web analytics
Daybreak Publishing Game of Thrones Miscegenation

Style to be corrected

Except for my final essay, my critique of feminist Game of Thrones [1], I have used DeepL Translator to correct the style of my On Beth’s Cute Tits articles.

This day I will put the PDF of this edition of On Beth’s Cute Tits in the featured post even though I have yet to correct the style of that final essay. (I’ll even do the same with Day of Wrath even though I have to use the DeepL engine from the chapter ‘The Bernaldine pages’.)

Since correcting the style is extremely time-consuming, even with that program, I don’t care that my current style, the style of someone who thinks in Spanish and not in English, sounds a little odd in some passages of those PDFs. What matters are the ideas, although I will eventually use DeepL Translator to modify my non-native style in the chapters I have yet to correct, in the books mentioned.

However, I will refrain from putting the unrevised edition of On Exterminationism in the featured post for the time being. I want to use DeepL Translator throughout it.

Before ending the task of correcting the style in all the above books, I think I should post the full PDF of Savitri Devi’s book we recently translated, since there is no other full English translation.

And then there is Deschner’s book! The current PDF has yet to be updated to the time of Charlemagne’s death.

Add to that the next anthology of important articles on this site dated after my critique of MacDonald’s review of Corey’s book (which is where Daybreak ends). The work ahead of me is overwhelming!

I communicate better with books than with single posts, since the central claim of this site is nothing less than a paradigm shift: from believing that the JQ is the root cause of white decline to proposing that it is rather Judeo-Christianity. Such paradigm-threatening ideas can only be well articulated in books.

So for the moment I apologise that, with the exception of Daybreak, the books whose PDFs appear in the featured post are not fully corrected. Just correcting the style of my translations of the Spanish author’s various articles in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour will take considerable time. But at least as The Fair Race and other PDFs stand at the moment, they are readable enough for the native English reader to understand.

Of course, if I were a millionaire I’d have a team of native proofreaders to take care of the style and I’d be concentrating solely on the content of our ideas!

______ 卐 ______


[1] With the House of the Dragon prequel things have gone from bad to worse—much worse! Game of Thrones was a series where its main characters were white. House of the Dragon pushes blacks as main characters. I haven’t seen—and won’t see!—the latest episodes of House of the Dragon. But I understand that somewhere the blond prince appears with his café au lait children, insofar as the HBO director cast his bride as coloured (in Martin’s novel the prince’s fiancée is ultra-white).

This is infinitely worse than mere Game of Thrones feminism: one more propagandistic step to convince the white audience that they must commit ethnic suicide…

Christendom Game of Thrones Psychology

‘You must learn…!’

by Gaedhal

I think that Richard Dawkins has been criticized in some quarters for calling religion a ‘memetic virus’. However, for me, it is a good analogy. Comparing a religion like evangelical Christianity to a virus is a good metaphor. Are there perhaps places where the metaphor breaks down? Perhaps. However, this is true of all metaphors.

As Darrel Ray points out in The God Virus (2009) some people have a higher amount of viral load than others. In my view, street preachers have the highest viral load of Christianity.

And the Christian virus is always trying to propagate itself. In Ancient Rome, there were many religions dedicated to many deities. However, Christianity was in a special class of religion. It was a superstition, a type of religious madness.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note:

As I said yesterday in the comments section, it’s not time for a revolution. For there to be a revolution we must know what we are fighting against.

Since we are far short of two per cent of male revolutionaries in a nation (now there are virtually zero per cent), we have no choice but internal jihad. Seeing the past through our training with the three-eyed raven in the cave beneath the Weirwood tree beyond the Wall is Bran’s only option, the one destined to rule the Seven Kingdoms. Eventually, he will emerge from the cave. But for now, he must learn how to see the real past of Christendom.

In other words, I know that these lessons from Deschner bore most of my visitors, but I will continue with the translations until I finish his ten books. Whoever stays until the end will be like Bran.

