web analytics

Category: Film

Categories
Exterminationism Film Final solution Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 60

Moreover, they acted and made others act without hatred or sadism.

To the American prosecutor Walton, who questioned him during his trial after the disaster, the SS Gruppenführer Otto Ohlendorf, Commander-in-Chief of Einsatzgruppe D, declared that a man ‘who showed pleasure in these executions was fired’,[1] which means that these executions were considered in high places, as well as in the ranks of the SS, as an unpleasant necessity; as a task to be accomplished without hesitation, certainly, but without joy as without disgust, with serene indifference, in the interest of the German Reich and soon Pan-Aryan, which was also ‘the interest of the Universe’.[2] In the mind of the Supreme Leader, Adolf Hitler, the expansion and transformation of the Reich was to initiate a global ‘recovery’ in the traditional sense of the word.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Perhaps it is worth confessing that, in my fantasies, I imagine the ‘extermination of the Neanderthals’ without an atom of sadism, as in the 1979 James Bond film Moonraker. Of course: the film is Hollywood bullshit like all the others. The billionaire Hugo Drax transported several dozen ‘genetically perfect’ (lol!) young men and women of different races, including blacks (!) to a space station. They would live there until Earth was cleansed and their descendants would be the seed of a ‘new master race’.

(Above, Hugo Drax, Moonraker’s villain, playing the piano at his mansion.) Drax reveals his plan to destroy human life by launching 50 giant balloons that would disperse a nerve gas into Earth’s atmosphere that kills humans instantly (animal species are unaffected). But Bond uses a laser-armed device to destroy some of the launched balloons.

I use the plot of that silly movie just to show that my hatred of Neanderthals is as cold and intellectual as Drax’s. Even with my exterminationist hatreds I would fulfil the 4 words, ‘avoid all unnecessary suffering’ when implementing final solutions to the human (or rather, Neanderthal) problem.

Savitri continues:

______ 卐 ______

 
But if, in practice, a ‘People’s Commissar’, a Slavic Communist,[3] was killed as an ‘enemy of the Reich’, as well as a Jew, it remains true that there was a nuance or difference in meaning between these two actions. The Slavic Communist was—just like any Communist as well as many non-Communists such as those nationalists of the Polish intelligentsia who were also shot by Einsatzgruppen commandos—considered personally dangerous. By killing him we eliminated an enemy, real or supposed. (There was no time to examine each individual case and to see whether, perhaps, some valuable individuals might not, in the long run, have been led to join the new German-dominated Europe.)

The Jew, in addition to the danger he could represent, and often did represent, personally, was considered dangerous in his very essence: because he belonged to the people whose historical role was to spread untruths and counter-values in the world: a source of subversion, a source of ‘anti-nature’; the ‘chosen’ people of the Powers Below (the exact antithesis of the Aryan and especially of the German), without whom neither Marxism, nor Jacobinism, nor Christianity—that ‘Bolshevism of Ancient World’, as the Führer so aptly put it—nor any of the forms of the superstition of ‘man’ and his ‘happiness’ at any price, would have come into being.

He symbolised the victory of the Dark Age, which the initiates know is inevitable, but which they strive to postpone as long as possible, if they have a fighting soul. His elimination was, even more than that of the people of all races who had believed his lies, a challenge to the Forces of Disintegration. For he was the ‘unclean’ element. In more than one speech, Himmler likened it to the parasitic insects whose presence degrades the most beautiful hair, the most robust body. And he saw its suppression ‘not as a matter of ideology, but as a matter of cleanliness’.

And yet… If there is an order to the leaders of the Einsatzgruppen to mercilessly eliminate ‘the enemies of National Socialism’ (including the Jews, of course), there is no German document proving that the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem’ meant the ‘total physical liquidation of the Jews’.

Consider the famous Protocol of the Wannsee Conference of January 18, 1942 (whose authenticity is questioned by an author as impartial as André Brissaud[4]) in the course of the trials set up after the war. With bad faith concerning the SS, the SD (Sicherheitsdienst), the Gestapo, etc., they translated as ‘extermination of the Jews in the German living space’ the sentence which actually means ‘repression of the Jews outside of German living space’ (Zurückdrängung der Juden aus dem Lebensraum des deutschen Volkes).[5]

It seems that, at first, it was only a question of ‘repression’ and not of indiscriminate extermination—and this, despite the anger of the Jews of the whole world, despite the resounding ‘declaration of war against the German Reich’ launched from New York at the beginning of August 1933 by Samuel Untermeyer, president of the ‘International Jewish Economic Federation to combat the Hitlerite oppression of Jews’ when there was still no oppression or persecution in Germany despite the call by Wladimir Jabotinsky, future head of the Jewish terrorist organisation Irgun Zwi Leumi, in the Jewish magazine Masha Rietsch of January 1934, for the ‘extermination of all Germans’.

