In today’s Aryan collective unconscious, the extremely negative introjects and injunctions from a toxified superego are ultimately due to Christianity.
______ 卐 ______
There is jargon above but it can be deciphered after reading the middle part of my Day of Wrath. Ayway, it summarises what we mean when talking about the Christian question.
Le Serment du Jeu de paume by Jacques-Louis David (c. 1791), depicting the Tennis Court Oath.
More immediately relevant to Germany’s predicament were the dramatic recent examples of national revival, where peoples had bounced back from decline or catastrophic defeat. Perhaps surprisingly, Hitler was open to inspiration from France. ‘The French Revolution was national and constructive,’ he argued, ‘whereas the German one wanted to be international and to destroy everything.’ Hitler took a similarly positive view of later French radicalism. ‘When France collapsed at Sedan,’ he wrote, ‘one made a revolution to rescue the sinking tricolour!’ ‘The war was waged with new energy,’ he continued, and ‘the will to defend the state created the French Republic in 1870’, thus restoring ‘French national honour’. This shows that Hitler’s fundamental objection was not to the ‘ideas of 1789’, which he hardly ever mentioned. His real trauma—to which we will return later—was the fragmentation of Germany beginning with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
The way I quote from Brendan Simms’ book may seem strange. I read through it and, when I come across a passage that requires comment, I pause and comment on it here.
The passage above, for example, strikes me as remarkable because it shows us a young Adolf who was unaware that the egalitarian ideas of 1789 were already symptomatic of a cancer in which Christian ethics were secularised to be metastasised in subsequent centuries. Recall that the French had been inspired by the American Revolutionary War of 1775-1783 and that in turn these American ideals were inspired by Protestant ethics (those who haven’t read Tom Holland’s Dominion should at least read our excerpts now). The young Hitler, naturally, didn’t have all this in mind. He was first and foremost a politician, not exactly a philosopher and certainly not, to use my metaphor, a visionary who sees the remote past in a cave north of the Wall (for example, to realise that Protestantism is behind today’s mass psychosis if we psychoanalyse the West from the remote past).
One of the things that distinguishes me compared to the American organisation founded by George Lincoln Rockwell is that, unlike the Commander, I am convinced that National Socialism must be understood as an organism in continuous development. And NS is developing even in the darkest age of the West in which Savitri Devi used the metaphor of ‘gold in a furnace’, in the sense that all the chaff burns in the burning furnace and only the element gold, which being a chemical element cannot burn there, will survive it.
Although Savitri came up with this metaphor at a time when the denazification of Germany was in full swing, in our time it could be said that the fire of that furnace has already burnt up all the chaff, except for people like us who continue to believe in Uncle Adolf’s ideals.
But Uncle Adolf couldn’t have known what we now know! His untimely death in 1945 prevented him from realising the levels of anti-white delirium to which the white man would fall after the decades-long process of trying to demonise NS throughout the West!
A mature NS man has to take into account the darkest hour for the white man and explain it. One oblique way to do this is to realise that American white nationalism has gone astray. It is at a dead end, as I said this morning in this thread.
It is high time to be humble; to retrace our steps from that alley, and return to the main avenue leading us to a National Socialism of the 21st and 22nd centuries. But I don’t see that humility anywhere on the racial right…
In political theory, the Overton window represents an ideology acceptable to the public. Yesterday watching the interview of Colonel Douglas McGregor by Judge Napolitano, I was impressed that the colonel said that the Israeli lobby controls Western politics, the media and the financial sector because both the colonel and the judge are normies. I used to watch the judge on Fox News and the colonel worked in Donald Trump’s cabinet—in other words, they are both normies.
It’s amazing how the window has expanded as far as the JQ is concerned thanks to Bibi’s genocide in Palestine. While it is more accurate to say that Jews control the aforementioned sectors, clearly the window has expanded. I wonder if, when the Middle East conflict escalates into a regional war, the window of acceptable discourse will expand even further and the JQ will be openly discussed (no longer needing to say that it is just the Israeli lobby)?
