web analytics

Category: Film

Categories
Child abuse Film Psychohistory

One more movie

Regarding what I said in my previous posts, that the treatment of children was so atrocious in the past that it caused psychosis in ancient societies, perhaps some visitors have already read a quote in one of the chapters of Day of Wrath:

In my view, the psychohistory of Lloyd deMause is indeed a notable approach to history, in the sense in which Wikipedia uses the term “notability.” I am not personally involved in psychohistory—I am a mathematical sociologist—but here are some thoughts for your consideration.

Psychohistory as put forth by deMause and his many followers attempts to explain the pattern of changes in the incidence of child abuse in history. This is a perfectly respectable and non-fringe domain of scientific research. They argue that the incidence was much higher in the past, and that there has been an irregular history of improvement. This is a hypothesis that could just as easily have been framed by an epidemiologist as a psychologist. DeMause proposes a theory that society has gone through a series of stages in its treatment and discipline of children.

Again, this is well within the bounds of social science. None of these questions are pseudoscientific. Even the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, a bastion of scientific epidemiology, is interested in these kinds of hypotheses.

Except for some Amazonian tribes, in our time parents are no longer allowed to bury their kids alive. Ours is an infinitely more advanced psychoclass compared to the prehistoric psychoclass and even of many historical societies (think for example of what I said yesterday about the Aztecs).

But even in our western society it is taboo to talk about the abuse that some of our parents inflicted upon us as children. Except for what Stefan Molyneux said about his abusive Jewish mother, who among the racialists has raised the issue?

Not long ago I published a list of a hundred movies that could be seen in these times of pandemic. I forgot to mention Stand by Me, which contains a scene worth remembering (linked by the end of this post).

Interestingly, yesterday when I watched a DVD about LOTR’s The Two Towers I later learned that, in the extended edition of one of the films, a scene appears in which Faramir goes through a flashback which shows Boromir and his father Denethor, Steward of Gondor: who doesn’t love his youngest son.

The funny thing is that even in the non-extended version that we all saw on the big screen Gandalf tells Faramir the lie ‘Your father loves you’. Similarly, in Stand by Me Chris told Gordie a well-intentioned lie: that it was false that his father hated him.

While there is a chasm between the sacrificial practices of ancient times with the way some parents treat their children today, it is very rare to hear someone confess his pain as directly and emotionally as the boy Gordie did in the movie.

I try to break the taboo in my autobiographical books.

Categories
Film

The Name of the Rose

In his latest piece, published today, Ricardo Duchesne says that ‘the Western ideals of individualism, egalitarianism, and moral universalism are the ultimate causes’ of white suicide. But again, he doesn’t mention that Christianity exacerbated individualism, egalitarianism, and moral universalism. (The doctrine that your soul must be saved from eternal fire infinitely exacerbated the individualism of the white race.) But I didn’t want to focus on Duchesne.

These days I watched the miniseries they made last year about the novel The Name of the Rose, authored by the Italian Umberto Eco. Naively, I acquired the DVDs expecting that the Italian Giacomo Battiato would respect his countryman’s masterpiece. To my surprise, Battiato did the same thing they did in the 1986 film, in which Sean Connery plays the wise Franciscan monk William of Baskerville: they both saved the girl who, in Eco’s novel, is sent to the stake by an Inquisitor. But the recent television series is much worse, as it invents female characters, brave warriors of course, who do not appear in either Eco’s novel or the 1986 Hollywood adaptation.

It is really a scandal that the film industry continues to betray one of the very few masterpieces in literature of the last decades (here on this site I also have promoted the reading of Julian by Gore Vidal).

Even though I don’t recommend the 1986 adaptation, much less last year’s miniseries, seeing the latter these days reminded me of something I have already said on this site about a passage in The Name of the Rose: precisely what white advocates like Duchesne will never dare to see.