_________

[1] Quoted in André Brissaud, Hitler and the Black Order, 1960 edition, p. 324.

[2] Bhagawad-Gîta, III, verse 25.

[3] Many of the People’s Commissars in Soviet Russia were Jews, but not all of them.

[4] Brissaud: Hitler and the Black Order (op cit.), p. 309.

[5] Quoted in full by Hans Grimm,Warum? Woher? Aber Wohin? 1954 edition, page 187.

Categories
Ancient Rome Film

What virtues should the apprentice priests have?

Last Friday, in another thread a commenter started an exchange with this comment: ‘I’ve watched it [Fight Club] over 20 times, and I think it’s a great movie to instill a stoic mentality on future white racists’.

This makes me wonder what the commenter means by ‘stoic mentality’. Has he read the section on Rome in the masthead of this site, or in William Pierce’s chapter that I have so highly recommended (both appear in The Fair Race)? It also reminds me that the gulf between me and some young visitors cannot be wider, as well as some words that the Spaniard Manu Rodríguez wrote for this site in 2013:

The circumspection (diligentia), the rigor (severitas), and self-control (continentia, and temperantia) define the solemn character (gravitas) of their actions, acquired by the industriousness (industria) and tenacity (constantia). The offspring are educated in adult models (mos maiorum). Humility (modestia) and worship (reverentia) are the virtues that should govern the relationship of the younger generation with the older.

These were the manly virtues in Republican Rome before degeneracy took over, before the Romans interbred with non-whites during the decadent Roman Empire. This also portrays the spirit of the priest of the 14 words. Those who lack these virtues cannot be priests, or even apprentice priests.

Needless to say, virtually no film this century coming out of (((Hollywood))) inspires the hard Roman ethos we need to save the Aryans from extinction. Or hasn’t the young commenter who said the above even read the masthead?

Categories
Arthur C. Clarke Autobiography Day of Wrath (book) Film Mainstream media Psychohistory Welfare of animals

Flawed sci-fi genre

On Mondays a ‘market on wheels’ passes near my house that doesn’t exist in the neighboring country to the north: Indians who sell food and other household items to the more bourgeois classes. For the ridiculous price of $15 pesos (0.72 dollars) yesterday I bought this year’s version of Dune.

I still remember when I saw the first film version of Frank Herbert’s novel in 1984 and I thought it was a very bad movie. But the 2021 version is worse as the accelerating trend toward Evil continues in these eschatological times, as Savitri would say. I mean the mania of putting more and more non-white actors on the big screen. The $15 pesos I spent yesterday for a pirated DVD of Dune was a good investment, as I prefer to give that amount to an Indian than to Hollywood dogs (tonight my sister and my nephew will watch Dune on the Imax screen).

Although, with the exception of this darkening of actors, the visual aspect of the 2021 film improves on previous versions, there will never be a good movie because Herbert’s novel is flawed.

When I saw the 1984 film, I was unaware of the existence of psychoclasses. Recently, in one of my comments on Savitri’s book, I said that the Spaniards belonged to a higher psychoclass than the Aztecs, who killed and ate their children. The mistake of Herbert and all fans of science-fiction is that they ignore the existence of psychoclasses. With the exception of the books that I’ve been promoting on this site from the pen of Arthur C. Clarke, the only thing that the authors of the futurist genre do is extrapolate the present of this fallen West to a future where technology has been developed.

But that is not the future.

During the Middle Ages in Europe, the future of the Mesoamerican and Inca world would be the destruction, thanks to the Europeans, of an infanticidal psychoclass, a psychoclass of serial killers (see the central part of my Day of Wrath) through an amalgamation between Indian and Spanish in which, at least, the filicide aspects of the Amerinds were overcome.