Game of Thrones

Second of His Name

‘Second of His Name’ is the third and last episode of House of the Dragon I watch. I have a movie-watching rule that I violated when watching the first three episodes: if a black man appears in a prominent position, stop watching the movie or the show. Next Sunday I will no longer watch the fourth episode. I don’t regret watching all 73 episodes of Game of Thrones because, at least in that series, the world was a white man’s world. The prequel on the other hand has already gone completely Woke.

The first scene that bothered me in this third and final episode of House of the Dragon that I watch shows us the blonde princess who doesn’t want to get married. When did that happen in medieval times? As usual, the producers of contemporary films only know how to retro-project the zeitgeist of our century into a non-existent past.

The king now has a blond, male toddler, and yet he doesn’t change his mind about leaving the throne to his daughter who doesn’t want to marry. Again: when in the Middle Ages did such a thing ever happen? ‘It is not my wish to command her, I want her to be happy’—the blonde king talking about his little blonde princess.

Then comes absolute surrealism.

Up to this point in the episode, everyone is a beautiful white human. A subject speaks to the king recommending that the princess marry Ser Laenor Velaryon. The problem is that the Jewish director, as we saw in my posts about the previous episodes, changed the skin colour of the Velaryon family: from hyper-Nordic to mulatto. But most surreal are the words of the subject advising the king: ‘Laenor is of pure Valyria descent’. By ‘Valyria descent’, the text in Martin’s universe on which that line might be based, the novelist would mean ‘pure Norse’. But Ser Laenor’s actor is nothing less than a mulatto. Again: if white people are fans of this new series it is because they are the worst generation of whites since prehistoric times.

Then, in the episode, the princess stabs a boar that attacked her. I’m sure the writers were inspired by real-life medieval events, especially considering that the virgin princess camped alone with a male knight in the middle of the night! Then the king’s wife influences the king to enter a direct war he had wanted to avoid. Again: cute women calling the shots for the crown. Then the Negroes appear for the first time in this episode, those nobles of House Velaryon who in Martin’s prose are hyper-Nordic (in the image above these Velaryon flank the rogue prince, who belongs to another feudal house).

Fortunately, the battle we see afterwards is so absurd that this prequel is probably not going to have anywhere near the fame that Game of Thrones had. One thing is clear: the Jew who has directed House of the Dragon is far worse than the pair of Jews who directed Game of Thrones.

Film Game of Thrones Miscegenation United Kingdom

The Rogue Prince

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Destruction of Germanic paganism Game of Thrones Karlheinz Deschner Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) So-called saints Tree

Christianity’s Criminal History, 153

– For the context of these translations click here

 The beatissimus dominus took care of women of ‘the tribe of the Angles’. His kinswoman Leoba, a whole generation younger than himself, he appointed abbess in the see of the archbishopric; Thecla, a relative of Leoba, he made abbess of Vitzingen and Ochsenfurt-on-the-Main. And all certainly for the great cause, the mission of all Germany, for the one whom Gregory III called ‘the apostle of the Germans’ (in reality: of Rome) and whom he appointed archbishop on a further journey to the Catholic capital (732), all for ‘the very advantageous business’ (talis commercii lucro) as is explicitly stated in such a context. Hence, the pope, with the whole Church, victoriously vindicated the apostle.

Of course, ‘business’ doesn’t mean the ‘pinch of silver and gold’ (argenti et auri tantillum), which Boniface occasionally donated to the holy father, but the conversion of ‘paganism and heterodoxy to the knowledge of the true faith’. From Hesse to Friesland he destroyed everywhere, ‘more as a conqueror than as a converter’ or missionary, the pagan places of worship, and on their ruins, with their very stones and timber, he erected Christian churches. He demolished the idols of Stuffo, Reto, Bil, the goddess Astaroth and so on. He tore down their altars, and felled the sacred trees in the Hessian forest, probably where, because they were under the direct protection of the Frankish fortress of Büraburg, they were in no personal danger, such as the oaks of Donar in Geismar, the tribal shrine, erecting with their wood a chapel to St. Peter, ‘his first sign of victory’ (Haller).

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: It is these kinds of historical facts that have moved me in the past to obsess on this site about Game of Thrones. As no normie is going to study Deschner’s ten books, the most astute way to start conveying the most important facts of Aryan history is precisely novels in which these facts are alluded to fantastically, with castles, princesses and dragons. As we saw in past years with my countless entries on the TV series Game of Thrones, in the universe of novelist George R.R. Martin the fanatics of the new religion felled the sacred trees of Westeros.