Categories
Ancient Greece Ancient Rome Death in Venice (movie) Film Homosexuality Pederasty Third Reich

Puritanical degeneracy

The first minute of this speech by a rabbi is unusual, as he tells the truth about how Hitler healed a Berlin that looked like Sodom and Gomorrah. The rabbi says that the first action Hitler took to heal degenerate Weimar Germany was to ban pornography and out-the-closet homosexuality. Which editor of the main webzines of white nationalism is currently proposing to emulate the Führer with such salubrious measures, repressing everything related to LGBT?

I have often said, even personally with some relatives, that the colourful LGBT flag lacks precisely the colour that was relatively accepted in the Greco-Roman world. Since in that world neither the Greeks nor the Romans had been miscegenated to the point of becoming the creatures we see today in Greece and Italy, Federico Fellini was right to choose two English actors for the roles of Encolpius and Giton in his surreal adaptation of Petronius’ Satyricon (the Roman author of that novel lived in 27-66 of the Common Era).

As we can see in this Satyricon clip, it’s about a man in his twenties and an androgynous teenager. Such sort of ‘pederasty’ was the only accepted form of homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world, and seeing the clip doesn’t cause revulsion in the straight viewer as the adolescent Giton, before becoming a fully-developed man, really looks like a girl.

The LGBT Sodom movement will be able to add more colours to its flag now that the genres are surrealistically multiplying. But it will never add to it the only colour accepted in the time of Pericles, or Nero when Petronius flourished (remember that in a revised reading of history, which removes Christian propaganda, Nero was not a villain).

Why do I say that those of the LGBT, who must be swept away as the first cleansing action of the Fourth Reich, will not okay the only homo colour accepted in the ancient Aryan world? A single anecdote will illustrate my point.

A book that can be read online, Thomas Hubbard’s Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents was published in 2003 and can be downloaded for free: here. The following editorial review also appears on that site:

The most important primary texts on homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome are translated into modern, explicit English and collected together for the first time in this comprehensive sourcebook. Covering an extensive period―from the earliest Greek texts in the late seventh century b.c.e. to Greco-Roman texts of the third and fourth centuries c.e.―the volume includes well-known writings by Plato, Sappho, Aeschines, Catullus, and Juvenal, as well as less well known but highly relevant and intriguing texts such as graffiti, comic fragments, magical papyri, medical treatises, and selected artistic evidence.

These fluently translated texts, together with Thomas K. Hubbard’s valuable introductions, clearly show that there was in fact no more consensus about homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome than there is today… This unique anthology gives an essential perspective on homosexuality in classical antiquity.

Scandalised by this professor’s academic work on pederasty, half a year ago antifa vandalised his house, as can be read in this article. (You have to be very careful with this journalistic note. It was written by a Latina, and those who protested and vandalised the professor’s house were predominantly feminist women.)

Personally, I don’t think the Fourth Reich should promote pederasty, but it should promote what I quoted recently: ‘We need a regime that bans pornography and erects statues of gorgeous naked nymphs and ephebes in every public square and crossroads’.

However, it is very clear to me that what we see in the above image, and the filth that fortunately Hitler prohibited as soon as he came to power, are two kind of animals not only different but opposed from an aesthetic point of view. But regarding same-sex unions Americans are apparently unable to distinguish between the sublime and the grotesque (the Gomorrah that the Third Reich rightly annihilated).

The United States was once brilliantly described by Richard Spencer saying that it was a mix of Christian Puritanism and sexual degeneracy—both side by side and at the same time! Too bad they recently deleted his YouTube channel and I can’t link to it, but if I remember correctly, that video dates back to the times of the Kavanaugh hearing.

No wonder that a nation suffering from such schizophrenia is absolutely incapable of recreating visually the Greco-Roman world as it really was. Hollywood Rome is not Rome, and although the Jews and the decadent Americans are very good in recreating degeneracy, they’re unable to recreate the healthy pederasty of ancient times. They couldn’t even bring a movie like Death in Venice to the screen. Only an Italian was able to do it with the proper aesthetics, and without any sexual contact in the film (a truly platonic love).