That doesn’t mean that I identify myself with the Castilians. I represent a psychoclass superior to theirs inasmuch as I have always been repulsed by bullfighting (as I tell in one of my autobiographical books, my grandmother and my godmother were fans of this sadistic art). In other words, internally I already made another quantum leap from the Spanish psychoclass to a psychoclass that feels infinitely more empathy for animals.

The mistake of Herbert, who once had a personal fight with Clarke, is that he was blind to psychogenic evolution; that is, to the development of empathy (think about how Hitler’s first measure when he came to power was to pass laws to prevent the cruelty to animals). Herbert extrapolates the human psychoclass from our time to the future as if there won’t be any psychogenic breakthroughs. For example, one of the anachronisms of the movie that I saw yesterday is the hobby of the House Atreides (the movie’s good guys), who had representations of bullfighting art in their palace, including the head of a sacrificed bull on a wall.

In fact, it is impossible for the current psychoclass of humans to grow indefinitely because with such advanced technology they would only end up self-destructing (which is why we receive no signs of intelligent life in the Milky Way). Only the Aryan overman, the followers of a new Hitlerite religion, could inherit the stars.

Unlike Herbert’s Dune, in a few of Clarke’s futuristic novels humans stop abusing children and animals. When in 1992 I wrote him a letter, and asked him what was his favourite novel among the many he wrote, the famous British author informed me that it was The Songs of Distant Earth (except for my address that I’ve just deleted, Clarke’s letter can be read: here). The novel has its problems, of course. Clarke was bisexual and this shows in The Songs of Distant Earth. But at least he acknowledges that psychoclasses may evolve in the future.

But I would like to say one more thing about the darkening of the actors in the 2021 version of Dune and Hollywood in general.

Yesterday I saw a segment of Fox News. The axiological lie on which the US is based, a lie that is exterminating the white race in that country, is something that even anchors like Tucker Carlson share. Last night Carlson said: ‘…the funding principle of the United States, to sum up, is the Christian belief that all people, regardless of their skin color, are equal before God’.

Well, they certainly aren’t equal before me.

Categories
Alexis de Tocqueville Egalitarianism Film French Revolution Quotable quotes

The monkey

Much of my autobiographical work was studying a psychosis that broke out in my family that destroyed several lives, a work that took me decades to write. Today I remembered a few words from Brad Griffin when considering the final state of psychosis in which westerners find themselves: ‘Having brought down kings and queens and aristocrats in the name of “equality”, it was logical [for white liberals] to declare war on Nature itself’.

But already in the 19th century Alexis de Tocqueville had seen the first signs of the psychic cancer with the words: ‘They [the Americans] have an ardent passion for equality; insatiable, eternal, invincible… They can put up with poverty, subjugation, barbarism, but they cannot stand aristocracy’ (De la Démocratie en Amérique II.I. §1), and in a lapidary phrase he nails it: ‘The desire for equality becomes more and more insatiable as equality increases’.

What would de Tocqueville have said about the cultural revolution that we suffer today, even in the previous Catholic Latin America, about equalising, with all the power of the State, trans people with normal people?

But like Griffin, de Tocqueville didn’t do deep archaeology. It was Christianity that originally psychotized Europeans with the first cancer cells, which only until now reached their final metastasis. I’m referring to the universalism of the Eastern Imperial Church, which admitted all ethnic castes in Constantinople. In Rome itself, Catholicism also implied blatant universalism, insofar as ‘all are equal in the eyes of God’.

I mention this because many racialists assume that things only began to deteriorate in the 1960s. More cultured conservatives believe that aristocratic values only collapsed after the French Revolution. But the cancer had started much earlier although, due to the nobility of the Aryan man, the metastasis had been stopped and equilibrium was reached in Europe (an equilibrium that the foundation of the US and the French Revolution broke).

All this reminds me of one of those silly movies that Hollywood produces. Outbreak, titled Epidemia in Latin America and Estallido in Spain, is a film based on the novel The Hot Zone. Starring Dustin Hoffman, Rene Russo, Morgan Freeman and Donald Sutherland, the plot revolves around a small monkey carrying a virus that unleashed a global pandemic: a monkey that had been illegally captured and transported by boat from Zaire to the US. The plot of the film revolves around finding the infected monkey so that scientists may save the world.

