right—AR was a racialist, atheist, post-American, revolutionary, and transnational movement. America First is a traditionalist, Christian, conservative, reformist, American Nationalist movement’.

—Nick Fuentes

What I translated in the other post today about the extreme puritanical behaviour among the ancient Vandals reaffirms what was said in my previous entries of the ignorance in the secular Alt-Right about some elemental history of the Aryan race.

Sexual debauchery in Greece and Rome only happened when those great civilisations were interbreeding with their racial inferiors. Before miscegenation, both Greco-Romans and ancient Germanic tribes, such as the Vandals and those mentioned by Tacitus, were extremely puritanical (sex with inferior races also doomed Ancient Egypt; see below). This is why I feel far more at home with Christians like Nick Fuentes than with those secular racialists whose sexual mores strike me as degenerate. Yesterday, for example, self-styled nihilist Jean-François Gariépy counter-signalled Fuentes about open homosexuality. JFG, of course, is tragically wrong. Aryan civilisation can only be built upon the solid rock of norms that regulate Eros, as the Nazis also understood.

But I am not a Christian. Below I quote a recent Robert Morgan comment on Unz Review about how Christianity could end; the last paragraphs of Evropa Soberana’s article on Egypt, and I offer my opinion about a Stormfront post about Wikipedia and Nick Fuentes’ Christianity. Morgan wrote:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

My view is similar to yours, that the empty pews are a sign that the West is turning away from Christianity. Unfortunately for the white race though, while belief in Christ and miracles is fading, the Christian moral vision of universal racial equality is stronger than ever. It has sunk into the culture, and is believed without questioning even by atheists.

In order to save the white race, that belief too would have to be completely extirpated, torn out by the roots. [But] Christianity and the culture it spawned is so useful to the success of empire that it’s hard to envision conditions under which that could happen.

It would be such a radical change in worldview that it would probably take (or even cause?) the collapse of civilization itself, similar to the way it happened when Rome fell. The Christian takeover resulted in the loss of about 99% percent of Latin literature, and 90% of Greek. Temples to pagan gods, some architectural wonders of the ancient world, were looted and pulled down. Priceless statuary and art was vandalized or smashed. Philosophers were tortured and executed, their writings banned and consigned to the flames.

Now imagine something similar happening to all the Christian churches; the Pope dragged out of his lair, tortured and executed; the Vatican a heap of smouldering ruins, its wealth confiscated, any art it contained smashed to pieces; banning and burning all copies of the Bible, and any Christian writings based on or referring to it; killing all the priests.

That’s what it would take to really get rid of Christianity. Then, and only then, could we say that Jesus is as dead as Zeus. Yet so long as the myth of racial equality was useful, I suspect empire would merely adopt another belief system to justify it.

[Editor’s note: ‘The myth of racial equality was useful’. So true. I also have wondered what was the primary cause of white malaise: Jewish subversion in the form of the gospel message or simply Constantine using the most effective weapon of the empire, Judeo-Christianity, to control whites? Remember how he moved the capital from white Rome to an increasing mud place, Byzantium—just what our elites are trying to do today!]

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The image below belongs to an unknown man of the V Dynasty. This racial type, neither Semitic nor Negroid, with dark hair and European features and identical to that found in Etruscan or Iberian art, was probably the predominant in the middle classes of ancient Egyptian society.

What happened to Egypt? Why did it fall after millennia of splendour? As with all the decline and falls of civilisations the answer lies in biology in general and genetics in particular.

In 1296 BCE the Egyptians conquered Nubia (Southern Negro inhabitants), building a series of forts to protect borders and control insurrections. At one point it was forbidden for any Nubian to cross the border and enter Egypt. Over time, as it is obvious in Egyptian art, black slaves were imported. As always, a low birth rate among the Egyptian nobility, a high birth rate among black slaves and Semites, and the miscegenation produced by the relaxation of the warrior, aristocratic and dominant mentality, cursed Egypt. Finally, in 200 years Egypt went from being a great civilisation to disappearing from the map of civilised nations, at the mercy of stronger foreign powers.