What I said in my entry ‘The transvaluation explained’ can be exemplified by that American chimera between gross sexual degeneration and Puritanism. As long as the Americans don’t dare to see Hitler as the best man in history, and Constantine the worst, they will be unable to bring to the screen the ethos of Greco-Roman antiquity, the truly Aryan world. As to the visual arts on the television and cinema, they will continue to be neochristian in sexual matters.

Our roots are Greece and Rome—not Jerusalem. Keep in mind what Savitri Devi said and the Nazis she quotes in my other post today.

Categories
Catholic Church Film

West and Morgan

I just found out that Donald J. West, whose book Eleven Lourdes Miracles* helped me so much in debunking Lourdes’ miracles, died this year at 95. Rest in peace and thanks for that book, Donald!

On other subject, I think I already know where commenter ‘Dr. Robert Morgan’ got his pen name: from the 1964 film The Last Man on Earth. Morgan used to comment here and on Unz Review and by the way, the movie can be watched on YouTube. The actor Vincent Price who played Dr. Robert Morgan was well known when I was much younger. My father loved him. I wonder if young racialists have ever seen a movie with him?

______

(*) A sceptical work mentioned in one of my books that can be seen in my previous post. Our Lady of Lourdes was venerated by my extremely pious ancestors.

Categories
Aryan beauty Conspiracy theories Film

Indictment (1995)

Regarding my list of 50 movies that I recommend, this morning I was tempted to replace Elizabeth (1998) with Indictment: The McMartin Trial (1995). I didn’t because, twenty-two years ago, the beauty of Cate Blanchett (pic above) and the clothing of other women, almost at the beginning of the film, briefly portray the nymphs on this blog’s sidebar with real-life specimens (here, and Elizabeth with her boyfriend here). But the plot of Elizabeth is Hollywoodesque and doesn’t seem as relevant to understanding the dark hour as Indictment.

In the forums of white nationalism, and even in Metapedia, we are told that the expression ‘conspiracy theory’ is a Jewish invention. The reality is that there are some racially conscious whites who don’t subscribe the theories of staunch libertarians, like those of the flu truthers. Those reluctant to flip through Bugliosi’s JFK book, but who are interested in knowing why I despise conspiracy theorists so much, can do so by entertaining themselves with Indictment, and viewing it as the #51 movie of my list of favourite movies.

Indictment shows the incredible delusional level reached by some conspiracy theorists in the decade that Elizabeth was filmed: a witch-hunt that, in real life, destroyed the lives of innocent men and women.

Everything has to do with understanding mental illness, even the folies en masse, not from the point of view of psychiatry, which is a pseudoscience; but from the POV of my book Day of Wrath which explains the notion of ‘paleologic thinking’ to distinguish it from the more artstotelic forms of human cognition.

Categories
Exterminationism Film

On Barton Fink fans

There is something I want to say about the recent discussion thread of Savitri Devi’s article.

Some things can be told rhetorically on a blog and other things cannot be said rhetorically. Exterminationism, ‘the religion of the 4 words’, is one of the things that cannot be said rhetorically. It is a subject that requires a new Bible, the Bible of the exterminating angel.

A thick novel cannot be read online either, and I dare say that even classics in the pro-white movement, such as the MacDonald trilogy, must be bought and read on paper to make footnotes with our pencils.

I’m going to be honest with my post from yesterday. There are literary styles that I tolerate and styles that I don’t tolerate. Years ago I said that there are books that I throw away if they are written in opaque prose. I also don’t like esoteric literature. When Jez Turner asked me in London if I had read Miguel Serrano, along with Devi the most famous Hitler esoterist, he was surprised when I answered no, although Serrano (1917-2009) wrote in my native language.

Sometimes I make exceptions, as I did with a book by Michel Foucault critical of psychiatry, written in opaque prose. I also made an exception with Devi’s book on animal welfare, written in esoteric prose.