We could see it as a metaphor. Let us find Subject Zero! Where did the first virus come that, in a state of a pandemic, is nowadays killing whites? (for newcomers, the masthead of this site may guide you). As William Pierce wrote in 1989: ‘If our race survives the next century it will only be because we have gotten the monkey of Christianity off our backs…’

Categories
Eastern Orthodox Church Film Racial right

Best Russian film

Those who have read Pierce and Kemp’s books will know of other very dark hours for the white race. But without images or a good novel, like Julian by Vidal, it’s almost impossible to convey what happened with the proper emotions. Since Hollywood is in enemy hands, what is filmed there about the past distorts historical reality to the point of axiological reversal. But the best movie ever made in Russia, Andrei Rublev, transports us to one of these terrible moments as if we were in the cave of the three-eyed raven retrocognitively seeing the historical past. Tarkovsky’s film is three hours long and was shot in black and white (YouTube link here).

In the second part of the film, while the Russian Prince is away his younger brother, hungry for power, allies with a group of Tartars and attacks Vladimir. We see flashbacks of the Prince and his brother attending a church service. The non-white invasion of the combined armed forces on horseback and the resulting carnage is shown in great detail. The city is burned, the citizens are murdered and the women raped and murdered.

One scene shows a horse falling from a flight of stairs and being stabbed by a spear. Another shows that a cow is being set on fire. Fomá narrowly escapes being killed in the city and escapes to the nearby countryside, but when he crosses a river he is shot in the back with an arrow and killed.

The Tartars make their way to the barricaded church, now completely decorated with Andrei’s paintings, where most of the citizens have taken refuge. The Tartars show no mercy and slaughter the people inside and burn all the painted wooden altarpieces.

Andrei saves Dúrochka from being raped by killing a Tartar with an axe. The bishop’s messenger is cruelly tortured into revealing the location of the city’s gold. After being repeatedly burned, he has liquid metal from a melted crucifix poured into his mouth and is dragged away tied to a horse.

After that, only Andrei and Dúrochka are left alive in the church. A traumatised Andrei imagines a conversation with the late Theophanes the Greek, mourning the loss of his work and the evil of humanity, while Dúrochka absentmindedly braids the hair of a dead woman. Andréi decides to leave his profession of Orthodox Church painter and takes a vow of silence to atone for his sin due to the idiotic Christian commandment to never kill another man, even if he was a Tartar invader.

In the next film segment, Andrei is once again in the Andronikov monastery while famine and war dominate the country. He no longer paints or speaks but keeps the girl Dúrochka with him as a silent companion. After a few scenes, a group of Tartars stops at the monastery. The blonde Dúrochka is the perfect paradigm of Andrew Anglin’s words that I quoted in On Beth’s cute tits:

What I am ‘claiming’—which is in fact simply explaining an objective reality, based on accepted science—is that women have no concept of ‘race’, as it is too abstract for their simple brains. What they have a concept of is getting impregnated by the dominant male.

This girl, Dúrochka, ignores the atrocities that the Tartars had done in the Russian town and is fascinated by one of the soldier’s shiny breastplates. Still sitting on their horses, the Tartars tease her and play with her, but a soldier likes her, puts on her a horned helmet and dresses her as a bride, and finally decides to take her with him as his eighth wife, the only Russian wife of the non-white Tartar. Andrei tries to stop her from leaving him, but she spits in the face of the miserable Russian monk to let her go with the powerful Tartars. The scene perfectly portrays the mentality of white women but ultimately it is the fault of men like Andrei who, instead of fighting, obey the ‘love thine enemy’ gospel message.

Today in the morning when I went out for a walk to warm my feet on a cloudy day, a revelation came to me about all those scenes which can be seen in the video embedded above from 1:25 to 2:10. Yes: white women of our time are behaving like Dúrochka, jumping on the horse of the mighty: the Allies and Jews who wrote history books after WW2. Otherwise they would be on the side of their ethnic group, which would mean transvaluing all values concerning the Third Reich.

However, what Stalin’s hordes did in Germany is no different than what the Tartars did in the segment linked in the previous paragraph. And none of the main WN authors complains about this on their misleadingly called ‘white nationalist’ websites. That’s why I said yesterday that not even the commenters who visit this site are priests of the 14 words.