Until 1050 BCE, all the pharaohs had been predominantly white. With the advent of the XXV Dynasty and the ‘black pharaohs’, who had a brief and decadent reign of 75 years, during which they built stunted 20 meter high pyramids (the great pyramid of Cheops, coming from the good times of the true pharaohs, measured 146 meters), the original genetic and biological substrate that had created the civilisation was drowned forever in the dense thicket of dark blood.

In 343 BCE the last native king was deposed by the Persians. From then on, the confused and uprooted ‘Egyptian’ mass passed at the hands of Persians, then to the Greco-Macedonians (here they experienced a new boom, expressed in the emergence of Hellenic blood, the city of Alexandria and the time of Cleopatra, a Macedonian), then Roman, Arab, Turkish, English and, finally, American guardianship under Mubarak, until he was deposed by the rebellions of January 2011. Under the Islamist shadow the future of the country is more uncertain than ever.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

I capitalised the words originally written in lowercase on Stormfront:

Wikipedia is owned by a Jewish atheist called Jimmy Wales. He also owns a porn website and that is how he earned his millions yet he downplays this and the majority of public doesn’t know about it. He is a con man.

The whole of Wikipedia is liberal and owned by a liberal crew of elite editors who deny race exists. Just look at any race article to see that. Wiki bans any white nationalist, etc., and they consider any racial view as “fringe” and they heavily edit and suppress any info like that coming into Wikipedia. If you want to see an example of this, then see the white nationalism, race realism article or something like the multiregional hypothesis article where they troll any new edits and are not neutral on the subject.

This explains a lot, but not everything.

As before discovering white nationalism I edited Wikipedia a few years, I eventually realised that the real trick lies in its policy of what they call ‘reliable sources’. In plain English, ‘reliable sources’ are nothing other than what throughout Christendom was called Imprimatur and Nihil obstat: it was only possible to publish with the approval of the Catholic Church.

Exactly the same happens on Wikipedia today, with the difference that now Christianity no longer holds the monopoly of the media but Judaism. For example, you can only reference wiki-articles with publications that come from official journals and publishing houses of the System.

But what’s exactly the problem with that? See my rephrasing of Tom Sunic in my Wikipedia user page: ‘Regarding this encyclopaedia’s policy of “reliable sources”, it has become a customary procedure for the System to relegate free thinkers and would-be heretics and their literary or scientific achievements to marginal outlets, such as self-publishing, that are very similar to those used by dissidents in the ex-Soviet Union’.

Since the controlled media is at the hands of Jewry, the ‘reliable sources’ policy means that every wiki-article dealing with social issues must be, de facto, Kosher approved. That’s why no unbiased article that touches white identity can be fixed on Wikipedia.
 

Against Fuentes’ religion

Let’s go back to Nick Fuentes. The chasm that separates me from American racialists is so great that the only way to get past it would be, for at least one of them, to read the autobiographical books that I will soon begin to translate.

In short, it is a ‘psychogenic’ chasm. If we compare the life of a racialist like Fuentes with a typical Hollywood comedy, my film would be as heavily existential as what we can see in a Russian film, Andrei Rublev, located when Russia was still in the Middle Ages. If a time machine were possible so that Rublev, who existed in real life, could talk to an American today, it would be seen that my analogy of the two films is spot-on: a psychogenic chasm separates the two minds in an impassable way.

Compared to ‘Rublev’, Fuentes, who has reproduced rap music in his shows, is frivolous as he likes the movies that Hollywood has produced in recent times. He not only ignores European and Russian cinema, but even the old American cinema that I saw as a child. What’s worse, Fuentes has said that the United States ‘is a Christian nation’. In a recent interview with a black Youtuber, another Christian, who asked him if he hated Jews, Fuentes replied that he hated no one but loved everyone, including the Jews.

Like every Christian and neochristian, Fuentes ignores that love is murdering the white race. Moreover, like almost every American racialist Fuentes is ignorant about the history of Christianity: a history of genocidal hatred. Next week I will publish a translation about the complete extermination of two Aryan peoples, the Vandals and the Ostrogoths, perpetrated by a non-Aryan emperor, Justinian, in the 6th century. To my knowledge, neither Fuentes nor any racially conscious Christian knows that black page of the history of their Church. Almost nobody in the movement seems to be concerned with the historical facts, how the Aryan man betrayed their white Gods to worship the god of those who wanted to exterminate them.