This is the language the normie understands, and it’s a shame that the Jews who directed both Game of Thrones and the new prequel that has just been released betray fundamental facts of Martin’s prose. In a world where real Aryans took Martin to television, these outrages of the new religion perpetrated on the sacred trees of the old religion could be filmed in such a way that the message would be inspiring to whites.

______ 卐 ______

But Boniface also had to see no less than thirty churches and chapels destroyed in Thuringia. In Rome, however, the apostle didn’t only fight paganism, but at least as much, and probably even more, the sort of Christianity which wasn’t obedient to Rome, as among the Bavarians and the Alamanni. That was the second and shorter, though more important, phase of his activity.

Bavaria, where Boniface reformed (739) the church with the help of duke Odilus, after his relations with Charles Martell had cooled, had already been Christianised much earlier, though not Romanised. Thus, Roman Christianity and the Scottish missionary, ‘the first ‘Von-Rom Movement’ (far from Rome!)’ (Behn), ‘clashed violently’ in Bavaria (Schieffer). But there and in Thuringia Boniface, at the behest of Gregory II, eliminated as far as possible the old Christianity which had developed without violence. He tried to wrest the communities from the successors of these ecclesiastics and, with the help of state power, to bring them unceremoniously under the pontifical yoke.

But the papal legate also and especially fought against the Frankish clergy, who had preserved their autonomy vis-à-vis Rome and whose reformer he had avoided, if not fought against. In 738 Gregory III therefore strongly recommended obedience to his man regarding the bishops of Bavaria and Swabia, and at the same time insisted: ‘You must detect, prevent and annihilate the pagan customs and doctrines of the Bretons who roam everywhere, or of false and heretical priests and all their depravities’.

Boniface, who met with the ‘fierce resistance’ of many freemen (Epperlein), who was rude in his foreign manners, had no compunction and always went about with a large retinue; he was as obliging as they could wish for in Rome and more papist than the pope. He never asked why; he simply had to obey, as he had been taught. He was in fact ‘the heir of the Roman Church in England’ (Lortz).

The ‘apostle of the Germans’ was so unsure of his faith and so imbued for life with his tendency to sin, that he continually sent real questionnaires to Rome ‘as if we were kneeling at your feet’, to receive answers to the supreme questions of conscience.

Gregory II, who on 22 November 726 calmed his apostle’s eagerness to ask questions, let him know ‘the position in our Church’. An example: if parents have already deposited their sons or daughters ‘within the walls of the monastery’ (inter septa monasterii) at an early age, under no circumstances may they later leave the monastery and marry. ‘We strictly forbid it, because it is a sin to loosen the reins of pleasure on children, who were consecrated to God by their parents’. What barbarism beats in that answer, or behind this one: ‘You have also asked the question whether, when a contagious disease or mortality invades a church or a monastery, those who haven’t yet been affected can flee from that place to avoid the danger. That seems utterly foolish, for no one can escape the hand of God’ This rhetoric has not always, but quite often in everyday practice, been a function of minimisation, discharge and beautification. Theologians and historians, thanks to their phrase ‘link to the times’, don’t need to call the crimes and criminals of the Church and the State crimes and criminals.

Those were times when some served two sides, attended the Christian liturgy and at the same time offered sacrifices to Wotan; they ‘ate bulls and goats sacrificed to the pagan gods’, which could in no way harm either Christ or Wotan.

Degenerate art Film Game of Thrones George R.R. Martin

House of the Dragon’s nigger

House of the Dragon is a Game of Thrones prequel that premiered tonight on HBO.

If you are interested in my critique of all 73 episodes of Game of Thrones in eight seasons (2011-2019), you can read the final essay of On Beth’s Cute Tits (this link is temporary: when I correct one more book article with DeepL Translator, I’ll delete the old link and upload a new one).

The screenplay for House of the Dragon was written by Ryan Condal, George R.R. Martin (whom I’ll just call Martin) and the Jew Miguel Sapochnik. Like Games of Thrones, House of the Dragon is based on Martin’s novels A Song of Ice and Fire.

