web analytics

Category: Film

Categories
Film Final solution Racial right

Heydrich, 6

Today I watched the film from this moment until Otto Hoffman’s speech is interrupted by a phone call from Himmler to Heydrich. The segment made me think and even aroused my emotions.

For example, it came to my mind that Christians of the racial right evoke the figure of Friedrich Wilhelm Kritzinger, portrayed in the film by Franz Rudnick.

Kritzinger was a German civil servant and Secretary of State in the Reich Chancellery: one of the participants in the Wannsee Conference that established the policies of The Final Solution. After the conference, he attempted to resign from his post in the Chancellery, but his resignation was rejected because ‘it would be worse without him’.

After the war, Kritzinger was arrested, along with most of the other surviving members of the Wannsee Conference, in 1946. During the Nuremberg Trials, he publicly declared himself ashamed of the Reich. He was released in April 1946 but then arrested again in December of the same year. He was later released and shortly afterwards died of natural causes.

With Germans like Kritzinger and Americans like the good Christians of today, we are getting nowhere. On the one hand, they recognise that the Jews want to exterminate the Aryans. On the other hand, they put the interests of the Jew before those of the Aryan when it comes to final solutions, because if it comes to a war to the death between the two races, by feeling compassion for the enemy one is tacitly betraying one’s ethnicity.

I don’t think Christian racialists will see the obvious unless they repudiate the religion of their parents. We saw what happened in Germany after the war. The Anglo-Americans easily denazified the German nation by simply using Judeo-Christian ethics as the default morality, and the ideals of National Socialism were quickly forgotten by these Germans who became, like the rest of Westerners, vile bourgeoisie from the 1950s to the present day.

I think it is even treason to go around saying that the film is making things up and that the SS weren’t exterminationists. That’s why I like David Irving and Mark Weber, because despite being sympathisers of Hitler and the Third Reich they don’t fall into this neochristian temptation of wanting to ‘baptise’, with Christian morality, these SS hierarchs who appear at the round table.

If things continue to go wrong and the Aryans are going to be exterminated, I think only the last generation of whites will discover that from WW2 onwards all Westerners, racialists included, made an astronomical mistake.

Conversely, if the racialists were consistent with their premise of racial protection, they would have to have as martyrs all those at the table who were killed by the Allies when the war ended, except Kritzinger because he never abandoned Judeo-Christian morality. Moreover, if English-speaking racialists were consistent, they would try to learn German to understand National Socialism thoroughly, and even to speak in a language that sounds tougher, more manly, than other European languages.

Otto Hoffman’s little speech, portrayed by Robert Atzorn, which starts here, shows the exact tone as the (still non-existent) priests of the sacred words should be speaking, even if we have zero political power. Remember what Savitri implied: the first step to conquer the world is to have this kind of thinking.

Categories
Exterminationism Film Third Reich

Heydrich, 4

Seeing the discussion on the round table as far as implementing the final solution is concerned, at one point Heydrich mentions that the United States had entered the war. This reminds me of a famous passage in Pat Buchanan’s book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (I bought it fourteen years ago), where Buchanan asserted that the destruction of Jewry in WW2 didn’t cause the war but was the consequence of the war (page 311).

Indeed: had it not been for the Anglo-Americans, the Jews would have been deported either to Madagascar or Palestine, without extermination programmes. In other words, without Churchill and Roosevelt, there would have been no holocaust.

On the other hand, one of the things I like about the film is that almost everyone at the round table doesn’t give a damn about genocide. This contrasts sharply with the American neo-Nazis, who have been preaching for many decades that the Nazis weren’t evil; that is, that they were incapable of planned genocide. As I said to Jamie in the morning, with these pseudo-men we will get nowhere. We need real men, like the SS officers who sat at this table, to solve the problems.