Even those who ignore the history of their religion could see that there is a sort of schizophrenia on being Jew-wise and obeying, at the same time, the god of the Jews. Alas, no Christian in the movement wants to heal from such doublethink. In the livestream of the Groypers in Florida, for example, he who surreptitiously recorded that recent event rebelled against the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ expressed by Charlie Kirk. Something as absolutely obvious as that all holy New Testament characters are Jewish doesn’t seem to cause any internal conflict among them.

I don’t think people like Fuentes and company are going to heal themselves from their divided Judeo-Christian minds. Even the author of Siege, so acclaimed by would-be revolutionaries, suffers an acute stage of the disease. This Wednesday, in an interview with Invictus, James Mason’s last words were: ‘…and wait until the return of the Lord. It is very, very near’.

It doesn’t matter that Mason, who has become a Christian identist (see his latest book When We Were All Jews), was brilliant in other parts of the interview. It has to happen what Revilo Oliver said: only a catastrophe that causes suffering for many decades could move the surviving whites to really question their ethno-suicidal paradigm.

For example, despite having defended Richard Spencer last week, even he, a secular racialist, goes on to say that when whites have their empire again, the coloured should be helped outside the ethnostate! I heard that in another interview with Invictus. The interview was recorded after the Spencer scandal I mentioned last Friday. Spencer’s comments on this out-group altruism, which I label neochristian insofar as pre-Christian whites didn’t suffer it, can be listened almost at the end of the interview. Incidentally, ‘Feast’, part IV of Andrei Rublev, depicts beautifully a large group of pre-Christians conducting a lit-torch ritual for midsummer in a magical night: visual art that the likes of Fuentes will never appreciate.

Rublev comforts Boriska, breaking his vow of silence.

Let there be no doubt: American racialists need decades of continuous suffering à la Rublev to give up their little paradigm, as Robert Morgan imagined above. If out-group love is murdering the white race let us transvalue Christian values. Only out-group hatred will save us: paradoxically, the core of ‘the 4 words’ in my final books.

Hopefully, the crash of the dollar and energy devolution will do the Oliver trick…

Categories
Film Mainstream media

Joker: a destructive review

If the media and Hollywood are in the hands of the Jewish quarter, it is only justified to watch television programs or movies to indicate where the bad messages are, which was what I did with Game of Thrones, in addition to using the TV series to change the subject and talk about matters that interest me.

Exactly the same can be said of Joker, a film I used in the previous week to talk about my subjects, such as a model of the trauma of mental disorders. Regarding a film review per se, there is not much to talk about Joker except to point out the bad messages.

The most conspicuous is that the white Arthur Fleck apparently fancies a mulatto woman: the worst possible bad message for a white audience. In fact, it is not even necessary to try to find another bad message in Joker since miscegenation is the greatest conceivable self-betrayal.

Moreover, Joker’s final scene is a sort of disclaimer, as Richard Spencer was told in this video. This means the movie is not even valiant, as they have been saying on social media. Remember what a commenter recently said here, that almost all movies after 1969 must be destroyed in the ethnostate.

I would include Joker among them.

Categories
Civil war Film Real men

‘That we won’t werewolf…’


Dr. Sally: Oh, no, no, no. No, you can’t joke about that.

Murray Franklin: Yeah, that’s not funny, Arthur. That’s not the kind of humor we do on this show.

Joker: Okay. Yeah, I’m sorry. It’s just, you know, it’s been a rough few weeks, Murray. Ever since I killed those three Wall Street guys.

[Pause.]

Murray Franklin: Okay, I’m waiting for the punchline.

Joker: There is no punchline. It’s not a joke.

Murray Franklin: You’re serious, aren’t you? You’re telling us you killed those three young men on the subway?

Joker: Mm-hmm.

Murray Franklin: And why should we believe you?

Joker: I’ve got nothing left to lose. Nothing can hurt me anymore.

[He smiles.]

Joker: My life is nothing but a comedy.

Murray Franklin: Let me get this straight, you think that killing those guys is funny?