The plot of ‘The Heirs of the Dragon’, the first episode of the first season of House of the Dragon, takes place almost two hundred years before the events of Game of Thrones, at the height of House Targaryen and featuring seventeen dragons. It tells the story of the origin of House Targaryen, and the development of an intra-family conflict known as the Dance of Dragons, which stems from the division of the royals into two camps over the choice of the heir to the Iron Throne: Rhaenyra Targaryen, daughter of King Viserys Targaryen (played by Emma D’Arcy) and Daemon Targaryen, brother of King Viserys Targaryen (played by Matt Smith).

In this new series there seem to be three main feudal houses: House Targaryen, House Velaryon and House High Tower. Corlys Velaryon is the head of House Velaryon.

In the books the Velaryons are much like the hyper-Nordic Targaryens, because the two families have been marrying each other for generations. In Martin’s universe, the Targaryens keep their Valyrian blood pure, within the family; so when they don’t marry a Velaryon they usually marry their sister. Thus, the Targaryens and Velaryons in the books are one big, albeit incestuous, family of inbred blondes. The show that premiered today directed by a Jew (remember that Game of Thrones was directed by two Jews) betrays this in the vilest way imaginable.

Lord Corlys is black: a perfect inversion from the books! To boot, the Aryan Queen Rhaenys Targaryen, a dragon rider, in the TV show has coffee-and-milk kids with Lord Corlys! What’s more, Mysaria is a woman from a brothel in Lys. In the books she’s described as ‘very pale’. Mysaria is a lover and trusted confident of prince Daemon. But in the show that premiered tonight she’s a mudblood!

But that’s not enough. In today’s premiere, Lord Corlys sits at the Small Council table across the bedside from the King of the Seven Kingdoms. That is, he also sits at a head table, albeit on the opposite side. And he does so in three Small Council sessions we just watched.[1]

Lord Corlys’ mulatto children, a boy and a girl, appear in tonight’s premiere during a tournament. Remember the tournament in the first season of Game of Thrones: in the blue-blooded people’s seats there were only white people. What the directors of this show are doing is similar to what Peter Jackson did after filming LOTR. In his traitorous The Hobbit trilogy, Jackson started introducing non-white characters in towns that were white in Tolkien’s tale!

Something that the various directors of this new show don’t realise, or perhaps they do get it, is that, as it is set almost two centuries before the events of Game of Thrones, if miscegenation was already being perpetrated back then there couldn’t have been Targaryens as blond and as white as the ones we saw in Game of Thrones.

Obviously, this new show is nothing but poisonous projection of the suicidal zeitgeist of our times onto Martin’s novels—TV shows where it’s increasingly clear that the religion of the West is to wage a war of extermination on the Aryan man.

If I do an episode-by-episode review of this new series as I did of Game of Thrones, Lord Corlys will no longer be called by that name, but Lord Nigger.


[1] The ‘Small Council’ is a body which advises the king of the Seven Kingdoms and institutes policy at his command. It is the inner (thus ‘small’) council of the king, essentially forming the government cabinet of the Seven Kingdoms. Members are appointed to their position by the King; theoretically they can be dismissed at will by him.

Game of Thrones Kevin MacDonald

Throne revisited

Three years ago, on 19 May 2019, the finale of Game of Thrones, ‘The Iron Throne’, premiered. Because of how popular this HBO series became among normies, I’ve tried to use Tyrion’s message in the finale about the stories we tell ourselves.

What strikes me most is that the story being told by American white nationalists is, like the story told to the plebeian German under the Nazi regime, the story that the Jews wrote for our consumption, the New Testament: a story where the heroes and protagonists are Jewish.

It reminds me that I recently watched the special edition DVD of the 1959 film that won so many Oscars: Ben-Hur. Commenting on the opening of the film with images from Nazareth, Charlton Heston was talking to another film pundit, who remarked that the people in red clothing were the ‘bad guys’ of the movie, i.e. the Romans. It was implied that the good guys were the Jews!

