web analytics

Category: Film

Categories
Child abuse Film

Movie revisited

I would like to say one more thing about Sound of Freedom, which I already mentioned on Thursday. Since it continues to be a box-office hit in the US, and since my speciality is an independent study of child abuse, I would like to add this postscript.

I think it was only yesterday that I detected why the hegemonic media hates the film. Since they’re self-righteous they are convinced that they, they alone and no one else but them are the holders of the new tablets of the law (equality of race, gender and sexual identity). In that tunnel vision, only transgressions against the new trinity are considered sinful.

Movies like Sound of Freedom, filmed by traditional Catholics including the Mexican producer and lead actor Jim Caviezel, which denounce a form of sin completely outside that trinity, amount to nothing less than a contest over who defines morality. This is why they’re attacking the movie: it’s the competition.

Christian factions in the past, and neo-Christian factions in the present, are so exorbitantly intolerant that they won’t tolerate the slightest dogmatic distance between them.(*) And nowadays the average Westerner has to worship exclusively the new egalitarian trinity. (Once, according to the progressive vanguard, society accepts trans kids their next planned step is to push for the ‘rights’ of paedophiles.)

The other point I wanted to make is that, as Benjamin has rightly pointed out to me, there are far more serious ways of injuring the inner self of a child than what a paedophile, who is a stranger to the family, does. And those more serious ways of destroying a child’s soul are completely outside the field of vision of the conservatives who are acclaiming Sound of Freedom.

If you are familiar with my work, you know that the victims of a paedophile—say, the two surviving siblings of the film—can keep their ego from crumbling because, after all, their father didn’t betray them. Quite the contrary: he loves them like a father loves his children in many other movies that are nothing more than prolefeed for the proles.

In real life, when the parent himself is the perpetrator—and we are talking about forms of abuse immeasurably more devastating than sexual abuse coming from a foreign—the child’s mind goes haywire, and he or she is no longer able to recover. Read the middle part (pages 31 to 191) of my book Day of Wrath to see what we mean.

_________

(*) Christians have always been going for the jugular of other Christians ever since Constantine empowered them. ‘Wokism’ is but a secularised faction of Christian morality. If you are a new visitor, see also the book Neo-Christianity clicking on the pinned post.

Categories
Child abuse Film

Sound of freedom

I don’t go to the cinema any more, and the film won’t arrive in the country where I live until the last day of next month anyway. But considering that long ago I wanted to be a film director; that the producer of this movie is Mexican, and that this film with a minimal budget beat the latest Indiana Jones monstrosity, I would like to say something.

In the first place, I’d never have added a post about this film but it struck me that the System was so bothered by it—I didn’t understand why.

After a brief investigation, I remembered that Hollywood had promised that by 2024 only films promoting the LGBT+ agenda would be considered for the Oscars. As the Woke vanguard finds itself at the moment, the ‘T’ in the acronym above is no longer the spearhead in their ongoing Cultural Revolution but rather the ‘+’ which includes the sexualisation of children. Recall, for example, how Netflix released a film that sexualised eleven-year-old girls.

A film like Sound of Freedom, which denounces child sex trafficking, makes a lot of noise on this agenda. It is as if the System wants, after normalising the ‘T’ of transgender adults, to take the next leap forward which already started with trans children and the mutilations of girls’ breasts and boys’ genitals that are still unbanned in most of the West. Sound of Freedom simply sheds light on another of the darkest forms of child sexualisation: child trafficking.

On this site, I have mentioned Agustín Laje, the Latin American equivalent of the American Matt Walsh. In this interview just uploaded today, he appears not only with the Mexican producer of Sound of Freedom but with Jim Caviezel, the lead actor (the same one who played Jesus in Mel Gibson’s famous film).

Although it is laughable that Jim Caviezel talks so piously about the Virgin of Guadalupe, and the Judeo-Christian god in the Spanish/English interview linked above, the film contributes to denouncing one form of unpardonable child abuse.

Categories
Film

Pancho Sánchez

Before continuing the routine of Deschner’s series on the criminal history of Christianity, I would like to say a few things about what I said yesterday in the last instalment of the book Calígula. I refer to the film Advise & Consent which, by the way, I watched again yesterday after many years since I saw it for the first time.