For any of them to become a priest, he wouldn’t only have to want to multiply with Aryan girls like the SS booklet I’ve been quoting. In practical terms this means hostilely taking over the State and destroying feminism in a single day through a massive rape of the Sabine women (insofar as today’s Western women are not as decent as the women whose pics appear in the SS booklet I’ve been quoting). See the section in On Beth’s cute tits where an MGTOWer says that in patriarchy men have the power of sexual reproduction, while in feminist society it’s women who have that power.

It also means founding, in the new extremely brutal ethnostate, a kind of reply to Hollywood’s brainwashing machine by filming the Allied atrocities in Germany and in the forced labour and extermination camps of the Soviet Union, where huge numbers of Germans were deported never to return. No one who doesn’t feel compassion for the slaughtered Germans has the right to comment here, since besides the 14 words I am also a priest of the 4 words.

Remember that.

The Dúrochka-like women in today’s West are simply jumping on the horses of the powerful. And the American and European males aren’t really men but a kind of neochristian monks (see for example what Mauricio recently said about Greg Johnson: a perfect paradigm of today’s ‘white nationalism’). Even their WN websites remind me of Andrei Rublev who, in those apocalyptic moments for Russia, instead of transvaluing Xtian values plunged himself into theological discussions and felt guilty for killing a single Tartar.

Only those who, unlike Rublev, have left Xtian ethics behind will be capable of saving their race.

Categories
Film

Exactly…

two years ago the finale of Game of Thrones, ‘The Iron Throne’, was released. Below, a transcription of Yezenirl’s video ‘The Power of Stories: How Bran the Broken was Always the Ending’ which can be seen on YouTube:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

‘Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of York’. —Richard III

Tyrion: ‘All hail Bran the Broken, First of his Name, King of the Andals and the First Men, Lord of the Six Kingdoms, Protector of the Realm’ [Editor’s note: in Yezen’s video these italicised words are brief audiovisual clips of different scenes; the sentences between the brackets are mine].

I do get it. David Benioff and D.B. Weiss aren’t great writers. The ending was rushed, Season Eight was sloppy, and frankly I thought Season Six and Seven felt like fan-fiction. So it should come as no surprise that there’s a lot of complaints and confusion about the ending.

Still, Tyrion was right about one thing: stories are powerful. There’s nothing like a good story. And now, it seems there’s nothing like a bad one either. Yet, somehow Game of Thrones managed to be both. For years now it shocked us, captivated us, angered us and brought us together. And for all the flaws of the final season, this is the story we got. Books aside, all we can do now is to decide what to make of what the show gave us.

I know for many that means dissecting where the writers went wrong, and I’ll eventually get to that, but as for right now, I’m not interested in just joining the chorus of fanboy rage. Instead, as a guy who did call King Bran [Yezen was the only one who correctly predicted who would become king in the finale], let me try to explain why this was always the direction the story was headed, and try to make sense of just what the ending meant, as broken as it may have been.

Bran was always meant to climb to the top. And it’s pretty clear upon re-reading the first book that this was always the plan. Personally, I figured this several years ago, when George R.R. Martin’s editor Anne Groell revealed that Bran’s end point was the only one she knew.

Obviously, certain things will differ in the books. I expect how he’s chosen will be a little bit different, as well as how he acts, and book-Bran will probably rule from Harrenhal, not King’s Landing. But the question most people have is, what does this mean? Why write this tale of handsome princes and beautiful conquerors only to end with a crippled King?

One reason why King Bran is so controversial is that he’s probably the most poorly understood major character in the story. Bran’s character arc, at its core, is pretty straightforward: he’s a reference to Bran the Blessed, Frodo Baggins, and Rainbow Crow. It’s the tale of a boy who was deemed so broken by a society that he’s even mocked for not killing himself. So, believing the world will never have a place for him, he struggles to see value in his own life, eventually going beyond the Wall in search of purpose, merging with a godhood [the old religion] and fighting against the apocalypse [the white walkers]. Much like the audience, the Seven Kingdoms doesn’t really understand what Bran has become, or how he helped save the world.

Yet, when Bran returns, the Kingdom was broken just like him. And all of the things that once made him useless to the militaristic culture of Westeros, now make him the ideal Fisher King: an incorruptible figurehead to help usher in a new system. And thus, Bran the Broken is immortalised as a story around which the Kingdoms of Westeros can unite. The bittersweet irony is that when Bran is finally celebrated, he’s too consumed by godhood to feel his own triumph.

Bran: ‘You shouldn’t envy me. Mostly, I live it in the past’.