But I am rambling. The reason that exterminationism cannot be blogged rhetorically is that there is no way to create a bridge of empathy in which the normie reader can sympathise with such an apparently extreme stance. (Apparent, I say, because from the POV of the Star Child what is extreme is that there are so many Neanderthals who are causing countless unnecessary suffering.)

I recently made a list of 50 movies that can be viewed in covid-19 quarantine. In two films on my list, 2001: A Space Odyssey and A.I., in one humanity is about to be metamorphosed when the Star Child returns on the clouds with great power and glory, and in the other no human is left over the planet. That is the limit that a normie can access when talking about exterminationism: movies, fiction. But inviting a normie to reason like the Star Child will only result in something that happened here.

Franklin Ryckaert used to comment here. He stopped doing it when I talked about exterminationism. In many ways Ryckaert, a white nationalist, subscribes, like the vast majority of white nationalists, to Christian standards of morality even though he is a secular man.

Well, it is virtually impossible to convey post-Christian ethics to neo-Christians like Ryckaert and most white nationalists. Regarding exterminationism the limit of their Overton Window, or window of discourse, would be precisely the two films cited. Nothing else. Only if someone like Ryckaert read my From Jesus to Hitler would he realise the spiritual odyssey that led me to exterminationism.

I insist: some things can be said in blogs and others can’t. A series of thick books like George R.R. Martin’s saga would not be able to transmit on a blog either. You have to buy at least the first of his books to enter his universe.

It is so difficult to think in exterminationist terms that even people like Andrew Hamilton, and Alex Linder himself, felt some reservations the first time they read The Turner Diaries. On the other hand, when I listened to the novel for the first time (as I listened to the audiobook with Pierce’s own voice) it seemed to me that the author was developing ideas that I had harboured for decades! I was already prepared for such a novel. Axiologically speaking, a normie like Greg Johnson even felt tremendous rejection when he read the Diaries. And a lot of white nationalists, actually neochristians, feel the same revulsion that Johnson felt.

Exterminationism is for very mature men, aged old men in the tree of the human past so to speak, especially those who have suffered the unspeakable and have assimilated that mountain of pain in a long process. Pain is something that cannot be transmitted in blogs, only in long texts. Most white nationalists cannot even face a book whose author suffered horrors in writing, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany. We can already imagine the resistance they would place in order not to face the odyssey of a single individual.

They remind me of the movie Barton Fink, in which a fat Aryan wrestler told a slim kike writer in Hollywood that nobody is interested in hearing about a tortured soul; what the public wants to see is freestyle wrestling.

Barton Fink is for the Judaised white trash of today. A.I. is a stepping-stone for those who were abandoned in the woods as children and now need to heal. Remember: only revenge heals the wounded soul. And the ultimate revenge is extermination.

I would like to finish this post with some words from another of the 50 films I recommend. I refer to Mitchell Garabedian in Spotlight: ‘This city, these people [Bostonians who didn’t give a damn about the priests who molested kids] making the rest of us feel like we don’t belong. But they’re no better than us. Look at how they treat their children. Mark my words, Mr. Rezendes: If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one’ .

Categories
Film

50 films during the quarantine

Note of December 2023:

I’ve now bolded the movies I recommend.

 

The films are arranged chronologically:

1. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

2. Frankenstein (1931)

3. Gone with the Wind (1939)

4. Fantasia (1940)

5. Beauty and the Beast (1946)

6. It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)

7. Hamlet (1948)

8. Los Olvidados – known in the US as
The Young and the Damned (1950)

9. Shane (1953)

10. Forbidden Planet (1956)

11. Lust for Life (1956)

12. The Seventh Seal (1957)

13. Wild Strawberries (1957)

14. Ben-Hur (1959)

15. Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959)