Joker: I do. And I’m tired of pretending it’s not. Comedy is subjective, Murray. Isn’t that what they say? All of you, the System that knows so much, you decide what’s right or wrong. The same way that you decide what’s funny or not.

Audience Member: Get him off!

Murray Franklin: Okay, I think, my understanding, that you did this to start a movement to become a symbol?

Joker: Come on, Murray. Do I look like the kind of clown that could start a movement? I killed those guys because they were awful. Everybody is awful these days. It’s enough to make anyone crazy.

Murray Franklin: Okay, so that’s it. You’re crazy. That’s your defense for killing three young men?

Joker: No. They couldn’t carry a tune to save their lives.

[The audience starts booing.]

Joker: Oh, why is everybody so upset about these guys? If it was me dying on the sidewalk, you’d walk right over me. I pass you everyday and you don’t notice me! But these guys, what, because [the very wealthy] Thomas Wayne went and cried about them on TV?

Murray Franklin: Do you have a problem with Thomas Wayne?

Joker: Yes, I do. Have you seen what it’s like out there, Murray? Do you ever actually leave the studio? Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore! Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit down and take it like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!

Murray Franklin: You finished? I mean, there’s so much self-pity, Arthur, you sound like you’re making excuses for killing those young men.

Not everybody, and I’ll tell you this, not everyone is awful.

Joker: But you’re awful, Murray.

Murray Franklin: Me? I’m awful? Oh, yeah? How am I awful?

Joker: Playing my video. Inviting me on this show. You just wanted to make fun of me. You’re just like the rest of them.

Murray Franklin: You don’t know the first thing about me, pal. Look what happened because of what you did? What it led to. There are riots out there. Two policemen are in critical condition.

[Arthur starts to laugh.]

Murray Franklin: You’re laughing. You’re laughing. Someone was killed today because of what you did.

Joker: I know…

How about another joke, Murray?

Murray Franklin: No, I think we’ve had enough of your jokes.

Joker: What do you get…

Murray Franklin: I don’t think so.

Joker: …when you cross…

Murray Franklin: I think we’re done with the show. That’s it.

Joker: …a mentally ill loner with a society that abandons him and treats him like trash?!

Murray Franklin: Call the police, Gene. Call the police.

Joker: I’ll tell you what you get! You get what you fucking deserve!

[Suddenly Arthur Freck, the Joker, shoots Murray in the head and the audience starts running off in terror. After killing Murray, the Joker, goes to a camera and points it at himself.]

Joker: Goodnight. And always remember, that’s…

[He gets cut off as the show is cut. After Arthur murders Murray live on TV, as riots break out across Gotham, the Waynes leave a movie theater and a clown rioter follows them down an alley.]

Clown Rioter: Hey, Wayne. You get what you fucking deserve.

[Points his gun at Thomas…]

Thomas Wayne: No, pal!

[He shoots both Thomas and his wife, Martha, in front of young Bruce, the future Batman: protector of the System. LOL!]

Categories
Child abuse Film Psychiatry

Joker, Molyneux and CC

Or:

An opportunity to present the trauma model
 

In recent years I don’t usually go to the movies. If there is something I say to my nephews when I see them it is that, in the media and the cinema, all the messages are bad. But yesterday I broke my habit after watching Stefan Molyneux’s video about the Joker movie.

I am glad that, as Molyneux confessed in one of his latest videos, eighty percent of his audience dropped last year. Is it because of his dishonesty about the JQ? Whatever caused the drop, from alt-lite to neo-Nazism, passing through white nationalism, Molyneux is the only notable personality in our underworld who has consistently talked about child abuse.

As the visitors of this blogsite know, I spent more decades investigating child abuse than the single decade I’ve dedicated to investigating the darkest hour in the West: whose report, The Fair Race, now appears as a free PDF. Since my oldest specialty is the subject of child abuse I must say that what Molyneux tells us in his one-hour video is, in general terms, correct.

The video revolves around the character Arthur Fleck / Joker, a mentally-ill man who dreams to become a stand-up comedian but so disregarded by a hellish and diverse Gotham City that decides to become a criminal. Curiously, the actor Joaquin Phoenix did not look to previous Joker actors for inspiration: he simply read some reports about political assassinations.