Of course: the Christian ethics that has conquered even the soul of the Western atheist doesn’t allow such planning. But by following those standards of morality one allows the people in power to exterminate the Aryans, which is what is happening. It is impossible not to be an exterminationist. Nowadays the zeitgeist is to exterminate the Aryan. At the SS officers’ table, the zeitgeist was to exterminate the enemy of the Aryan. It is not possible to coexist peacefully with Jews or say blacks because there will be cultural subversion or gradual extermination of the Aryan through interbreeding with the coloureds (as happened in Brazil).

In my previous post on this series, I said that from that day on I would’t drop names of those who belong to the racial right because sometimes I will need their favours.

Very well: without mentioning names, recently a highly respected dean of race realism mentioned in his video that the founding fathers of his country had stipulated that those who emigrated to America had to be ‘whites of good character’. But the dean ignores that, while that is true, the forces of Yankee Puritanism were to trump that between-the-lines pronouncement of the founders. There is no comparison between those lines with the Third Reich, where racism was as explicit as the old Indo-Aryan codes that created the caste society. But the Third Reich was infinitely better than Manu’s Law because of its exterminationism (the Indo-Aryans became mixed over the centuries precisely because they failed to exterminate the Indians). As far as I know, the only notable American who has dared to speak in such practical exterminationist terms, as the SS of the round table, was William Pierce in Who We Are.

One more thing. In the 25th minute of the film, an officer mentions the problem of mixed marriages. If you check the red letters in the long article ‘American racial history timeline’, you will see that long before the Jews had any influence in that country, there had already been several states in the US that repudiated anti-miscegenation laws! That would never, ever have happened in a triumphant Third Reich, for the simple fact that, unlike that between-the-lines pronouncement of the US founding fathers, it was an Aryan Reich designed specifically for what we now call the 14 words, not tainted by Christian bullshit (Protestantism) or neochristian bullshit (the ideals of the 1770s and 1780s that led to the founding of the American republic and the French Revolution).

Categories
Film Goethe Schutzstaffel (SS)

Heydrich, 2

At this point, Rudolf Lange, an SS officer of the rank of Major (SS Sturmbannführer), complained to Heydrich that uniformed Germans treated them like scum ‘just because our work disturbs their peace of mind. They… gripe about our “barbarity” and “sadism”. They say that it is unworthy of the Germany of Kant and Goethe, that my men lust after executions!’

Heydrich simply replied to let them speak: that these uniformed non-SS guys belonged to the old German regime and weren’t accustomed to the new paradigm of morality. Although his response to Rudolf Lange was practical, as one would expect from SS bureaucrats, I would like to respond in greater depth that the SS ‘was unworthy of the Germany of Kant and Goethe’.

As we saw on page 30 of Crusade against the Cross, in a posthumous fragment from 1873 Nietzsche wrote: ‘The cultiphilistine ignores what culture-unity of style is. He agrees that there are classics (Schiller, Goethe, Lessing) and forgets that they wanted a culture, but that they are not a foundation on which to rest’.

As they say in America, bingo!

But what is a foundation on which to rest?

If there is one thing I like about Hans F. K. Günther’s 1927 The Racial Elements of European History, it is that Günther consistently credits Joseph Arthur, Count de Gobineau, as the pioneer of racial studies. I dare to say that true wisdom didn’t begin with the Greco-Roman philosophers, much less with the theologians and what I call secular neotheologians. True wisdom began with the Count of Gobineau.

Just as we were taught in school to despise the ‘pre-Socratics’ and to regard Plato and Aristotle as the cornerstone of Western wisdom, we must now begin to see the cornerstone from a very different angle: Gobineau’s Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines.

We have already said on this site that Kant was the neotheologian par excellence; of whom Nietzsche said in a passage quoted in Crusade against the Cross: ‘That the Germans have been able to stand their philosophers at all, especially that most deformed concept-cripple of all time, the great Kant, provides not a bad notion of German grace’.