16. Sleeping Beauty (1959)

17. The Time Machine (1960)

18. Jason and the Argonauts (1963)

19. The Little Prince and the 8-Headed Dragon (1963)

20. My Fair Lady (1964)

21. The Sound of Music (1965)

22. The Agony and the Ecstasy (1965)

23. Andrei Rublev (1966)

24. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

25. Romeo and Juliet (1968)

26. Oliver! (1968)

27. Planet of the Apes (1968)

28. Death in Venice (1971)

29. Bless the Beasts and Children (1971)

30. Brother Sun, Sister Moon (1972)

31. Deliverance (1972)

32. Soylent Green (1973)

33. Jesus Christ Superstar (1973)

34. Jaws (1975)

35. Barry Lyndon (1975)

36. Iphigenia (1977)

37. The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

38. Fanny and Alexander (1982)

39. Sense & Sensibility (1995)

40. Pride & Prejudice (1995 TV series)

41. Shine (1996)

42. Elizabeth (1998)

43. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

44. Lord of the Rings (2001-2003)

45. Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

46. Pride & Prejudice (2005 movie)

47. Apocalypto (2006)

48. Spotlight (2015)

49. Game of Thrones (2011-2019 TV series)

50. Joker (2019)

With the exception of The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (instead of the 1923 version I saw the 1939 version as a teen), the above are films that left a mark in my life since I was a child. Some of my inclusions require a kind of disclaimer, as when gradually I abandoned Christianity my vision of the films changed. But they are worth seeing because they portray the zeitgeist as Christianity was understood in America (for example, Ben-Hur) or in Europe (for example Brother Sun, Sister Moon) when I was a child and adolescent.

I also include in the list two television series, Pride & Prejudice and Game of Thrones. The first contains only good messages related to sexuality, and the second contains terrible sexual messages. If I include it, it is because GoT can be very entertaining for those who are bored in these months of quarantine. I would suggest to anyone who watches the 73 episodes of the GoT series to also read my criticism of it (see pages 137-227 of my anthology On Beth’s Cute Tits). I refer especially to its grotesque feminism, which is not so accused in the novels of George R.R. Martin. We can imagine how a friend of the fourteen words could have adapted Martin’s fantastic universe to the small screen, which contains much of the white man’s medieval spirit.

When I saw The Sound of Music in the mid-1960s I knew nothing about the true history of the Nazi occupation of Austria. But the film still can be watched if we omit the propaganda after the intermission. (I remember that in the cinemas of yesteryear the theater curtain was closed during the intermission so that people could go to the restroom.) The dance music between the captain and Maria should be the absolute paradigm of what the white man should dance in the ethnostate, in contrast to the filthy music that the Gomorrahites dance today.

Joker is included at the end of the list because it illustrates what I said in my post yesterday about destructive parenting. Very rarely the subject is brought to the screen, and in the case of the main character of this movie the level of damage that child abuse caused in the grown-up adult is very evident.

Just to get an idea of the taboo that people like Moly and I try to break, consider the #38 movie from the list, Fanny and Alexander, a veiled autobiography of the Swedish director Ingmar Bergman. In real life, Bergman confesses that the one who really abused him, religiously speaking, was his biological father, not his stepfather as in the movie. This shift of guilt is very common in western folklore, as in fairy tales for children like Harry Potter, where the abusive ones are the uncles so as not to touch the figure of the parents (the ones who generally mistreat the child in real life).

The only film I know of that openly blames an abusive father of the son’s schizophrenia is Shine, #41 in the list, which received an Oscar for best actor to the one who played the role of the schizophrenised son.

Categories
Arthur C. Clarke Film Mainstream media Pandemics

Lady revisited

If there is something that draws my attention from the pundits of white nationalism it is that they make reviews of recent films omitting that, unlike the cinema of yesteryear, they are pure poison for the white race. For example, in this quarantine millions of whites are actively poisoning their souls with Netflix and few complain.

In contrast yesterday I finished watching, once again, My Fair Lady of which I had already written something on this site in 2013.

Like classical music, it is a type of cinema that the younger generations of white advocacy are not only incapable of watching on the big screen, but even incapable to appreciate if they obtained the DVD to watch it on their televisions.