Bran’s emotional distance from the audience is very much the point. And so is the abruptness of his coronation. Bran’s arc doesn’t move towards Kingship; it’s the arc of the Seven Kingdoms that moves toward Bran the Broken. Essentially, the message here is one of humility—a reminder that each of us is bound by blessed and cursed fates. A once ridiculed woman (Brienne) can become the truest of knights [transcriber’s note: this is bullshit feminism], a despised imp (Tyrion) can be a brave hero, an exiled girl (Dany) can become a great liberator—and a great liberator (also Dany) can become an unstoppable tyrant. The capacity of outcasts to rise and fall means that we must learn to see value in everyone, including the cripples, bastards and broken things.

Of course, the big question about King Bran is whether he planned it all out. Was Bran a puppet master, or was he a puppet who could see the strings? Did the Three-Eyed Raven manipulate events to put itself into power?

Bran: ‘Why do you think I came all this way?’

Well, maybe?

The former Three-Eyed Raven [Ser Brynden Rivers in Martin’s novels, called Lord Bloodraven] seemed to know that Bran would eventually be Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, and hinted at it back in Season Six:

‘You won’t be here forever. You won’t be an old man in a tree’.

But in Season Seven, Bran seemingly doesn’t see it, and often admits to not knowing things.

Bran: ‘I can never be Lord of Winterfell. I can never be Lord of anything’ [words to Sansa in Season 7].

Bran: ‘I don’t know. No one’s ever tried’ [words of season 8, episode 2].

Bran: ‘His last name isn’t really Snow. It’s Sand’ [words to Sam in season 7, episode 7].

Bran: ‘I need to learn to see better’ [words to Sansa under Winterfell’s weirwood tree].

So, it’s likely that if the Three-Eyed Raven did set things up, then for Bran it’s something like a half-remembered dream. That said, in Jon’s final dialogue, we do get one last hint that the Three-Eyed Raven was in fact the Lord of Light.

Jon: ‘I’m sorry I wasn’t there when you needed me’.

Bran: ‘You were exactly where you were supposed to be’.

This interaction references several conversations about characters serving the Lord’s purpose. And thus seems to imply that the Lord of Light’s plan was also the Three-Eyed Raven’s plan. So, Jon was in fact there for Bran all along, as a soldier in the Three-Eyed Raven’s war, which provides the closest thing we can get to an answer over that burning question: Did Bran do anything, or did Bran do everything? [Transcriber & editor’s notes: Here follows a few words we won’t quote that Yezen apparently picked up from an episode in Futurama where God speaks to the main character.]

By leaving Bran’s actions ambiguous, the story actually upholds the choices made by the characters. After Hodor, Bran seemingly learns to never again violate another human being’s autonomy. So, regardless of whether the characters were playing the Raven’s game, or whether this universe is just random, each of them had free will and made their own choices.

The big misconception here is the idea that the problem of ruling has been resolved by a god, when in actuality Bran doesn’t solve the problem of ruling. He’s mostly a figurehead who subtly empowers people to fix the world themselves. The problem of ruling is left to Tyrion and his council of former outcasts.

Which brings me to the third element that needs to be discussed, which is the small thing Bran does bring to the table. In my prediction video [see our transcript: here] I talked about Bran’s wisdom as capacity for understanding. But the ending, rushed as it was, suddenly brought up another thing which I really hoped it would. And that is the nature of justice. Throughout the episode, there’s the dilemma presented about what justice really means. Can we forgive those who have done us wrong? Is the world we need one of mercy?

If you recall, Game of Thrones begins with Bran going to see his first execution: a man has deserted the Night’s Watch. As is the law, Lord Eddard Stark hears his last words and executes him. Afterwards, Ned prompts Bran that one day this justice will fall to him. And in the end, it does. But where the story opens on an act of retributive justice—a form of justice framed around punishment—Bran’s first act as King is to shift his Kingdom towards a justice that is more restorative, as in, justice which focuses on rehabilitating the offender and reconciling with the community.

Grey Worm: ‘This man is a criminal. He deserves justice’.

Bran: ‘He just got it. He’s made many terrible mistakes. He’s going to spend the rest of his life fixing them’.