As for Goethe, educated like Kant and Nietzsche in Lutheranism, he is said to have been a pantheist. But Faust, Goethe’s most famous work and regarded as one of the great pieces of world literature, is neotheological in the sense that the drama plays with the idea of selling one’s soul to the devil. Like Kant and Nietzsche himself, Goethe never fully emancipated himself from the Christian legacy.

So fuck Kant and Goethe! The wisdom of the West begins with Gobineau (1816-1882) and would culminate in the movement that Hitler created, whose SS men finally transvalued the values that, for purposes of social control, had been inverted since the House of Constantine came to power.

It is a pity that the vast majority of racialists of our century haven’t yet realised what Heydrich, a true priest of sacred words, realised.

Categories
Film Final solution Reinhard Heydrich

Heydrich, 1

In these unbelievably crazy times when Western elites are bringing us closer and closer to a nuclear apocalypse, why not intersperse my re-readings of Little Lulu (see what I said yesterday in the comments section) with other fictional dialogues, but this time Reinhard Heydrich’s? Yes: nothing could be more opposite than the Lulu stories I read when I was ten, and Heydrich! But because of the crazy days, both characters now come together in my mind…

At the height of his career, Heydrich held the rank of SS-Obergruppenführer and General der Polizei. Heydrich was also Reichsprotektor of the Czech Republic. If many normie historians consider him the darkest figure of the Nazi elite, we must study him closely, as Christianity reversed all our values.

Hitler described Heydrich as ‘the man with the heart of iron’. As a consequence of his repressive actions, throughout his career Heydrich was known by various nicknames: ‘The Executioner’, ‘The Butcher of Prague’, and ‘The Blond Beast’. As the founding leader of the Sicherheitsdienst he investigated resistance to the National Socialist Party to combat it through arrests, deportations and executions.

Heydrich was also responsible for the Einsatzgruppen, the special commandos who accompanied the advancing German armies and carried out mass executions of communists, intellectuals and Jews by firing squad or gassing. In late 1941, after he arrived in Prague as Reichsprotektor, Heydrich sought to eliminate opposition to the German occupation by deporting and executing members of the Czech resistance.

Heydrich was attacked and seriously wounded near Prague on 27 May 1942 by a Czech commando as part of Operation Anthropoid. The commando had received special training from British ethno-traitors and was sent to the Czech capital by the government-in-exile to assassinate the Reichsprotektor. Heydrich died from his wounds a week later.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The Wannsee Conference (German: Die Wannseekonferenz) is an Austro-German television film by Heinz Schirk, released in 1984. It portrays the Wannsee Conference in docu-fiction form, with Reinhard Heydrich as the main character.

The film describes in real time (over 90 minutes) the meeting in Wannsee of Third Reich executives and officials in charge of planning, under Heydrich’s direction, the final solution of the JP. As there is no verbatim transcript of the meeting, the dialogue was necessarily fictionalised. However, I find it so fascinating that I will be commenting on it in several posts.

‘Heydrich’ said:

The Führer is especially disappointed about England. He hoped they would acknowledge our legitimate requests: Living space in the East, appropriate status in Europe, solution to the Jewish question through emigration. We could have reached an agreement. We are of the same race. The Jews have taken over Downing Steet as well. The Führer has lost all patience. Why spare our Jews when we are obliged to settle accounts with world Jewry?

Yes: in Europe the English were (and are) the ethno-traitors par excellence. At 16:07 Heydrich acknowledges that Himmler himself fainted during an execution of the final solution programme, and adds:

Nothing dishonourable in that. It proves we Germans are humans. But it is dishonourable not to carry out what the future of our people demands [exterminationism], whether it is pleasant or not. It is dishonourable to be a weakling—which we in the SS are not.

Those who belong to the American racial right are dishonourable not only because they fail to embrace exterminationism as the way forward, but because these Christians and neochristians seek to ‘baptise’ Heydrich and the others involved in the final solution by denying the historicity of the ethnic cleansing that the Third Reich began to implement in the conquered territories to the East.