The disconnect between the pundits of the alt-right with the traditional legacy of the seventh art is so enormous that, when they opine about an old movie, they can say things that only reflect their ignorance. Not long ago, for example, commenting on my favourite film 2001: A Space Odyssey, in a conversation with Richard Spencer a certain Mark, a Hollywood expert, interpreted absurd things about the intentions of Kubrick. I know they are absurd because I have studied Arthur Clarke’s philosophy since the 1980s and read his biography, and Kubrick’s too, so I know the message of his most famous sci-fi novels thoroughly. (I even exchanged correspondence with Clarke in the 1990s, who was very impressed by a journal I sent him as it mentioned the obituary of a certain Benson Herbert, whom he had not dealt with since before World War II.)

But I wanted to talk about something else. One of the reasons this site doesn’t talk about news is because after a few days the media sometimes picks up info that the most radical bloggers had already said on their websites. For example, some of my recent posts mention that the Chinese virus may have come out of a Wuhan lab. I didn’t imagine, when I posted it, that Hannity would talk about it on Fox News soon after, inviting senators who also show their outrage about how these revelations change our views on the pandemic. I could have kept my policy of not talking about that kind of news. But the thing is, I never expected the MSM to bring up the lab scandal so soon. So I generally prefer to talk about things that won’t be said in the mainstream media.

What I experienced these nights before going to bed, for example, watching some minutes of My Fair Lady every midnight until after a few nights I finished it, is a subject not only that won’t appear on MSM but also on racialist forums. And it’s important to talk about it because in these times of lockdown racially conscious whites could try to start getting acquainted with the old cinema that contained good messages (recently I was talking about the movie Shane for example).

If there’s one thing I liked about My Fair Lady now that I saw it once more it’s that it reminds me of the days when men were men and women women (when Hollywood and TV now re-enact older times they put women as early feminists). Ever since I saw My Fair Lady as a child I have loved the idea of learning to speak English—real English—through phonetic exercises: the passion of Professor Henry Higgins. The original musicality of Shakespeare’s language should be a goal to be achieved in the ethnostate, in the unlikely event that Anglo-Saxons save their stock from extinction.

Categories
Death in Venice (movie) Film Pandemics

Quarantine boredom?

I can’t be bored while translating my book. But if you are bored in quarantine by the coronavirus it’s time to start getting acquainted with European films instead of (((Hollywood))) movies, that for inexplicable reasons white nationalists Greg Johnson and Richard Spencer like to watch. I would suggest starting with two films whose plot unfolds in times of deadly plagues: one in Northern Europe and the other in Southern Europe.


In The Seventh Seal Death and a knight without a drop of mud blood* choose sides for a chess game; Death gets the black pieces while the knight is given the white. The film starts when the knight and his squire return from the Crusades to find Denmark ravaged by the plague.

In Death in Venice a composer of classical music attempts to find peace, but the rest of the city is gripped by a cholera epidemic. The city authorities don’t inform the holiday-makers of the problem for fear that they will leave. Failure to leave Italy due to the stunning beauty of an adolescent (another Scandinavian actor with zero mud blood) has deadly consequences for the German composer.

________

(*) Incidentally, the actor Max von Sydow who also played the three-eyed raven in Game of Thrones died this very month.

Categories
Film G.L. Rockwell Racial right William Pierce

Poisonous 1917

The Hollywood movie 1917, which I saw today, directed, co-written and produced by Sam Mendes, whose mother is Jewish, is poison to the Aryan race.

Of the most notable contemporary racialists, Richard Spencer’s voice is the least bad. I’m not saying it’s a good voice: it’s just the least bad. Let us listen, then, what together with Hollywood buff Mark, who never shows his face, Spencer said yesterday about Mendes’ movie.

The problem with Spencer is that he is very lukewarm. A truly fanatic priest of the 14 words would be furious not only against this new film, but against the entire film industry (with the exceptions of the 1995 and 2005 movies based on Jane Austen’s novels, of which I spoke this week.)