It seems that at last, the pendulum of history is beginning to swing to our side. But its inertia is insufficient because the racial right still doesn’t have Uncle Adolf as its guiding star. There are still no leaders with whom the ordinary dissident could identify. Perhaps tomorrow I should resume my comments on Simms’ book.
Jamie said:
The main reason why I mentioned a video of Jewish Ben Shapiro was that he was openly discussing the Jewish roots of Catholicism and therefore, Judeo-Christianity itself.
This is natural to understand (I am afraid of saying ‘self-evident’). Christianity is Jewish. You worship a Jewish god, therefore, it is logical to realise that Jews and their values are elevated and have a strong grip on the public mindset.
Jews’ racial existence is secured at the expense of the imbecile gentiles. That’s what this spiritual syphilis of a religion ultimately brings.
What surprises me, however, is that those people that I have met and were involved in the so-called ‘movement’ don’t understand this.
They don’t understand, or don’t want to see, the conflict of interest between Aryan racial survival and the worship of a suicidal Jewish cult. Like professional ostriches, they hide their heads under the sand when the Christian Question is brought up.
I have been kicked off of many ‘far right’ groups whenever I questioned Christianity. I must admit, however, that some men in those groups have reached out to me later and said ‘Jamie, you are right. We just keep heading towards disaster.’
But I can do little more than that if I just keep getting banned / silenced by those who organise such gatherings.
Even Dr. Pierce did the same thing to some extent in his weekly podcasts. Egalitarianism is the most harmful idea, he said. Yet, he never brought up that Christianity, the main religion of most Europeans today, has been preaching equality among all races of man since the times of ancient Rome.
So, is it possible to destroy the well-organised Jews while having a Jewish religion as your own? I don’t think so.
I think criticizing Jews before Christianity (and therefore, oneself) is a dead end.
I responded:
That there is self-deception in white nationalism as far as Christianity is concerned, there is no doubt.
What you say about Pierce catches my attention. Although when I came to the movement he had already died, I realised from what I could hear from his old podcasts that he did the same thing that Hitler did: Pierce had an exoteric message for the public, but in Who We Are and in a few internal communications he was anti-Christian.
The difference with me is that I think the time has come to talk openly about Christianity: what I do on this site.
You say that you have been kicked out of the right-wing groups where you speak. They just ignore me. Since you have been in the movement longer than me, what percentage do you think its members are Christians? Even secular leaders of the movement like Kevin Mac and Greg Johnson sometimes seem sympathetic to Christianity. Don’t you think so?
Jamie said:
Caesar,
Yes, Dr. Pierce was anti-Christian and he always condemned it indirectly in his public speeches, even though most of his audience couldn’t piece it together.
About Christian members of the movement?
Those who follow, often, are not really Christian. Like me, they are just tired of seeing roses [i.e., beautiful women—Ed.] paired together with half-apes sub-humans (which is, for all practical purposes, what really matters in the end) and, if properly guided, they will follow you to destroy this nigger loving world.
The leaders, however, those who organise, set up websites and, curiously, have funding to do all of that, are definitely Christian, or neo-Christians.
There is no secularity in this movement. Almost all of them are afraid of criticizing Christianity out of being further alienated by the feminized masses.
But Greg Johnson is a homosexual, isn’t he? He could never feel a genuine, masculine anger at the idea of having white women with negroes.
How about Dr. McDonald? Is he even married?
Can any of them relate to the 14 words like you do? I highly doubt so, but their male audiences can, and they are frustrated, confused and leaderless.
In the middle of last month, I mentioned a letter I found in my late father’s belongings from a guy who fought against the Germans in WWII and even described some battles to him. That post even contains links to my scans of those missives.