In my peripatetic walk today it occurred to me that the best way to criticise American cinema is to first critique Mexican cinema and then look at the parallels. The only book by an author I know personally who has inscribed a few words on the first page for me* is Luz en la Oscuridad: Crónica del Cine Méxicano (Light in the Dark: A Chronicle of Mexican Cinema).

Francisco (‘Pancho’) Sánchez, a film critic and screenwriter, gave it to me in his own home in front of his wife. I met Pancho, who died ten years ago, at a gathering of film critics that met on Saturdays and that I used to go. Pancho’s book, a man with a good sense of humour by the way, reviews Mexican films from the 1930s to 2002, the year it was published. Well into the book, on page 112, Pancho writes: ‘In 1968 private production was still cloistered in its outdated but successful formulas, of imaginary and chaste young people, charritos [Mexican horse riders with traditional dress] and simplistic comedies’ (the translations are mine).

I hardly ever watch Mexican cinema, but the very little I have seen betrays a world that is completely unreal compared to Mexican reality. My maternal grandmother loved to listen to intimacies told by service people, who were generally indigenous, and it was more than obvious that the family dynamics from which those families came were extremely abusive. (This is not to say that white family dynamics in Western countries aren’t abusive, as Gaedhal tells us in his commentary on this site today.) But what Pancho says is true. Except for Luis Buñuel’s films, the idyllic way in which old Mexican films presented Mexican culture had nothing to do with the reality of the country.

Fifty pages later Pancho writes: ‘In 1975, the penultimate year of [President Luis Echeverría’s] six-year term in office, films of a high realist level such as Canoa were already being made, in a country where until then the divorce between cinema and reality had been almost absolute.’ Ten pages later Pancho adds about that same film, which I have not yet seen:

Indeed, Canoa does not present a bucolic rural reality, with charritos dressed as mariachis, nor an indigenous reality of immobile faces against a backdrop of nopales and pyramids. Its Catholic priest is neither Domingo Soler nor Cantinflas nor the Arturo de Córdova of La Ciudad de los Niños. He is not a canonizable priest. He is simply a scoundrel who manipulates religious fanaticism to his own advantage.

Almost ninety pages later, and already talking about Mexican films made in this century, Pancho writes about a film I did get to see:

Although it doesn’t help digestion, as they say, the film soon grabs the attention of its viewers because its dramatic weight is based on a good question: Do we parents know what are the real problems that affect our children? This question, already asked so many times by the archaic conventional cinema (that of Sara García and Marga López), a world of lies in which the answer was invariably an edifying moral, is now proposed from that possibility of realism which is total crudeness… Comfortable solutions and optimistic endings are out. Here we are treading—forgive the long journey back in time—the circumspect territories of Bicycle Thieves.

What Pancho says about Mexican cinema applies to the cinema of the neighbouring country to the north (Pancho, by the way, in one of those get-togethers we used to go to, said he liked Spielberg’s Jaws). When I was a kid I used to imagine, watching Hollywood films from the 1950s and 60s, that Americans were so proud of their race that I once told a friend that the US was like ‘a big Germany’ in a territorial sense. Little did I know that Hollywood had always been in enemy hands, or that the positive messages I saw in those films, some still in black and white, were divorced from American reality.

There were moments when 1962’s Advise & Consent, which I re-watched yesterday after a couple of decades, reminded me of the 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington which also takes place on Capitol Hill. Watching this American cinema, which predates the cinema of patently subversive visual messages of our days, provides a false impression on a child’s mentality: I was programmed with the idea that the US was a country of noble principles and the noblest Constitution (as one of the actors in Advise & Consent fervently puts it).

In reality, the child and adolescent that I was never suspected that the cinema I then saw in elegant theatres that looked like opera houses was as unreal as those films of Mexican charros in fancy clothes singing their way into small towns to woo young mestizas: the films that my grandmothers and perhaps my mother watched long ago. On page 76 of his book Pancho writes, when talking about Mexican cinema: ‘Golden age of cinema? Pure age of churritos!’ (churro, not to be confused with charro above, is a bad film of very little artistic value).

Advise & Consent may have some artistic value, like the novel that inspired it, but it is a churro in another sense of the word: churro dough is easy to produce and fry on an open fire, like the thousands of movies in the film industry on both sides of the Rio Grande.