Let us be clear: the Russians wouldn’t now be empowered with nuclear weapons if the Anglo-Americans hadn’t committed the greatest blunder in recorded history! But even more serious is the Christian ethos that reigns in virtually all Westerners, including atheists.

I confess that I have recently felt very great respect for several rabbis who have been explaining why the genocide perpetrated by the Israelis in Gaza is an honourable enterprise. I would suggest that visitors to this site watch these videos, which have even made their way onto YouTube. Of course, the rabbis say these things from the point of view of what is good for the Jews in general and the Israelis in particular. It is the same logic as Heydrich’s but from the other side.

In other words: the genocidal passion of the Book of Joshua is the healthy thing. Pure social Darwinism! On the other hand, the universalist love that St Paul preaches to the gentiles is wicked, especially since this Jew knew fairly well that such love could only harm the Romans and benefit the Jewish people. But since the values have been reversed since Constantine and his successors, now whites see everything backwards. That’s why I recently wrote a psychobiography of Nietzsche: he was the first to detect this psychological trick.

Don’t get me wrong! I am not saying that we should go bananas like Argentine President Milei and go to a rabbi to have our foreskins cut off. What I am saying is that we should imitate the winners: the exterminationist rabbis but from Heydrich’s side. Can’t white nationalists see something so obvious, something that Nietzsche saw so clearly since 1886 in texts already quoted in my anthology The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour?

Heydrich is our ‘rabbi’ so to speak: the one we have to listen to even if the dialogue of the German-speaking film is as fictitious as the Lulu stories I keep re-reading….

Categories
Classical sculpture Film Racial studies

Walking tours

in the Aryan past

To fully understand my most recent book Crusade against the Cross it is necessary not only to have read its appendix where the theme of the Italian Renaissance is touched upon, but preferably also to have read Nietzsche’s masterpiece: The Antichrist. Nietzsche was a critic of culture. Only then could we understand what I said to Berk yesterday in one of the recent discussion threads:

But Nietzsche’s idea was never to execute Luther, simply that the power of the image of Renaissance sculpture and paintings was already transvaluing values (the God of the Sistine Chapel is actually a Zeus), and the Italians would have finished transvaluing them if it hadn’t been for the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation.

One of the things that make my blood boil the most is that on some YouTube channels, it has become fashionable to use beautiful ‘walking tours’—a sort of Bran the Broken’s magic of touching the Weirwood tree to see the remote past—, for example, this video on ancient Sparta, Corinth and Olympia. What makes them impossible for me to watch is that they replace the historical population with dark-skinned mudbloods!

That the ancient Greeks, before they interbred, were blond and blue-eyed is clear from this article in American Renaissance (currently being discussed in hundreds of comments on The Unz Review). We have also contributed to the subject by translating this essay by Eduardo Velasco (later collected in The Fair Race). And let’s never forget two essential books to understand our point of view: William Pierce’s story of the white race, and Arthur Kemp’s story.

I know very little about the magic of computing, or how the people who upload these videos made them. But if I had the means I would do the same about, say, cities like Sparta or Thebes that for several centuries resisted miscegenation and whose inhabitants, descendants of the Dorians, were blue-eyed blonds. Even Athena, the goddess of ancient Athens before the massive miscegenation of the Mediterranean occurred, was blonde and blue-eyed.

Our videos would be similar to the one I linked above, but we would replace the fictional mudblood figures they put with figures that look like their real ancient inhabitants. The last thing the ethnocidal System wants is for the contemporary Aryan to regain his self-image, and lost self-esteem after WW2, by reclaiming history.

Categories
Art Film Pedagogy

Eleven films

Note from June 27, 2024: I think I overdid it with the Sleeping Beauty thing (due to the sins of Disney Studios). It’s certainly great for kids to watch it, even in an ethnostate. Thus, my 11th recommendation would be Sleeping Beauty (1959).