At midnight I made a different, in a sense opposite, find also in my father’s belongings: a book by Uwe Frisch about the German musician Gerhart Müench (1907-1988) who emigrated to Mexico in 1953. [1]
Müench was my mother’s piano teacher. We can even see him giving her a lesson at the National Conservatory of Music of Mexico City for 25 seconds in this video from 1970.
Müench, born in Dresden, was a real scholar, and not only in music. What impressed me about Frisch’s little book, which doesn’t even have a spine, are its last pages (44-45): it collects a poem by Ezra Pound dedicated to his friend Gerhart.
Given that Frisch wrote the book in Spanish (where among other things he translated from German an essay by Müench) now that I wanted to read the original in English of the poem Pound dedicated to Müench, I came across a surprise. The core part of the poem is missing in the PDFs I saw on the internet!
It is very annoying to retranslate a poet into his original language because one lacks the original text. I don’t know if it was deliberately censored, but the part of Pound’s poem that I didn’t find on the internet today is precisely the part that mentions ‘hellfire’ and ‘the fiery river of Hades’ that became ‘Dresden’ because of the Allied bombing, and Pound mentions Gerhart by name in that city ‘while a fiery sky still pours…’
Pound thus speaks of the Hellstorm Holocaust in Dresden, which may be why he was censored in some editions of his book. But his original English words may have been different from the ones I put in inverted commas, as I now retranslate it from my Spanish booklet into the original language.
If there are Pound fans who have an edition of The Cantos where this poem appears uncensored, it would be nice if he came across this post and quoted in English the lines I highlighted in orange on the second page. Both of my parents used to mention Müench in their conversations. Before I discovered Frisch’s booklet I was unaware that he was born in Dresden.
________
[1] Uwe Frisch: Gerhart Müench o De la Poética y la Metafísica de un Compositor (Morelia: Instituto Michoacano de la Cultura, 1985).
Those who still believe that Jesus existed should watch a relatively recent interview, starting here. The mythicist Richard Carrier exposes the logical fallacies of the historicist Bart Ehrman in a very amusing way: a rarity in audiovisual retorts about the non-historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion. Near the end Carrier cites a quotable quote from Thomas Paine, ‘Time makes more converts than reason’, which evokes what Thomas Kuhn and his readers say about what it takes to change paradigms.
The secret of evolution, both biological in the sense of natural selection, and psychogenic in our psychohistorical sense—paradigm shifts—, is time and death.
Those who are completely unfamiliar with Carrier’s work about the non-existence of Jesus shouldn’t start with that interview but, say, with this lecture.
In the seminal essay ‘The Red Giant’ a Swede said:
Secular Christianity has thrown out god and Christ, but keeps the Christian ethics (inversion of values etc.). And the Christian ethics actually gets heightened and unfettered in Secular Christianity (I have written much about that in my blog). With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.
And on pages 131ff of my Day of Wrath I introduced my readers to psychohistory, which includes this paragraph:
The culture that the Europeans brought included family violence. But unlike them, in the conquered people the anxieties that the children arose, based in turn on the abuses the natives had suffered as children, were enough to kill the source that triggered the anxiety. Children have been in the garbage bin where the adults dump the unrecognised parts of their psyches. It is expected that the child bin will absorb the ill moods of his custodians to prevent the adult feels overwhelmed by her anxieties. If I murder the soul of my son I thus kill the naughty child that once inhabited me.
The Aryan neo-Christian, after WW2, always prefers self-sacrifice to his race. That is the defence mechanism that kills the source that triggered his anxiety after WW2 propaganda took hold of his psyche. He always chooses this new Moloch who used to make self-sacrifice by roasting his firstborn alive rather than perpetuating his race openly (perpetuating as the Germans of the Third Reich did).
Why do they make this sacrifice? Because their false self was structured with the new foundational myth after that war. But why this dominance of the false self if the white man before WW2 had a reasonable self-image? Why today’s zeitgeist always throws away the Aryan, sacrifices, annihilates and denies him and chooses the anti-Nazi fiction that covers the collective unconscious today?