__________

(*) “Para César Tort, con la amistad de Francisco Sánchez. 14 Nov 2003, Culhuacán, D.F.” (‘For César Tort, with the friendship of Francisco Sánchez. 14 November 2003, Culhuacán, Mexico City’).

Categories
Ancient Rome Film

Caligula, 6

If, as the sticky post implies, the aim of this site (remember: he who controls the past controls the future) is to find the Weirwood to see the past as it happened, we will understand why historical revisionism is vital to save the white race.

In this instalment of the series on Roldán’s book, I would just like to comment on the thought that came to me when I came across the phrase on page 244 of his book: ‘Gauls disguised as Germans, whose hair he [Caligula] dyed blond’ to transport them to Rome.

What Ridley Scott’s blockbuster film Gladiator shows us in its opening scene, epic by the way, was Romans under Marcus Aurelius fighting dark-haired Germans (in that subsequent century of Caligula’s reign the Germans were still blond): an inversion of the facts for propaganda purposes. Typical Hollywood.

Scott is a gentile, but it reminds me of what the Jewish producers of the film Ben-Hur, to which I referred in yesterday’s post, did. This 1959 film, awarded as many Oscars as possible, dared to reverse everything. It cast Judah Ben-Hur, a Jewish prince from Jerusalem, as the handsome, Nordish-looking Charlton Heston, and the Roman Messala (Stephen Boyd) not only with dark hair. In real life, Stephen Boyd had blue eyes.

To film Ben-Hur, the Aryan Boyd was forced to wear dark contact lens so that his eyes would not compete with the light eyes of the Jew interpreted by Heston! This is revealed by the producers themselves on the DVDs that now accompany the film with commentary.

This inversion is typical of the way the story has been told to us, including Aryan depictions of Jesus and his holy family in Christian iconography, especially from the Renaissance onwards. 1st century Palestinian Jews looked like sandniggers: the opposite to Heston. No wonder that, if the collective white unconscious has been programmed in this way, they have taken the New Testament as the founding scripture of their race, when in fact it is a rabbis’ scripture for gentile consumption (again, read our latest PDF). And the 1959 film aggravates the matter by casting the Jews of first-century Palestine as white Europeans, including Jesus’ carefully coiffed straight brown hair that is only seen from behind.

Much of the psychological healing of the Aryan consists precisely in finding the Weirwood to see the real past, not the toxic myth our enemies have been telling us for two millennia.

Returning to Roldán’s phrase, could we imagine an epic scene with blond Germans fighting the Roman mudbloods of a couple of centuries after Caligula’s reign? What effect would a film shot by someone who has already touched the Weirwood have on an audience of white-skinned, blue-eyed, light-haired people?

Categories
Feminism Film

Downton Abbey revisited

Since I can’t tolerate watching films or television if a non-white actor appears, I recently re-watched the seasons of Downton Abbey. About the first season of this English series I had already written something in 2013, and about the movie they made in 2019 I also wrote something. Recently I even posted a picture of two actresses from Downton Abbey within the series categorised ‘Aryan Beauty’. I was very naive in 2013 but by the end of the seasons I understood Downton Abbey’s bad messages better.

When I wrote what I linked above about the 2010-2015 TV series, and 2019 film, I omitted that in some TV episodes they mentioned Hitler. Those were times when he was imprisoned for his coup attempt, before he was released. Needless to say, mentions of Hitler and his followers even before he came to power were all very negative!

Instead of the English understanding that they were facing the rise of the greatest psychogenic emergency that History has ever witnessed (read the book of which yesterday I only quoted the final sentences), Downton Abbey saturates us with all sorts of frivolous and inane activities of the 1920s jet set, including horse racing, car racing, fowling, fox and deer hunting; cricket, superbly elegant dresses, restaurants for the rich, castles for the English nobility, impressive mansions and lastly a ball or formal dance party before the king.

But the overall message of Downton Abbey, both TV and film, is to show in a benign light the transition from patriarchy to so-called women’s liberation in England. Now they have even made another film. In this second, 2022 sequel of Downton Abbey, the Earl of Grantham even tells his daughter that she is now at the helm; that she is now the captain of the estate we see below!