I have added bold to the three films I recommend most: all based on Jane Austen’s novels. Three months ago I wrote:

 

I left the previous posts for a few days without adding new ones because it is of some importance that at least some visitors to The West’s Darkest Hour find out that in the racialist forums a troll is impersonating me supported by… the moderators! But I made magnificent use of the time to finish the last few pages of the third book of my trilogy. So—

Thanks, Brad!

Thanks Jewish troll!

 

______ 卐 ______

 

“L’art pour l’art values must be transvalued to Art practiced in conformity with the cultural task” —Francis Parker Yockey (rephrased).

In 2013 I posted a list of what were, at the time, my ten favourite films and last year I confessed that, having taken my vows as a priest of the sacred words, I could no longer watch many of the 50 films I once loved. So I would like to compile a new list of ten films that, if I were to adopt an Aryan son,[1] I would allow him to watch. Sorted by the year they were released, this new list would be:

 
1. Beauty and the Beast (1946)

2. Hamlet (1948)

3. Lust for Life (1956)

4. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

5. Death in Venice (1971)

6. Sense & Sensibility (1995)

7. Indictment: The McMartin Trial (1995)

8. Pride & Prejudice (1995 TV series)

9. Pride & Prejudice (2005 movie)

10. Spotlight (2015)
 

In the case of the first on the list, it is only because of our interpretation of it that I recommend it. Why I put the second one on my new list, which also appears on my 2013 list, is explained by clicking the link above on Hamlet.

But the third one doesn’t appear on my old list. As I own several Vincent van Gogh books, including a huge illustrated one with his complete works, I recommend Lust for Life because, like Hitler, it seems to me essential that the Aryan who wants to save his race from extinction should make deep contact with the art of painting; and the film, based on an entertaining novel that I read, transports us to the places where brother Vincent lived.

Of articles by intellectuals, John Gardner was the first white nationalist I ever read, in 2009, when I returned to this continent from Spain. In one of his TOQ Online articles Gardner said that 2001: A Space Odyssey managed to put the white man’s aesthetics in its place, which I agree with.

Why I include Death in Venice is guessed at in ‘Transvaluation Explained’ and ‘Puritanical Gomorrah’ in my book Daybreak, but most of my list (#6, #8 and #9) concerns films about Jane Austen’s novels. As for the remaining ones, Indictment and Spotlight, just click on the links in the above list to see why I include them.

Note that, unlike my 2013 list, my criteria is no longer to include films based on their artistic quality but on what Yockey says above. The film about the medieval monk Andrei Rublev for example is highly artistic to the true connoisseur of cinematic art. But I wouldn’t show it to my son, at least not until he had developed a sufficiently anti-Christian criterion to realise that the pagan Russians should never have embraced a religion of Semitic origin.

I can say something similar about Sleeping Beauty, which appears on my previous top ten list, although this is a fairly tale. It makes me a little nervous that at the climax Maleficent invokes all the powers of Lucifer, and that Prince Philip’s coat of arms bears a Christian cross. A child, of course, wouldn’t notice that. But what Walt Disney had done, collaborating with the American government in times of anti-Nazi propaganda through another of his cartoons caricaturing the Third Reich, I cannot forgive.

Likewise, in my new list I didn’t include 1968’s Planet of the Apes which was on the old list because a child shouldn’t see a black astronaut next to a good-looking Aryan actor like Charlton Heston. The same I must say about another of my favourites that I removed from the old list: Artificial Intelligence, where in the first scene the Jew Spielberg puts a compassionate Negress in front of a huge team of scientists who want to design a robot child with real feelings.

The 1977 film Iphigenia was also taken off my list. Although Iphigenia is a masterful adaptation of Euripides’ tragedy many of the actors, unlike the hyper-Nordic Homeric Greeks, are already mudbloods (of course: the film’s actors were contemporary Greeks!). A boy brought up in National Socialism ought not to be fooled by such images.