Because the false self that virtually every Aryan has installed today is a Semitic malware, a parental deity in the collective unconscious since Constantine but only now fully triumphed. It is a Moloch that demands a tribute of Aryan blood, and the Aryans, including the white nationalists who continue to worship the god of the Jews, offer this blood constantly. (Remember that these nationalists are completely unable to distinguish between mudblood and Aryan precisely because of the Semitic malware that has taken hold of them.) And this Semitic Moloch demands not just one but an infinity of sacrifices, and won’t be satiated until the extinction of the white man is accomplished.
It all originated with our stupid Christian parents installing this Semitic malware in our psyches from our early childhoods. Secular liberalism in its Wokist phase is a missionary religion, like that of the Jew Saul (St Paul). Both Jewry and white Wokery try to convert others to sacrifice Aryan blood to this new Moloch and even the followers, once they fall into this cult, are sacrificed as they will leave no white offspring. Everything is done to fulfil the unquenchable, voracious thirst of this new Moloch whose strength is none other than the post-WW2 foundational myth.
This false self is the new God of the white man. It is the religion of the second part of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century. It is a new divinity. The Aryan has to sacrifice himself to this new voracious God: sacrifice his true self. It is a human sacrifice: the false self (Wokism) replaces the true self (Nazism), and a new covenant is sealed between the Aryan and the Semitic god who wants to exterminate him. That covenant is perfectly antithetical to the covenant between the Semitic god and Abraham, who promised him and his descendants that their offspring would be as abundant as the stars (the old covenant). From the moment of the new covenant a religion was created: the religion of exterminating the Aryan on the initiative of the Aryan himself who always obeys the god of the Jews, including white nationalists.
Wokism (i.e. atheistic hyper-Christianity), I said, is a missionary religion. They try to convince you, Aryan man, that it is your duty to disappear from the face of the earth. Like the Muslims during their first conquests, they give you two choices: submit to the new religion or die.
When I first entered the forums supposedly defending the West from the invasion of migrants, I encountered a non-Jew counter-jihadist Christian who believed that Jewish tradition was the antidote to this Moloch claimant. False. As I wrote in Day of Wrath:
In the past, the shadow of infanticide covered the world, but the Phoenicians and their biblical ancestors, the Canaanites, performed sacrifices that turn pale the Mesoamerican sacrifices of children.
The Tophet, located in the valley of Gehenna, was a place near Jerusalem where it is believed that children were burned alive to the god Moloch Baal. Later it became synonymous with hell, and the generic name ‘tophet’ would be transferred to the sacrificial site of the cemetery at Carthage and other Mediterranean cities like Motya, Tharros and Hadrumetum, where bones have been found of Carthaginian and Phoenician children.
According to a traditional reading of the Bible, stories of sacrifice by the Hebrews were relapses of the chosen people to pagan customs. Recent studies, such as Jon Levenson’s The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity have suggested that the ancient Hebrews did not differ much from the neighbouring towns but that they were typical examples of the Semitic peoples of Canaan. The cult of Yahweh was only gradually imposed in a group while the cult of Baal was still part of the fabric of the Hebrew-Canaanite culture. Such religion had not been a syncretistic custom that the most purist Hebrews rejected from their ‘neighbour’ Canaanites: it was part of their roots.
The god of the Jews, the god of the Carthaginians and Phoenicians, the god who sacrificed Jesus, is ultimately the same odious thing. What we really need is an infinite hatred of all things Semitic, starting with Judeo-Christianity: the Trojan horse that brought this infection into our collective unconscious.