Highclere Castle, used for the interior
and exterior filming of Downton Abbey.

If Aryan children were in my care they would never see such a thing on television or at the cinema. It is sad to say, but a priest of the sacred words like me can’t have fun with the prolefeed provided by the System.

For new visitors to this site: If you want to know why feminism is a weapon of mass destruction aimed at the white race read this book, or if you just want to read one of its chapters, see pages 99-116. If you are interested in English culture or English films, Jane Austen’s novels represent the world before the feminist psychosis that is exterminating white people—and will exterminate them for good unless a revolution revalues all western values.

Instead of Downton Abbey I would recommend a couple of films: Sense and Sensibility (1995) and Pride and Prejudice (2005).

Categories
2001: A Space Odyssey (movie) Art Film

60K words article!

‘Jews control Hollywood and make movies for themselves that the dumb white gentiles believe to be about them.’

You may read this article, nay a mini-book, on The Unz Review here.

In the comments section we learn that the mini-book is full of typos, and there’s another comment I agree about ‘the late great Stanley Kubrick.’ He wrote: ‘2001 a Space Odyssey ASO is the greatest work of art ever made by a human being.’ But what does ‘ASO’ stand for? (remember, I am not a native English speaker).

Categories
Film

Reconsidering Dahmer

I’ve been thinking about what I said the day before yesterday and I detect a weakness. Regardless of the testimony of the character named Nick, who in the 1990s appeared on the TV shows Geraldo and Phil Donahue, there is no evidence that Jeffrey Dahmer was sexually molested by his father over the years. That is one of the problems the investigator of psychological trauma often encounters: one has only assumptions.

While the criminologist Lonnie Athens, whom I mentioned in my post the day before yesterday, found that all the violent criminals he studied came from very abusive families, cases where the criminal completely represses his traumatic past, as was the Dahmer case, are much more difficult to study.

But even if the Netflix series portrayed the problem with rigour to the historical facts, it is easy to assume that the betrayal suffered by the boy Jeff when his father abandoned him, in addition to the behaviour of his crazy mother, may have caused those morbid aspects that the series portrays about his childhood. In other words, it doesn’t take sexual abuse to upset a child: emotional abuse, if immense, is more than enough.

If Dahmer were alive and a criminologist wanted to investigate his case, he could gain his trust in prison to subtly ascertain whether Nick’s allegations were true. But Dahmer is dead. That’s why I prefer crystal-clear cases that show that very abusive parents can drive one of their children insane. Anyone who would like to study one of these crystal-clear cases, I would suggest reading John Modrow’s How to Become a Schizophrenic.

Nick’s accusation aside, the Netflix series is abhorrent because it casts blacks and migrants as the victims not only of Dahmer but of a racist and homophobic police. I don’t know if the filmmakers are Jews but if they are Gentiles it’s even worse, as they are traitors to their race.

Quite apart from this betrayal, the series at least conveys the idea that a very dysfunctional family can unhinge a child. That doesn’t mean I recommend it; only that it has some value in conveying, through an abominable story, that a child’s spirit can be crushed at home.

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.

Categories
Architecture Degenerate art Film Psychiatry

Breaking Bad

As visitors to this site know, unlike what Kevin MacDonald says in The Culture of Critique (Frankfurt School, etc.), I believe that it is art for mass consumption that is central to making an x-ray of what’s wrong with the Aryan psyche. From this angle, as I have so often said, literary landmarks of the past such as Ivanhoe, Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Ben-Hur serve as x-rays for us to see the 19th-century soul of the white man. In our century as in the last century, it is the movies, and degenerate art, that can serve as X-rays.

Breaking Bad is an American drama television series created and produced by Vince Gilligan, apparently a non-Jew. It tells the story of Walter White, a chemist. To pay for his cancer treatment and secure his family’s financial future, he begins cooking and selling methamphetamine, along with Jesse Pinkman, a former student of his. The series, set and produced in Albuquerque (New Mexico), is characterised by its desert settings and has been described as a sort of contemporary Western. The series premiered on 2008 and ended in 2013. Breaking Bad has been enthusiastically acclaimed by many critics and audiences, and is considered one of the best television series of all time. In 2013 it was one of the most watched cable television shows in the US, behind Game of Thrones.