If someone asks me now, after taking my vows, which of the above list of ten are now my favourite films, they will be surprised to learn that they are all three based on Austen’s novels. That’s exactly the right message of sexual courtship that Aryans, young and old, should see on the big and small screens if we have the fourteen words in mind.

_________

[1] Although the lad I was doesn’t look too bad in the Metapedia picture, as a priest I can’t sire because my bloodline is as compromised as the Greek actors mentioned above.

Categories
Film Metaphysics of race / sex

Enchanted night

Many years ago I saw Andrei Rublev and, as I talked about the film yesterday, I was subsequently rewatching some scenes. I hadn’t realised that Durochka betrays Andrei and her Russian ethnicity by eloping with the Tatar when Andrei had taken her back to the monastery; not immediately after the Tatar massacre in Vladimir. But I wanted to talk about something else, my favourite scene of the film: the religious festival called Kupala Night, in 1408, when some Slavs hadn’t yet been forced to convert to the Semitic religion.

In the film, camping for the night on the riverbank, Andrei and his apprentice Foma are gathering firewood when Andrei hears the distant sounds of a celebration upstream in the forest. Going to investigate Andrei alone, he comes across a large group of naked non-Christians, who are performing a torch-lit ritual for the summer solstice. Andrei, dressed austerely as an Orthodox monk, is intrigued, but is caught spying on a couple making love and is tied to the crossbeam of a hut in a mockery of Jesus’ crucifixion.

A blonde woman named Marfa, scantily clad in a fur coat, approaches Andrei. After explaining that her people are persecuted for their beliefs, she drops her coat, kisses Andrei and unties him.

The monk runs away and gets lost in the dense forest, scratching his face. The next morning, he returns to his people when a group of soldiers appear on the riverbank chasing the non-Christians who had celebrated Kupala Night, including Marfa. They capture her companion but she escapes naked by swimming in the river. A beautiful scene! But Andrei and his fellow monk look the other way in shame because, according to the Semitic religion, it is sinful to watch a beautiful female body naked.

In the next episode, on a road during summer, Andrei confesses to another monk that he cannot do the task assigned to him by the bishop of Moscow. Although Andrei didn’t relapse into paganism after the enchanted night, as a principled artist he doesn’t want either to terrorise the Russian people, and refused to paint the Last Judgement. (As I was saying recently, Hitler realised that Christianity brought spiritual terror to the Aryan man.)

Later comes the Tatar invasion which, in 1983, I saw on the big screen of the cinema inside the Russian embassy in Mexico City. Although I don’t want to re-watch that scene on YouTube now, I remember it as a masterpiece that evokes my fantasy of the greenseer north of the Wall that can see the historical past as it happened.

Categories
Correspondence Film Women

‘Cool German ladies’

Yesterday I made a find among the documents my father left behind: a letter written during the Second World War, in Germany, from the combat zone between the Americans and the Germans.

The missive, typed in Spanish, is addressed to my father and lacks a year, although we see the words ‘Abril 9’ (April 9) at the top. A brief note from my father that I didn’t scan for this post attached to the letter reads (my translation): ‘Letter from Nelson Valderrama. Friend of mine in high school’.

I will translate the two sentences marked in pink (the orange is a sticky tape which, I assume, my father put on). On the first page, we read ‘…and I wounded the first German I ever wounded—between neck and shoulder, as I searched him I got his blood on me’. On the back is the second page we read: ‘…a young German girl, I stayed with her most of the night. I don’t understand these people, they’re supposed to hate Americans, and here they are super cool young ladies whose boyfriends we’ve killed, inviting us to spend the night with them…’

Many times I have mentioned my favourite Russian film, Andrei Rublev, where Durochka, a blonde girl, spits in her partner Andrei’s face to leave with a Tartar after these savages massacred, with infinite cruelty, almost all the inhabitants of her village. What I love not only about that scene but about the film in general, is that it makes no value judgements: it just portrays with extraordinary crudeness the reality as it happened centuries ago in director Tarkovsky’s mother Russia.