Hitler was also increasingly interested in the United States, which he came to regard as the repository of (in his view) all the best European racial elements, including the supposedly better sort of Germans. He remarked that, unlike Germany, which admitted swarms of eastern Jews, ‘yellow people are not allowed to settle in America’. In August 1922 he was introduced to Kurt Lüdecke, who had spent some time on business in the United States and whom Hitler would later send as an emissary across the Atlantic. In the middle of that month, Rudolf Hess wrote on Hitler’s behalf to the legendary automobile manufacturer, and fervent anti-Semite, Henry Ford for support. Moreover, Anglo-America was also becoming interested in Hitler. He had appeared on the radar of the British Foreign Office as early as 1920, and by later 1922 he was firmly established in their minds as a figure to be reckoned with, but there was no attempt to make contact with him.
By contrast, the United States embassy, probably influenced by Mussolini’s coup in Italy, decided to take a closer look at this rising politician. In November 1922, the US assistant military attaché to Germany, Captain Truman Smith, came down from Berlin and met with Hitler on 20 November. Hitler argued that he was America’s best chance of keeping the Bolsheviks out of Germany, condemned monarchy as ‘an absurdity’, claimed that ‘dictatorship’ was the only answer, denied any plans for a war against France and railed against ‘the present abuse of capital’. To be sure, these were all things that the American wanted to hear—apart from the remarks on capitalism—but they also represented Hitler’s genuine views. One way or the other, the two men—both Wagnerians—seem to have hit it off. A ‘marvelous demagogue’, Smith wrote a few days later. ‘I have rarely listened to such a logical and fanatical man. His powers over the mob must be immense.’
It was Smith who put Hitler in touch with Ernst ‘Putzi’ Hanfstaengl immediately after their meeting. Hanfstaengl epitomized the relationship between Germany and the United States, which was to play such a central role in Hitler’s thinking and policy over the next twenty years or so. Hanfstaengl’s maternal grandfather, Wilhelm Heine, had emigrated to America as a liberal refugee from the failed 1848 revolution. He reached the rank of brigadier-general in the Union Army and served as a pallbearer at Lincoln’s funeral. Hanfstaengl’s father owned a large art business in Munich. Hanfstaengl himself was partly brought up in the United States, where he attended Harvard University and was personally acquainted with the young Franklin Delano Roosevelt. From 1912, he had run the New York branch of his father’s business. Hanfstaengl spent the war—which killed a brother fighting on the German side—in America. The business was ruined by the American entry into the conflict and the associated ‘Trading with the Enemy Act’. Hanfstaengl became an enemy alien: the insider had become an outsider.
Over the next year, Hanfstaengl and Hitler were in almost daily contact. Hanfstaengl impressed upon Hitler not only the immense industrial and demographic power of the United States, but the fact that every German had a close relative there or in some other part of the world, something of which Hitler was already well aware. He argued that the party needed to reach out to the world through a coordinated foreign press policy. Hanfstaengl now became effectively the NSDAP’s external media liaison officer. He also entertained Hitler with his piano, playing from a repertoire which included not only Wagner but Harvard football marches. Captain Mayr later recalled the ‘American methods of salesmanship’ used to push out the Nazi message. The United States thus increasingly became a model as well as a rival.
In his most recent statement, Gaedhal says the following:
I mentioned Thucydides, because, as Otto English points out in Fake History a distinction is drawn—although largely artificially—between Herodotus and Thucydides.
In my view, the Old Testament takes a Herodotian method. In Genesis, there are three competing and contradictory accounts regarding who pimped his wife to whom. Did Abraham pimp his wife to Pharaoh, or Abimelech or was it his son, Isaac?
Two competing and contradictory accounts of the creation and the flood are given. Two contradictory versions of the binding of Isaac, the Flood, and the Joseph story are poorly woven together and given.
In the main, Herodotus would recount everything he heard, whereas, in the main, Thucydides would critique his sources, and only give the version of events that he found most probable. In the main, Thucydides was willing to throw unreliable stories into the waste-paper basket.
However, as English points out: Herodotus often acts in a Thucydidean way, and Thucydides often acts in a Herodotian way.