Hollywood movies usually lack psychological realism. For example, in the 1989 Jack Nicholson movie the Joker origin story simply falls into a vat of acid. The 2019 movie, on the other hand, gives its central character a plausible origin. So plausible that the film has been described as reminiscent of mass shootings in the US, and the incel community loved it. What’s more, some people from the establishment have expressed concern that Joker could inspire real-world violence.

In a moment of the first minutes of his video, Molyneux confesses that he has received horrific verbal abuse just for mentioning the naked facts of his own childhood, and that hostility toward those who were abused as children or teenagers is not uncommon if the adult victim dares to open his mouth.

At this point I would like to distinguish between dysfunctional parents and schizogenic parents, that is, parents who literally murder their children’s souls. While almost everyone I know comes from family dysfunction in one way or another, the category of schizogenic parents simply does not exist in our society. Since the 1950s the Big Pharma has ensured that civil society does not find out that there is a trauma model to understand the mental disorder that competes with its profitable medical model.

But what does all this have to do with the recent film Joker? As can be deduced from Molyneux’s video, and regardless of the sinister motivation of its Jewish creators, the film could be used, by us, to present the trauma model to the public. I was the one who started this Wikipedia article on the trauma model, an academic text that appeals to the left hemisphere of our brains. He who wants to delve deeper into this research line, and in a more literary way, can read my book Day of Wrath. On the other hand, he who prefers a personal testimony that presents the trauma model appealing to our right hemisphere could read John Modrow’s touching autobiography, How to Become a Schizophrenic.

Furthermore, he who is unwilling even to read any the above literature, but willing to educate himself on the subject having some fun, could see the films Shine (1996), Monster (2003), The Piano Teacher (2001) and even Artificial Intelligence by Spielberg, which can be used to grasp what proponents of the trauma model call ‘the problem of attachment to the perpetrator’.

Although it may seem incredible, sometimes fairy tales portray the destructive interaction of parents with their children. In almost all fairy tales, including modern fairy tales like Kubrick/Spielberg’s A.I. or Harry Potter, the parental figure is substituted so as not to touch it directly. In the case of the Potter series the abusers are Harry’s uncle and aunt. As to David, the child robot in A.I., obviously he had no biological parents but Monica functions like a substitute mother. But sometimes the storyteller sneaks parents directly into the story as the villains who abandon their children (for example in Tom Thumb).

But there are more serious forms of abuse than abandoning your child in the woods, what also happened to David. What Molyneux says about not forgiving schizogenic parents is true. I would go as far as to claim that to forgive such parents is the most toxic thing for the mental health of the victim. Mine is an opposed claim to what the establishment wants us to believe.

Why is the forgiveness that religionists and therapists preach so toxic? Because it is the abusive parents and society the ones who are currently murdering young souls. As the Armenian lawyer said in Spotlight, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2015: ‘This city, these people [Boston people] are making the rest of us feel like we don’t belong. But they’re no better than us. Look at how they treat their children. Mark my words, Mr. Rezendes [another Armenian]: If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one’ (emphasis added).

For the victim, unilaterally forgiving the perpetrator or a society that never accepts its soul-murdering sins is simply a betrayal of oneself and the other adult victims, now suffering from mental stress and even disorders.

In addition to the first minutes of Molyneux’s video, using as a paradigm the Joker’s abusive interaction with his mother Penny in Gotham City, Molyneux advances ideas analogous to what I have known for a long time. Watch also the segments after minute 35 of his video: how female evil is still taboo in the film industry.

It is curious to note the chasm between those who, like Molyneux and I, have investigated child abuse due to our past, and those who did not have such destructive parenting.

Greg Johnson for example is a Batfan. In his recent review of Joker, which he writes under the penname of Trevor Lynch, Johnson prefers Heath Ledger’s Joker in the 2008 The Dark Knight than the Joker of the movie released this month. Johnson expresses very derogatory of this latest Joker: ‘You’d want to squash him like a bug’. ‘Ledger’s Joker launched a million memes, both because of his character and his lines. Phoenix’s Joker will have no such influence. He’s a pathetic nobody with nothing to say’. ‘Arthur [the Joker] is entirely absorbed in self-pity’. ‘Joker is a boring movie about a disgusting loser’.