In one of his videos, the late Gonzalo Lira said that women’s behaviour shouldn’t infuriate us. It is simply their nature. I would add that this is as true for Dúrochka as it is for the German women, as we see in this letter which shocked me yesterday when I read it for the first time in my life. (While I had long heard the name ‘Nelson Valderrama’, I had no idea that this idiot had fought on the wrong side during WW2!)

Not only did the casualties Valderrama describes disgust me as I read it, but his letter sheds light on why Andrew Anglin is right that women’s brains are constituted in such a way that they think radically differently from us. And as a vlogger said, whose text I edited in my anthology On Beth’s Cute Tits (pages 99-116), if power were to pass once more to us, we must never again empower the fair sex.

But I insist: the late Lira was right that we shouldn’t hate women in the least for their behaviour. If anything, we should hate the men who have been tolerating, and still tolerate, all feminist waves. That’s why I so highly recommend the best Russian movie ever made: a film so different from Hollywood that only those who appreciate art cinema will love it.

Categories
Evil Film Psychology

Canaille!

Il y a une autre canaille à laquelle on sacrifie tout, et cette canaille est le peuple. —Voltaire

In my recent articles, and on this site in general, I have expressed myself in a very derogatory way about the masses (and the System that empowers them: democracy), whom I have called as Voltaire called them, canaille, and I have also called them in a much worse way.

After years of not seeing it, I have just watched one more time the 1995 film Indictment: The McMartin Trial, starring James Woods: one of the very few films I can recommend in this dark hour for our civilisation.

The daycare sex abuse hysteria was a moral panic that occurred mainly during the 1980s and early 1990s and brought charges against completely innocent daycare providers accused of committing various forms of child abuse, including satanic ritual abuse. The McMartin preschool trial was a typical case. Members of the McMartin family, who ran a preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, were accused of acts of sexual abuse of children in their care.

Since the mid-1990s, the phenomenon has been discredited to such a degree that criminalists and law enforcement authorities have recognised it for what it was: a witch hunt that led to imprisonment and ruined the lives of many innocent adults. The film Indictment: The McMartin trial masterfully shows how a moral panic psychotised the masses in the decade I lived in California.

In its heyday in the 1980s and early 1990s, similar in some ways to the Salem trial of 1692, such allegations reached grotesque extremes. Using invasive adult techniques in the interrogation of kindergartners, therapists elicited confessions riddled with fantasies: that the children had been kidnapped and taken through a network of hidden tunnels to a cavern beneath the school; that they flew in the air; and that they saw giraffes, lions and the sacrifice of a rabbit to be returned to their unsuspecting parents at the kindergarten. Needless to say, no forensic evidence was found to support such claims, so the final verdict was: not guilty.

After the legal catastrophe that was McMartin and other similar cases (years in prison for this type of accusations before and during the trial with the accused being completely innocent!), children have never again been interrogated with the aggressive techniques that induce them to fantasise so wildly.

Indictment is the best example of how the masses—yes: the canaille—react when they are in a moral panic: they simply trust the Jew-controlled media. The film vindicates why I speak so disparagingly of the masses or rabble and why I can only love the dissident individual.

Categories
Film Jane Austen Pride & Prejudice

What a relief!


I would like to add something to what I said two months ago in ‘The Remaining 42’ about the films that, after my awakening, lost meaning for my new point of view.

Since the most important thing for the 14 words is the reproduction of the Aryan, currently the films I like the most, which could even have been filmed if Hitler had won the war, are three films based on Jane Austen’s novels. One of them is a TV series about P&P, which I’ve been re-watching these days (clips: here) and I find super-therapeutic compared to the Gomorrahite cinema now flooding the West.

Those who want to feel completely relieved, if only momentarily, by imagining what the Western world would be like if the good guys had won the war, must watch this series. If the picture is worth a thousand words, the image in the form of cinema—the art of creating and projecting footage—is worth a million!