Thucydides was an excellent Ancient Historian… however, even the best ancient historian is woefully bad when compared to modern standards. One could not publish Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War as a scholarly monograph and have it pass peer review.
I also agree with Pine Creek Doug that if God is the ultimate author of the Gospels, then we should hold him to the same standards that we would hold a modern PhD historian to. We should be able to publish the four gospels as scholarly monographs and have them pass peer review. We are not able to do this. Thus, God is a poorer historian than any modern human historian who can pass peer review. Do not lower your standards for God!
The first thing that is scraped away by Thucydides’ razor into the waste-paper can is accounts of miracles.
As I said before: Christianity was never in date. The Bible is Herodotian in what it relates, and not Thucydidean. Thucydides essentially discovered how to do modern history in the 400s BCE. One of the things that the Christian Dark Ages reversed was Thucydidean historiography. A continent that had known Thucydides, thanks to Christianity, was soon swamped with Herodotian martyr tales, i.e. unevidenced religious fantasies.
I was listening to Book 1 of History of the Peloponnesian War, last night, by Thucydides. Homer says that an impossible number of Achaeans—essentially the entire population of Ancient Achaia—went off to fight in Troy. Thucydides therefore rejects Homer’s legendary number of Achaean fighters. Similarly, in the Pentateuch, an impossible number of Israelites—essentially the entire population of Ancient Egypt—left Egypt during the Exodus.
If Europe had still been in a Thucydidean mindset, then the stupid Jewish fairytale that is the Exodus would never have been accepted by this continent’s people. Lamentably, it has really only been in relatively modern times that Thucydidean criticism has been applied to the Bible. Spinoza, Valla, Thomas Paine et al. got the ball rolling. However, the Thucydidean ball should never have been stopped. What stopped it? Christianity.
This is why I am of the opinion that the Conflict Thesis—‘systematised academic knowledge’ (i.e. ‘science’ sensu lato) and revealed religion are diametrically opposed to one another—is correct, and also that the Dark Ages were real.
In ancient times, Homer was no less divine than Moses. Indeed, like Jesus Christ, in some legends Homer was born of a virgin. And yet Thucydides contradicted this divine oracle. Lamentably, nobody contradicted Moses until the Renaissance.
The staggering regression that the white man suffered with the imposition of Christianity in the Middle Ages reminds me of what I was saying this year about the friend I knew when I was a teenager and, after decades of not treating him, found him in a state of psychosis: a regression like treating an eighteen-month-old infant! (cf. my series on malignant narcissism: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6).
A sage from ancient India might say something similar if he had been long enough to see Rome before and after the imposition of Christianity by Constantine. What Gaedhal says seems to me very true, and we could even illustrate it with the subject that is my forte: the analysis of my family.
Unlike Protestantism, in Catholicism the Church of Rome claims to have proof of divine intervention through miracles. Psychically, I grew up under my father’s sky where the miracles of the Virgin of Lourdes—the French virgin of the 19th-century Tort family—were taken as absolute fact. The same can be said of my late father’s claims about the 20th-century miracles attributed to the Virgin of Fatima in Portugal. Although after two years of my life studying the Shroud of Turin I ended up sceptical of the supernatural hypothesis, my father continued to believe up to the present century that this Catholic relic proved the resurrection of Jesus. (I studied the literature on the shroud from 1988 to 1990 because I was still struggling with parental introjects—cf. my autobiography.)
When at Easter some of the American white nationalist sites post entries commemorating the day, they have no idea that believing this Jewish fairytale is as dramatic a psychogenic regression as that of the friend whom I knew sane and, after a few decades, I found him with a psychic structure reminiscent of that of a small infant.
I left the previous posts for a few days without adding new ones because it is of some importance that at least some visitors to The West’s Darkest Hour find out that in the racialist forums a troll is impersonating me supported by… the moderators! But I made magnificent use of the time to finish the last few pages of the third book of my trilogy. So—
Thanks, Brad!
Thanks Jewish troll!