Unlike those for whom Breaking Bad has become almost a cult series, to the extent that Vince Gilligan filmed a sequel movie with the actor who portrayed Jesse Pinkman, I am repulsed by the series and want to expose it. (Remember I’m currently doing something similar with HBO’s House of the Dragon.) So here we go…

What disgusted me the most is that in several episodes Jesse inordinately loves a ‘Hispanic’ mother and her son, another mestizo. Walter and Jesse are capable of killing to survive in the underworld of drug trafficking, and yet they set Walt up as a good family man and Jesse as a good Samaritan to these ‘Hispanics’. It doesn’t even make sense to talk about the plot: this kind of thing wouldn’t be happening in the seventh art if Hitler, not Uncle Sam, had had access to the atomic bomb.

Jesse’s love for the spic family was what bothered me most about Breaking Bad, but there are other bad messages. Remember what Kenneth Clark says, that to understand a culture you have to look at its architecture? I have never been to New Mexico, but the total absence of inspiring monuments in the New Mexico filmed in Breaking Bad, and other US states, is striking to me. Aryan aesthetics are only seen in the interiors of the homes of middle- and upper-class people in Breaking Bad. But the visual message for someone used to contemplating what we’ve been seeing in our ‘European Beauty’ series is that of an empty American culture: the ideal platform for betraying one’s ethnicity and becoming a junkie.

Another thing that irritated me greatly about the series is that the roles of husband and wife are egalitarian. And I don’t just mean Walter and his wife but the latter’s sister and Walter’s brother-in-law, DEA agent Hank Schrader. An egalitarian marriage lends itself to inconceivable surrealisms and incongruities because of what Jamie, one of the commenters on this site, said and I picked up in On Beth’s Cute Tits:

I still remember my uncle mentioning something like this when I asked him for advice once: ‘If you are going to talk about serious matters, like killing someone or a coup, don’t ever let the women know about it’.

And I realised he is dam right, and so are you César.

Women will go hysterical at such things as planning a murder or a coup. They will most likely betray you and warn the authorities or government, which they believe is the strongest (expect this behaviour from very feminised men and homosexuals as well).

Dr. William Pierce once mentioned in one of his American Dissident Voices broadcasts that women, as a whole, do not understand abstract concepts such as honour and self-denial. It is not in their nature to understand. Security and comfort are their priorities, and so submission their way of getting it.

And the older I get, the more I realise how true that is. The empowering of women is truly a weapon of mass destruction.

Indeed. The wives in Breaking Bad don’t understand honour or self-denial (Walter, on the other hand, is the paradigm of the selfless man who seeks the good of his family). Another irritating thing is that Walter’s son is a hetero, albeit feminised handicapped man, to the extent that he betrays his father when the authorities realised that Walter was involved in illicit business. A true Aryan male doesn’t behave that way.

Another issue that irritated me is that the culture in which the characters move seems to have material comfort as its sole focus. One of the most abominable things I read in one of Isaac Asimov’s books, and it pains me but it is true, is that nowadays everyone in the West is working simply to live in more material comfort. (The true Aryan puts his race as the motive of his faith, his action and his wars, and the material aspect becomes secondary.)

Finally, this whole DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) thing is aberrant. Walter’s illegal business only affected teenagers and adults, who voluntarily consumed methamphetamine. I’m not saying it’s right to sell drugs on the streets, but that’s infinitely less wrong than what psychiatry does legally. When abusive parents want to finish destroying one of their children, they turn to a third party: the psychiatrist. The first thing the psychiatrist does is hang an insulting label on the child (a pseudo-medical diagnosis) prior to involuntarily drugging him with drugs that induce a physical torment called akathisia (see my post on the subject here).

I have written a lot about psychiatry (see this summary). My point is that it is an act of astronomical hypocrisy to prosecute traffickers of illegal narcotics for adults and, at the same time, ignore the legal drugs that are used to torment defenceless children. Keep in mind that consuming illicit drugs is voluntary, and the drugging of the child with licit drugs is involuntary (insofar as the child doesn’t want to be tormented with akathisia). From this angle, all series like Breaking Bad do is reinforce the astronomically hypocritical narrative of the System. That’s why one of the few things I did like about the series is that Hank Schrader, the DEA agent, ends up with a bullet in his forehead.