Justice for Tyrion is to fix the problems he’s brought upon Westeros, by becoming Hand of the King. Justice for Jon is to return to the place he functioned best and act as King-beyond-the-Wall. Once again, Bran puts Jon exactly where he’s supposed to be. And while the show explore these ideas so sloppily that it’s hard to register, there’s really nothing we can do about that. The time where internet rage [the fans hated this season as Yezen explains: here] could have shifted the direction of the show’s writing is long gone. And I understand why that’s a frustrating reality for so many: especially those who’ve invested a ton of time and thought into this story. But all we can do now is try to make the most of the ending we got. Maybe I’m a little number to this because I’ve not been a fan of the writing for the past three seasons. For me, I’ve mainly looked at the show as a spoiler-filled preview of books that may never come.

Sam: ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’.

And you know, from that perspective, there’s a lot to be hopeful for about the ending. King Bran feels so true for Martin’s philosophy that I can no longer see how the ending could have been anything else. So although the Kingdoms of Westeros have been broken by war, it seems they may have learned a little something along the way. And you know? Hopefully we did too.

Jon: ‘It doesn’t feel right’.

Tyrion: ‘Ask me again in ten years’.

Anyways I got more content coming… In the meantime I’m also kind of sad that the ending turned out being so unpopular. And I hope this helped. Peace out. Thanks for watching.

Categories
Film

The last of the Starks

‘The Last of the Starks’ is the fourth episode of the eighth season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 71st overall.

As I said in the previous instalment of this series, ‘The Long Night’ is so exciting that the anticlimax is unwatchable. If I had directed the show, in addition to removing feminism from it; the soft-porn scenes, Arya’s psycho traits, and putting Theon as the late hero instead of an heroine, I would’ve ended the series by filming, in this episode, Bran’s coronation after Jon led a mass cremation funeral for the dead (the latter we do see in the HBO series).

In that way the series wouldn’t have ended in the eighth season but in the seventh, in 2017: this eleventh episode being the anticlimax (something common in masterpieces of literature).

If you look at the popularity statistics for Game of Thrones, after Arya killed the monarch of the white walkers and the wights, the Night King, the fan acceptance plummeted. On the one hand I am pleased, although anti-feminism wasn’t the cause of the repudiation of this season but the blunder of squeezing all the complex plots pending in a couple of episodes.

The feminist messages that continue in this episode are not worth describing further, except that while watching ‘The Last of the Starks’ tonight I counted two of them.

Categories
Feminism Film

The long night

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Feminism Film

Winterfell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Feminism Film

Beyond the Wall

‘Beyond the Wall’ is the sixth and penultimate episode of the seventh season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 66th overall. Here we see Beric talking to Jon on the other side of the Wall.

From this episode until the grand finale we began to see problems of another kind. Since George R.R. Martin didn’t finish the last two novels of his epic when they were filming the last two seasons, the producers rushed the story to levels that spoiled the rhythm of the series.

Many fans of the novels are furious with Martin because even today he has not finished the last two novels of A Song of Ice and Fire. I feel a little more empathy for the writer. Writing is a thankless task that is done in solitude, in the writer’s home. Most writers can’t even make a living from their craft. When the miracle happens, as it happened to Martin when HBO decided to bring his most ambitious work to the small screen, it is natural that with the river of money flowing towards the writer he changes his lifestyle, doing the writing in the bedroom more difficult, especially due to Martin’s advanced age.

But the mistake of this episode and others of the following season is that Martin was right in asking the creators of the HBO series David Benioff and D. B. Weiss that the series should run for about fourteen seasons. That would mean that filming would be roughly halfway through by now. If we assume one season per year, the eighth season should have been released in 2018; the ninth in 2019, the tenth in 2020 and this month that I write the fans would be watching the eleventh.

Benioff and Weiss went their own way by taking a shortcut, narrowing down the remaining seven seasons in episodes 66 to 73. And unlike previous seasons that had ten episodes each, the seventh season only has seven. The following season, the eighth and last, only six episodes. That’s far from the adequate pace, although it was only until the middle of the eighth season that fans were very disappointed by this rush.

But still, in this rushed episode 66, we see two conversations between the Stark sisters in which Arya tells Sansa that since she was a child she wanted to become a knight, though there are still no female knights in Westeros; and that she wanted to break the rules. (Worse still, the writers recast this Arya girl with psychopathic traits as we see when she talks to Sansa.) But feminism doesn’t end there. Near the end of the episode the king of the north, Jon, promises Dany that he will bend the knee before her.