Category: 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’ .

Tags 4 words

Film

50 films during the quarantine

Post author By C .T.
Post date April 18, 2020
8 Comments on 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.

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.

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.

Film George Lincoln 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.

Feminism Film Homosexuality

Downton Abbey (film)

All the films of the last decades contain bad messages, sometimes in a subtle way, even films that could be used as Aryan pride. From the second film of the LOTR trilogy filmed by Jackson, for example, the beautiful Éowyn is empowered as if she was simply another warrior. At least by the end it is implied that Éowyn is going to marry (and have children) with Faramir, fulfilling the traditional role of woman in any normal society. But in the novels of George R.R. Martin who respond to LOTR, Arya, the equivalent to Éowyn, is already a runaway feminist who won’t marry.

Both the television series and the Downton Abbey film contain subversive messages for Aryan preservation presented in a subtle, and sometimes not so subtle way. In Jane Austen’s England women could not inherit in order to force them to marry, depend on a man and have children. That began to change since the late 19th century. Even in the television series, Downton Abbey records the beginnings of the social changes resulting from the first feminist wave that hit England. And in last year’s movie, it is understood at the end that Lady Mary, not an Englishman, will inherit Downton Abbey.

A parenthesis: it’s precisely skinny English ladies like Lady Mary, who below appears at the centre, whom I fancy the most.

That’s not all. In the recent movie, which I saw a couple of days ago, the seeds of a future normalisation of homosexuality are sown. No wonder that Trevor Lynch (Greg Johnson) wrote a review of the film. He may have liked it, but what I saw in Downton Abbey is a description of the first mustard seeds that would grow big, like the evangelical parable about the kingdom of the Jewish god on gentile lands.

I have a hard rule when dealing with movies and television. Keep in mind that as a child I didn’t see non-whites playing leading roles, neither on the small screen nor on the big screen. My rule is: if I see a non-white (usually a black) I immediately change the channel. I do that even in the news (although it is harder to know if one of the anchors is Jewish).

If white nationalists were as purist as a priest of the 14 words, they would do the same. And they would write destructive reviews about products of mass consumption, even about comparatively benign movies such as LOTR and Downton Abbey.

Postscript

The parable of mustard seed is the only parable attributed to Jesus that has three independent attestations in the NT. From our POV, the moral of the story is to weed the tiny plant as soon as it appears: the exact opposite of what Johnson said in his movie review.

Film

The two popes

I’ve just watched The Two Popes. It is a typical product of the Netflix provider, with its eternal anti-white and anti-western motivations. However, it is a good film to illustrate what we have been calling ‘the Christian question’ (the CQ).

Countless times I have said it but it is worth repeating:

The current pope is not an anti-pope as the Christian forums of white nationalism claim. On the contrary: he is the first pope who tries to take the message of Jesus in all its purity to the real world. That’s why Jorge Bergoglio, whom I understand pretty well since we share the same mother tongue, chose Francis as his papal name: something that no one who sat in Peter’s chair had dared to do before.

So anti-western and anti-white is the film that it ends with black ‘refugees’ in the Sistine Chapel, and with the words of Francis sympathising with them. It was not the only bad message of the film. But the one that best represents the CQ.

Film

The Red Wedding

A couple of posts ago I said that in 2013 Game of Thrones’ Red Wedding caused a tremendous stir among fans of the series, especially in women. Today watching this clip I thought that the abyss that separates me from white women is abysmal:

The woman’s reaction was because she was seeing the moment when Robb Stark’s pregnant mudblood was stabbed in the belly as a punishment that Robb broke his pact to marry a younger and prettier girl (a completely Aryan girl by the way).

As you will remember, one of the guidelines of conduct that I have developed for the priest of the 14 words is: ‘Speak only with Aryan men’. We can already imagine if, instead of comforting this woman as her partner did in the clip above, I tried to reason with her by saying: ‘I stabbed her for you; so beauty like yours never get lost. I can’t let the pregnant mudblood leave brown offspring instead of Robb’s white skin. All the blood that I spill is spilled indirectly for you…’ Obviously the white woman would look at me with pure hatred; she would block herself before my reasons, and would embrace the most progressive anti-racism we can imagine.

Let’s face it: Women think with their emotions, which is not bad at all. It’s just their nature. Cold and ruthless reason is up to men. What the partner of this disconsolate woman did is the proper way to treat our women. It is absolutely delusional to believe that they are able to reason with the ruthless coldness with which we can reason.

My guideline remains and it is a disgrace that, except Andrew Anglin, the people of white nationalism haven’t come to realise that we come from Mars and they from Venus. And that it makes no sense to use reasons and good judgment to try to persuade the fair sex in martial matters.

Unlike feminist products that demoralise Aryan males such as The Rise of Skywalker, when civilisation collapses later in this century the bloodthirsty warriors who recover the West will belong to a Boys Only Club.

Film

The power to see the past

Post author By C .T.
Post date December 17, 2019
11 Comments on The power to *see* the past

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

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

Bran Stark actor Isaac Hempstead Wright revealed in a past interview with Variety that he and his Game of Thrones co-star Sophie Turner, who plays Sansa, shot a sequence in which Sansa consults him ahead of Littlefinger’s trial. You see, Sansa was first convinced that her own sister, Arya, was out to murder her in attempts to become the Lady of Winterfell. Arya felt certain of the same—and it was all thanks to the master manipulator Littlefinger. Viewers were sweating buckets watching the season 7 finale, believing that one of the Stark girls would turn on the other and commit fratricide within the halls of their House’s ancestral seat. Sansa and Arya flipping the script and sentencing Littlefinger to death was a massive twist—and seemed to leave a wide plot hole that went completely unpatched. The deleted scene Hempstead Wright discussed with Variety would have stitched up the gap and detailed exactly how the Stark sisters knew what Littlefinger was up to and how they arrived at their plan to execute the former Master of Coin.

In the scene, Sansa consults Bran about what to do regarding the whole “I think our sister is going to kill me” dilemma. Using his newfound abilities as the Three-Eyed Raven, Bran peers into Littlefinger’s past and unearths every underhanded thing he’s done to secure power.

As Hempstead Wright describes it, “We actually did a scene that clearly got cut, a short scene with Sansa where she knocks on Bran’s door and says, ‘I need your help,’ or something along those lines. So basically, as far as I know, the story was that it suddenly occurred to Sansa that she had a huge CCTV department at her discretion and it might be a good idea to check with him first before she guts her own sister. So she goes to Bran, and Bran tells her everything she needs to know, and she’s like, ‘Oh, s***.’”

Though audiences can fill in the blanks without this scene, it makes Bran’s powers all the more real, and, frankly, terrifying. Nothing can be kept from him, and as a result, nothing can be kept from his family. There is no secret Bran cannot uncover—and the biggest skeleton he drew out of the proverbial closet was the truth behind Jon Snow’s birth. Bran knew of his brother-cousin Jon’s true parentage and real identity as Aegon Targaryen, the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark, and his rightful claim to the Iron Throne over the wannabe queen Daenerys Targaryen before others did. His knowledge spread to Samwell Tarly, then to Jon himself, and (spoiler alert) quickly made its way to Sansa and Arya themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://youtu.be/ExkPxHxcP3Q

Film

Andrei Rublev

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

Saturday postscript:

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

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

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

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

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

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