One of the problems with films like 1917 is that they are made with great craft and even art we could say. But that turns the film into an even more rhetorical poison, and therefore more dangerous, than a poorly directed film.

For me the seventh art, as a subject, is crystal-clear. As long as there are non-whites on Earth, every film must be propaganda: audio-visual spectacles that must have the imprimatur of a totalitarian Fourth Reich, as Yockey said in one of the quotations of The Fair Race: ‘L’art pour l’art values must be transvalued to Art practiced in conformity with the cultural task’. Of course, that was collectivist Germany, not libertarian, Mammon worshiper and Judeo-Christian America.

Compare the above way of seeing art—a priest’s POV—with the words of Spencer and the faceless Mark. Spencer said that 1917 ‘is valorizing WWI, and I think that is something that is extremely problematic’ (after minute 6:30, and he repeated these words after minute 34). Note the word ‘problematic’ and realise why, compared to me, I label Spencer as lukewarm. I’d simply say it’s Jewish poison for the Aryan mind. Mark added about the hero of the movie: ‘he defeated the villain, he defeated the foe… from the British side’.

Spencer also spoke of World War II but did not say a word about the Holocaust that the Allies committed on the Germans. I wonder if Spencer has read Hellstorm? This astronomic omission reminds me that Hunter Wallace wrote about Justinian I today in glowing terms about ‘reconquering the Western Empire’. These are words as deceiving as Sam Mendes’ visual art about the Great War. Does Wallace know about the Holocaust perpetrated on two Germanic peoples by Justinian I, the emperor of the capital of miscegenation, Constantinople? (see the final pages of the book I recently translated, Christianity’s Criminal History).

Just as in official history the Germanics that invaded the already miscegenated Roman Empire are presented as barbarians, in 1917 a ‘German is depicted as an insane maniac’, said Spencer around minute 36 and he added that the scene was ‘insulting to Germans’. Mark then said that in the film the German point of view is never represented, that it is taboo in Hollywood. I would add that, unlike one of Clint Eastwood’s films about WW2 where the Japanese POV is presented, the German POV continues to be taboo. Incidentally, both Spencer and Mark use the word ‘gay’ without realising that it is Newspeak to avoid.

Only until a few seconds before the 57th minute Mark said ‘I knew that the guy was a Jewish filmmaker’, something he should have said from the first minute. Then we hear, after 1:06, that the film is pro-Zionist and glorifies the two world wars that only favoured the Zionist Christians: wars that transvalued values in the US to a philo-Semitism based on the Schofield Bible. Spencer & Mark’s review aside, it is time to say a few more words about the American racialist movement.

George Lincoln Rockwell was the only one who understood racial reality. If he had not been murdered the journal National Socialist World, in which William Pierce and others collaborated, would have continued.

The wisest thing I heard in England the last time I visited the island was what Arthur Kemp told me: that William Pierce’s mistake had been not to form a political party. I recently talked about Pierce’s blunder, but degenerate music was only a tactical blunder. The fact is that Pierce committed something much more serious: a strategic blunder, not having followed in the footsteps of Commander Rockwell.

Only Rockwell tried to follow in Hitler’s footsteps. After Rockwell everyone else has been talkative, despite Pierce’s enormous intelligence (whom I cite so much in The Fair Race).

After the assassination of Rockwell, everything we have had in this continent have been impossible compromises with Christian ethics and the American way of life. The tremendous inertia of American Judeo-Christianity is such that, as a commenter said on this site today, the purported anti-Semite Andrew Anglin no longer speaks about Hitler. He now speaks about Yahweh and his son Yeshu, as the gods that the valiant visitors of The Daily Stormer must follow.

If white nationalism were a legit movement, everyone would be talking about Christianity’s Criminal History and the forthcoming revolution, although theoretically and patiently, waiting for the dollar to collapse so that the masses transit from happy mode to angry mode. But they are stagnated in the American way.