Well, it didn’t look boring to me… But the commenters on Counter-Currents who opined about Johnson’s review said very similar things: ‘People like him deserve to get left behind by society, and the true tragedy of this movie is that successful, well-adjusted men like Thomas Wayne insist on trying to love the Arthur Flecks of the world and take care of them’. Really? The conservative commenter also said: ‘The defects like Arthur would be put in mental asylums and [eugenically] sterilized’. [1]

Such commenters remind me that, in the movie, Thomas Wayne, the billionaire father of the future Batman, labels those Gotham residents envious of the wealthy as ‘clowns’, not only the Joker. I don’t know how many viewers enjoyed the moment when, by the end of the movie, a rioter corners the Wayne family in an alley and murders Thomas and his wife sparing the child Bruce. Another commenter said: ‘One of the great things about Heath Ledger’s Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight is that he does not have an origin story’.

I dare not judge the Marvel universe as I feel deeply revolted by it. But in the real world, isn’t it good to know, say, the psychopathological motivations of those women in the Charles Manson family? But the commenters’ lack of elemental compassion is even noticeable about the previous Joker represented by Heath Ledger, an actor that incidentally has already passed away. In one of the dialogues the now dead Joker explains his scars. He said that his father ‘comes at me with a knife. “Why so serious?” He sticks a blade in my mouth. “Let’s put a smile on that face”.’

This father strikes me as ‘soul murderer’. Note this other phrase from the CC commenter: ‘Arthur [the Joker who’s alive] is far too damaged for any regular person to identify with him’.

How will a normie commenter identify with him if only one percent (or less) of Westerners have endured schizogenic parents?

Incidentally, last night, as I watched the psychological thriller, there were times when I laughed (as the character does in the film) when the audience was serious and nobody laughed. That happened to me, yesterday, in the climax of the film when the Joker kills the establishment character that Robert de Niro represented.

As I said, I usually don’t go to the movies now. But decades ago the same phenomenon occurred to me with some films by Luis Buñuel, whom I met personally, in which nobody laughed. It also happened to me when I watched Dr. Strangelove by Kubrick on the big screen. I laughed at the black humour in which the nuclear extermination of humanity was at stake while the hundreds of people watching the movie with me were quiet in the theatre. Only when I read a Kubrick biography by Vincent Lobrutto did I find out that Kubrick had a very black sense of humour. Then did I understand me and the non-laugher spectators of Dr. Strangelove!

Joker ends when Arthur laughs and tells a psychiatrist that she would not understand the joke…

_____________

[1] In the comments section on Joker in Counter-Currents Johnson shows how ignorant he is about psychiatry: a supposed branch of medicine with as little scientific basis as parapsychology or the study of UFOs, as shown in my writings (for example: here). Johnson wrote ‘If Arthur is adopted then his mental illness cannot be inherited from this mother’. This is a credulity stance regarding the psychiatric allegations that mental illness is genetic. Apparently, Johnson forgot what I said in one of my articles in which he himself corrected my syntax (see this piece which appears in my Hojas Susurrantes).

Categories
Film Gulag Archipelago (book) Red terror

Zero-budget movies about the Gulag

From minute 40 to 43 Michael Kingsbury explains exactly what we have been saying this month: Whites need a very specific story, and Kingsbury wisely states which story should it be: a tragic story, like the Gulag that killed dozens of millions of whites.

https://youtu.be/aHSsKXFNbhg

Decades ago I was very naïve. I could not figure out why, in the middle of the Cold War, Kissinger and Nixon did not ask Hollywood to make films about the Gulag in order to win the cultural war that was already taking place in the West. I knew nothing about the Jewish question, let alone that whites were behaving like accomplices of the Jews. (Recall the phone call between Nixon and Billy Graham in which they worried that the media was controlled by Jewry but, from the presidential chair and the pulpit, they did nothing to solve the problem.)

Now I know that both Christians and secular whites are involved not only in the empowerment of Jewry, but in the internalisation of a foundation myth that diabolises the white race. What I did not understand in the past, times when I told people that the media feeds us with ‘a hundred films and documentaries about the Holocaust and zero about the Gulag’, I understand now.