In short, for a normie Breaking Bad is akin to taking methamphetamine, or rather, the soma drug from Brave New World. It is pop art that pulls us to the dark side, to continue to see ourselves through the prism of a System that wants to destroy us. The masses don’t read what the subversive Jews of the Frankfurt School write. The masses are being drugged with what Orwell called prole feed. The attitude a true Aryan should have is the opposite of the attitude of Counter-Currents, a supposed pro-white webzine that idealises Hollywood’s prolefeed.

Categories
Film Miscegenation

The Rogue Prince

‘The Rogue Prince’ is the second episode of the first season of House of the Dragon, which first aired yesterday on HBO.

Lord Nigger [1] suggests to his daughter Laena Velaryon, a twelve-year-old mulatto, who in the series appears wearing a blonde wig, that she, the child, proposes to King Viserys Targaryen to marry her. As I was saying a week ago, given that in the novels the Velaryons are as hyper-Nordic as the Targaryens, the mulatto girl’s proposal makes no sense: ‘I will give you many children of pure Velaryon blood’.

The casting of House of the Dragon, unlike the casting of Game of Thrones, is so surreal that someone who has read the novels would think that dialogue like that, read in some George R.R. Martin book, could only mean that a precocious Norse nymphet means that the king’s offspring will be as Nordic as that of his predecessors (of course: after the precocious nymphet menstruates and can procreate).

Unlike what I did with Game of Thrones, doing an episode-by-episode review of this new HBO spawn will be a test of patience for me; and it’s not clear that I’ll be up to the task. That many white people are fans of this series can only mean that the white race has lost its Lebenskraft or thirst for life.

But the episode doesn’t begin with the surreal scene described above. Near the beginning we see Lord Nigger making an arrogant entrance into the Small Council. If we take into account what Gaedhal said yesterday about Israel’s first kings, Saul and David, having a Jew direct a popular series for goyim consumption seems to fit in with exterminating the best of them. And also following what we were saying yesterday (JQ = CQ), it was precisely the Christians who, in historical times, proclaimed that it was okay for a white to marry a coloured because all are equal in the eyes of the god of the Jews. (Do you see why those white nationalists who continue to worship such a god are idiots?)

Back to The Rogue Prince. We see Lord Nigger with intimidating gestures in the Small Council, in front of the king. A woman, Princess Rhaenyra, and Lord Nigger, are the only brave ones in the Small Council when it comes to controlling the rogue prince Daemon. The Council dismisses Princess Rhaenyra’s suggestion to show strength against Daemon, and she is relegated to selecting a new knight for the King’s Guard. Unlike Game of Thrones, where the main characters are white, the princess chooses a mudblood, Ser Criston Cole.

We then see Lord Nigger and the king in the castle gardens. I can think of no better way to demoralise the Aryan man than to watch these scenes. We didn’t even see these things in Game of Thrones, even though it was also filmed by Jews. The fact that they are putting more and more miscegenation in these series only points to a cinema of the future in which no whites will appear any more.

As the Targaryens are the most Nordic of Martin’s universe, and as House of the Dragon is about that feudal house, this new series should’ve been the more Nordicist of the two series, and is turning out to be the less Nordicist. That Martin hasn’t torn his garments but accepted this visual outrage only shows how infinitely corrupt white people, including its artists, have become. Changing the skin colour of the characters of the Velaryons House is a greater outrage than the feminism we saw in Game of Thrones. In the old series we only saw mixed couples in the brothels of Westeros. Here we are getting it from the nobility (as in the real world happened recently in England: instead of marrying an English rose, the rogue prince chose a coloured bitch).

Returning to the second episode, in Dragonstone the blond Daemon meets his mudblood lover (who in the novel is ultra-white because she’s an albino). Fortunately, in the next scene the king announces that he isn’t going to marry the precocious mulatta of the above pic but Alicent of High Tower House, who is white. Lord Nigger rises from the Small Council table and angrily says ‘This is an absurdity’, and storms off. Apparently, in real life, the princes of the UK can no longer behave as a fictional character does in a series filmed by a Jew: to marry a woman of their lineage…

_________

[1] See what I said about Lord Corlys a week ago.