______ 卐 ______
“L’art pour l’art values must be transvalued to Art practiced in conformity with the cultural task” —Francis Parker Yockey (rephrased).
In 2013 I posted a list of what were, at the time, my ten favourite films and last year I confessed that, having taken my vows as a priest of the sacred words, I could no longer watch many of the 50 films I once loved. So I would like to compile a new list of ten films that, if I were to adopt an Aryan son,[1] I would allow him to watch. Sorted by the year they were released, this new list would be:
1. Beauty and the Beast (1946)
2. Hamlet (1948)
3. Lust for Life (1956)
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
5. Death in Venice (1971)
6. Sense & Sensibility (1995)
7. Indictment: The McMartin Trial (1995)
8. Pride & Prejudice (1995 TV series)
9. Pride & Prejudice (2005 movie)
10. Spotlight (2015)
In the case of the first on the list, it is only because of our interpretation of it that I recommend it. Why I put the second one on my new list, which also appears on my 2013 list, is explained by clicking the link above on Hamlet.
But the third one doesn’t appear on my old list. As I own several Vincent van Gogh books, including a huge illustrated one with his complete works, I recommend Lust for Life because, like Hitler, it seems to me essential that the Aryan who wants to save his race from extinction should make deep contact with the art of painting; and the film, based on an entertaining novel that I read, transports us to the places where brother Vincent lived.
Of articles by intellectuals, John Gardner was the first white nationalist I ever read, in 2009, when I returned to this continent from Spain. In one of his TOQ Online articles Gardner said that 2001: A Space Odyssey managed to put the white man’s aesthetics in its place, which I agree with.
Why I include Death in Venice is guessed at in ‘Transvaluation Explained’ and ‘Puritanical Gomorrah’ in my book Daybreak, but most of my list (#6, #8 and #9) concerns films about Jane Austen’s novels. As for the remaining ones, Indictment and Spotlight, just click on the links in the above list to see why I include them.
Note that, unlike my 2013 list, my criteria is no longer to include films based on their artistic quality but on what Yockey says above. The film about the medieval monk Andrei Rublev for example is highly artistic to the true connoisseur of cinematic art. But I wouldn’t show it to my son, at least not until he had developed a sufficiently anti-Christian criterion to realise that the pagan Russians should never have embraced a religion of Semitic origin.
I can say something similar about Sleeping Beauty, which appears on my previous top ten list, although this is a fairly tale. It makes me a little nervous that at the climax Maleficent invokes all the powers of Lucifer, and that Prince Philip’s coat of arms bears a Christian cross. A child, of course, wouldn’t notice that. But what Walt Disney had done, collaborating with the American government in times of anti-Nazi propaganda through another of his cartoons caricaturing the Third Reich, I cannot forgive.
Likewise, in my new list I didn’t include 1968’s Planet of the Apes which was on the old list because a child shouldn’t see a black astronaut next to a good-looking Aryan actor like Charlton Heston. The same I must say about another of my favourites that I removed from the old list: Artificial Intelligence, where in the first scene the Jew Spielberg puts a compassionate Negress in front of a huge team of scientists who want to design a robot child with real feelings.
The 1977 film Iphigenia was also taken off my list. Although Iphigenia is a masterful adaptation of Euripides’ tragedy many of the actors, unlike the hyper-Nordic Homeric Greeks, are already mudbloods (of course: the film’s actors were contemporary Greeks!). A boy brought up in National Socialism ought not to be fooled by such images.
If someone asks me now, after taking my vows, which of the above list of ten are now my favourite films, they will be surprised to learn that they are all three based on Austen’s novels. That’s exactly the right message of sexual courtship that Aryans, young and old, should see on the big and small screens if we have the fourteen words in mind.
_________
[1] Although the lad I was doesn’t look too bad in the Metapedia picture, as a priest I can’t sire because my bloodline is as compromised as the Greek actors mentioned above.