It is alarming that American racialists keep coming up with these stories in which the Aryans are the bad guys and the Jews the good guys, as if telling us such stories had nothing to do with the empowerment of the Jews in the West!

Never mind that Game of Thrones is rubbish (I criticised each of the 73 episodes in On Beth’s Cute Tits). What matters is my use of the finale to say something that reminds me of Goethe’s words: The hardest thing to see is what is in front of you.

And indeed, today’s racialists, unlike Hitler, are unable to see what is right under their noses: that to tell us a Jewish story for two thousand years is pure poison for racial preservation, and that the first thing we must do is to tell us the Aryan story.

Game of Thrones Hate Transvaluation of all values

A cute postscript

I would like to add a postscript to Mauricio’s words in ‘Responding to Jamie’. There is a litmus test I have devised to see who has, or has not, transvalued his values.

Imagine a scenario analogous to The Turner Diaries where revolutionaries come to have control over nuclear missiles in a silo, and use them to create global chaos and, thus, eventually come to power. But before the thought experiment of this entry I would like to answer the question, Why is chaos necessary to come to power? As I want to be brief on this question, the best way to answer it is using the metaphor of a show very popular among normies.

As those of you who followed my Game of Thrones posts will recall, ‘The Climb’, the title of episode #26, is a metaphor for achieving power, and the ladder—chaos—is how Littlefinger climbs. When things are in disarray chaos allows him to manipulate powerful people so that he is ahead. Chaos means that, in extreme situations, the great medieval houses overlook his birth because they need him. Chaos means they are weakened so they are brought more to his level. Chaos provides opportunities for him to advance, because there are problems to be solved.

Having understood Littlefinger’s words, which you can watch on YouTube, we can talk about my cute postscript:

If in a moment of social chaos a submarine with nuclear weapons were to fall under our power, I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to use all its missiles to nuke the capitals of the West and its major cities, starting with those of the United States and its lackey in the Middle East (naturally, Chinese cities and Mecca would be nuked too, lest Gooks and Muslims become emboldened and take advantage of the situation).

To show you the level of my morals—that is to say how the priest understands the four and fourteen words—, even if one of my brothers happened to be in one of those cities I wouldn’t hesitate in the slightest to push the buttons.

And this is my litmus test: Who among those commenting on racialist forums would do the same if a submarine with nukes fell under his power for a couple of days? I guess that none of them would. And if there is anyone who would, please tell me in the comments section, because this is a great Gedankenexperiment to find out who has left Christian morality behind.

Game of Thrones Mainstream media Ukraine War!

Fog of war

We live amid a generation of Westerners unable to understand the difference between Hollywood movies and real life. Degenerate whites really believe that female warriors can ‘kick asses’ like in Game of Thrones!

The reality is infinitely more brutal…

Although I don’t quite understand the language of one of the mercenaries who went to fight in Ukraine, on a Tweeter clip yesterday I heard the confession of a Brazilian fighter: that the whole foreign legion was wiped out by the bombing of the military base in Lviv, near the Polish border.

The clip I did understand perfectly well was the TV report on a Spanish channel. The surviving ‘legionnaire’, a guy from Barcelona, said that probably ‘200 angels’—other legionnaires—who were in one of the barracks that was attacked are now in heaven. He literally said that (in Spanish)…

Imagine flying halfway around the world to a region you don’t understand—a conflict you don’t want to understand—, to kill people you’ve been propagandised to hate. And then getting a brutal reality check: the Russian military are not like the Taliban, Al Qaeda or ISIS!

It’s amazing how much of the West and even Ukraine are denying what happened yesterday (Andrew Anglin does report it on The Daily Stormer). Is it true that, except for the testimony of a survivor that I heard on a TV channel from Spain (or a more PC clip on the subject by Al Jazeera), for Fox and CNN the elimination of these idiots didn’t happen at all? I have no way of corroborating this because, with the exception of Tucker Carlson, I no longer watch cable TV.

And what about Jared Taylor’s forum? A commenter on Occidental Dissent said something yesterday that I haven’t bothered to corroborate: ‘I think the wave of censorship has even reached AmRen which is censoring pro-Russian comments’.

Game of Thrones


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.