Kingsbury is right in what he says, as I pointed out above, from the 40th to the 43rd minutes. That is why I place so much emphasis on Hellstorm, a true holocaust of Germans that even the so-called white nationalists in North America don’t want to see, apparently because those facts put their dear nation at the level of the USSR of Stalin.

The white man, compassionate by nature, must radically change the story he tells himself. And what better way that, instead of Game of Thrones fantasies, tell stories about real events of the 20th century: events that the System has been hiding for a century (according to Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag system started in 1918 and ended a couple of years before the year I was born).

No one wanted to sponsor Kingsbury for his Gulag films. The three films he made were practically zero-budget movies. It reminds me the conditions in which I am also forced to work.

Categories
Film

Don’t miss my point

The following was my today’s comment on yesterday’s thread, ‘Night King theme’. It still surprises me that visitors don’t get what I have been trying to say about the Game of Thrones phenomenon, whose finale millions watched on Sunday, a week ago.

______ 卐 ______

 
But don’t miss my point.

Whites are stupid. Jews are right: they’re just cattle and behave like cattle:

Linder is wrong. He believes that by solving the JP everything will be automatically all right. But he has not answered why, sans Jews, Iberian whites screwed big time in the Americas by polluting their blood, or why the Yankees fought for Lincoln against ‘evil’ racists, again sans Jewish press.

Whites (cattle) need a Fourth Reich so that the mythmakers will use (as Hitler dreamt) Germanic sagas to feed the proles instead of Judeo-Christian myths. Yes: prolefeed for the proles but with good messages; good stories instead of a show directed by two kikes and whose novels were authored by an extremely liberal goy.

Again: don’t miss the point of my dozen posts about the Game of Thrones craze. We need good stories. We need a sort of Game of Thrones TV show for mass consumption but this time directed by priests of the 14 words.

Categories
Film

About meaning in Game of Thrones

by Vig

(an original for this site)

I am really amazed by this whole fascination for Game of Thrones. I consider myself lucky not to have wasted my brain cells on digesting this TV series.

As a regular Youtuber I have seen snippets of this series and seeing it convinced me that I had to do with degenerate stuff. I have to admit that in spite of this I am fascinated with powerful myths.

I saw a filmed edition of The Nibelungen and it inspired me to make a few paintings.

Commenting on this platform and other blogsites made me aware that it is better to ask essential questions instead of blurting out opinions, which after all is like a fighting match, you get counterblows instead of understanding.

What is the fascination with GOT really?

The massive popularity and then the following anger as things were not to the expectations of a lot of watchers are puzzling. It looks like that there is a deeply unconscious dissatisfaction that the average watcher cannot get ready with.

In my view Cesar’s understanding of this phenomenon is the deepest by referring to the anima and the animus. Here comes of course the work of the German psychologist Carl Gustav Jung in the picture. But we Europeans have chosen to neglect him after it was clear that before the war he said some positive things about Adolf Hitler in his essay about Wotan.

It looks like “we” are massively attracted to some thing that we pretend to be opposed to. What is it? In any case it has the appearance of schizophrenia.

Could a philosophical genius bring the answer here? No, not at all, philosophy is exactly the problem here. This whole issue falls totally out of the domain of intellectual and rationally comprehensible expressions. That is why it is nagging us.

As a visual artist I am very much bent on perceiving the “Gestalt” in things and happenings, that means the overall pattern, which comes down to the visual and spatial aspect of things. Exactly that is what Jung in his later work came to see as the essence of the anima, our hidden shadow of the mind which expresses itself in images.

In spite of the awkwardness that verbally expressing myself is as a visual thinker, I want to raise questions about the meaning of the Gestalt in GOT and other Youtube videos that I have seen, and I am curious to know how other commentators will see that.

First of all: The heroine of GOT the queen Daenerys is blond, decisively blond, and has intricate braids in her hairdo. Did one know that German educational advisers warn for schoolgirls having braids because it is interpreted as a sign of right wing extremism? No kidding. Jewish scriptwriters?

A dominant actress here having very blond hair is not without meaning, however unconscious of himself the scriptwriter may have been.

What is the meaning here?

In a lot of other movies with Jew scriptwriters I found some patterns over and over again, the details of which you can find in Renegade Tribune.

It is so remarkable to me that in these endless repetitions of the same dumb Hollywood clichés the girl saved is always BLOND!

Blond seems to have the highest status in the world and that is why the Jew likes it. How all those Jewish and coffee coloured women must hate everything that has blond hairs, because that is what their spouses actually would have liked them to have had. No wonder that a lot of darkies and negro females are conking their hair and dying it. This is one more reason for them to hate whites.

And then the movies about the Nazi terror! This category is in the chapter of sado-masochistic semi porno movies in which the Jew excels. You know the stories of hidden concentration camps where prisoners are tortured by sadistic SS members.

And, Lo and Behold, the female SS officers who like to humiliate male prisoners are always stunningly beautiful Aryan blond females, and the male officers who like to rape the females are always the perfect blond Aryan types.

What is the meaning of all this?

Did we hear the word “projection “ here?

And where would the whole Hollywood film industry be if they would not have had the fearsome enemy of the German soldier of the Third Reich, especially the Waffen SS? Their war movies would be terribly boring and make no money.

If you can pretend at least in the image that you have defeated an enemy whose military glory is without precedence in human history then you must be a super hero !!!!!

The dumbed down whites take it for entertainment. This is really perplexing.

It means to me that the image itself, let us be precise all images in the eye of the beholder (!), have become devoid of direct meaning, they are not nurturing the heart anymore. Only on the instinctual level, the level of sex and violence there is a resonance.

If this is true it means that the white industrialised man has lost in his psychological functioning a faculty that has to do with the giving of meaning to visual images, including the images of his own body and his race. There is no identification on the feeling level, it is either rational and verbal, or it is instinctual. It sounds extreme but I would say that modern man has incapacitated his nervous system significantly by his degenerating lifestyle.

Let us look at the state of contemporary western art. In the last decades the absence of the development of new styles and new themes clearly in the visual arts but essentially over the whole front of western art signifies the absence of real creativity. It is spiritual emptiness. It supports my statement above.

The only real question is: can this incapacitation be healed within the lifetime of one generation? If yes there is hope, and with a proper spiritual inspiration work just has to start, but if not, the process of extinction for the white race and for all the ethnicities who are going to be in the same boat like the Jews is inevitably going to happen.

Categories
Film

On Game of Thrones finale

by Andrew Anglin

The series finale of Game of Thrones, the most popular television show in all of history, was severely based and severely redpilled.

After leading a horde of violent nonwhites into the land of white people, Daenerys, the white feminist queen, went insane and committed a genocide in last week’s episode.

In this week’s episode, which aired Sunday night, the heroic Aryan Jon Snow murdered the stupid feminist bitch. However, even though the throne was rightfully his, the chad manlet Jon Snow decided to give the throne over to an autistic incel, Bran Stark.

This is the most based and redpilled show I’ve seen yet.

Of course, the final season was extremely problematic in terms of basic storytelling. The plot issues were so large that it is impossible to even try to address them. But, you know—whatever.

The bottom line is that the feminist nigger-loving queen is dead and the autistic incel rules the land. This is true justice of the highest possible sort.

Furthermore, Daenerys’ nigger army was expelled to the Isle of Naath, where they will all die of a disease that makes the flesh fall off the bones.

It is extremely satisfying to see these sluts and soyboys having mental breakdowns over this expectation-subverting plot twist that twisted itself into a full redpill. They told us we were evil racists and sexists when they destroyed all our video games—but the shoe is on the other foot now, ain’t it?

Game of Thrones is a Jewish show, so I’m not really sure why it is that they decided to go the route of trying to redpill the goyim on how white women are flooding our countries with niggers and our only solution is oust them and install autistic incels as our rulers. I suspect that these expectation-subverters were so subversive that they decided to subvert their own Jewish agenda.

The Game of Thrones Jews are on steroids and decided to redpill the goyim.
Whatever their reasoning, this shit is funny as hell.

There are over a million signatures on a petition for HBO to remake the final season as a total bluepill.

But that’s not happening.

The ultimate redpill that is the final season of Game of Thrones will forever stand, mocking the sluts and their soyboys for trying to destroy Western civilization with a horde of niggers—and letting them know that in the end, the autistic incels will reign triumphant.