"Battle of Britain" and Allied Boasting

The 1969 film Battle of Britain is a decently made war film that attempts to portray the air campaign of the Fall of 1940, which was fought over the English Channel and the southern UK. It is a British production and more realistically portrays the events of that Autumn than a typically sensationalist American film would. However, like the previously reviewed film Conspiracy, this particular movie also has its share of subtle, yet effective, propaganda. The key elements of this are the consecutive scenes where, in the first, Berlin is bombed and, in the second, Adolf Hitler gives his response.

The careful trick played here is not an outright lie, but how the truth is shown; namely the selective editing of it.

First, a flight of Luftwaffe bombers gets disoriented in thick clouds and accidentally drops its bombs very close to London - blasts can be heard in the city causing some panic. This prompts the RAF, on orders from Churchill, to launch bombers on Berlin with the intention of the terrorizing the German capital. As far as history goes, this is a huge white wash. The fact is that the "gallant" Sir Winston Churchill had been itching for an excuse to bomb Berlin for a long time prior before he finally got his wish as this article shows:

"I want the Germans to start bombing London as early as possible because this will bring the Americans into the war when they see the Nazis' frightfulness, and above all it will put an end to this awkward and inconvenient peace movement that's afoot in my own Cabinet and among the British population." ~Winston Churchill

Adolf Hitler, the honorable leader that he was, specifically forbade the bombing of civilian targets in England as he did in France just months prior and in Poland at the outbreak of the war. The Blitzkrieg, which has been made out to be a merciless and destructive assault on innocent nations, is actually much more accurately described as a great achievement in military tactical precision. Though, remarkably advanced and disciplined the Wehrmacht forces may have been, they surely were not perfect down to every calculation and thus, bombs were accidentally dropped near a large civilian area.

Excerpt from this IHR article by David Irving:

"Which was why, on August 25, 1940, Churchill gave the order to the British air force to go and bomb Berlin. Although the chief of the bomber command and the chief of staff of the British air force warned him that if we bombed Hitler, he may very well lift the embargo on British towns. And Churchill just twinkled. Because that was what he wanted -- of course.

At 9:15 that morning he telephoned personally the bomber commander, himself, to order the bombing of Berlin -- one hundred bombers to go and bomb Berlin. They went out and bombed Berlin that night, and Hitler still didn't move. Then Churchill ordered another raid on Berlin, and so it went on for the next seven or ten days until finally, on September 4th, Hitler lost his patience and made that famous speech in the Sport Palace in Berlin in which he said: "This madman has bombed Berlin now seven times. If he bombs Berlin now once more, then I shall not only just attack their towns, I shall wipe them out!" ("Ich werde ihre Städte ausradieren!") A very famous speech. Of course German schoolchildren are told about the Hitler speech, but not told about what went first."

In the film, we hear the bombers begin to approach Berlin, sirens go off, people start to run for cover, but then, the scene cuts before any bombs are actually seen or heard to detonate and we see Adolf Hitler giving the previously mentioned speech at the Sport Palace. It's an angry speech, he vows vengeance and the destruction of London. The cutting of the scene before we see destruction in Berlin is starkly contrasted with the scenes in which the Luftwaffe bombs London. These scenes contain a great amount of detail: large scale destruction, civilians in terror and the whole lot of intense imagery meant for the audience to think: "those damn Germans."

London shown bombed in a promotional poster

This quick and selective omission of the bombs impacting Berlin makes the film subliminally sneak in the myth that Hitler launched an unprovoked imperialist war with the intention of World domination. The crowd watching the speech is, for the most part, uniformly dressed and shouts "Sieg Heil!" in unison over and over. In the several close up shots of the crowd we can readily see the standard "pure Aryan" blue eyed girls with long locks of blonde hair. There are no close ups of Hitler shown in this scene making him more of a menacing presence than an actual person. However, there is an image of Hitler, a semi-subliminal, in the film. It is a painting of him standing behind a podium, a similar position to that of when he is giving his angry speech, thus it was probably carefully selected for the film.

The Luftwaffe's first raids on England display some inexplicable incompetence. First, a flight of Stuka dive-bombers manages to successfully take out a radar site, but is then shot to pieces by an RAF interceptor squadron. The question is: where was their escort? Even the British pilots ask that question! But, nope, no fighter escort shows up and the result is "shooting rats in a barrel" as one of the Spitfire pilots says happily. The second of these scenes shows a flight of Heinkel bombers intercepted even before they get to their target. These bombers also lack a fighter escort and the Spitfires quickly chew them up.

It is right before this scene where the aforementioned image of Hitler appears. This one:

The image appears in the background, slightly out of focus, over the shoulder of an officer who is making a blunder of a decision. This also supports a key aspect of the ZC version of Hitler: the militarily incompetent leader who ordered his forces on pointless suicide missions. The great masses of movie goers are not historians and so they take in these kinds of movies as they would a self-proclaimed (or even an actual) documentary. What's worse is that this film isn't nearly as bad as the more recent film from 2001, Pearl Harbor, about a key chapter from the Pacific Theatre. It took even more liberties to glorify the Allied side and dehumanize the Axis soldiers. Now think to the summer of 2009 when Inglorious Basterds came out; this movie cannot even be called a "period piece" or a "historical film" in any way, shape, or form. Not that it tries to be, but sadly the masses eat it up without thinking and the ZC distortions continue on gleefully.

Attempts at Accuracy
The film manages to pay some service to those keen on history and general objectivity: in the opening scenes pilots from both sides are shown as normal human beings. One of these early scenes even shows the fact that Hitler wanted peace, but it was the British who denied the opportunity. This is all washed over for the remainder of the film and thus was meant to be quickly forgotten. By 1969 standards, the special effects and action sequences are quite impressive so this must have really wowed the audience upon premier of the film. With all of the bombing and aerial combat sequences the film contains the story arc of a Lone Wolf archetype, who in this film is Britain. Like a typical Lone Wolf hero, Britain takes an immense beating, but doesn't cave in, but rather pushes on until all the bad guy's henchmen (Luftwaffe pilots) are beat up and worn out - this is shown in a battered Heinkel bomber that manages to fly back to the German lines and the wounded crew is pulled out. This also means that now the villain is ripe for the taking. However in this case, the villain flees in cowardice; note Goring's last scene in the film, he is seen riding away on a train as two glum officers look on and each manages to give a tired salute.

A Bit of Reality
Hitler's Actual Speech in Response to RAF's attack on Berlin:

The film footage is from Battle of Britain, however, the audio is not the fake sounding rant that the film provides, but rather the actual audio of Hitler when he gave the speech. The music certainly adds a touch, though it is neither from the film nor from the era shown. For the curious ones out there, it's the opening theme to The Rock composed by Hans Zimmer, who is known for epic musical scores, albeit in fluff Hollywood blockbusters.

In the film, Churchill never appears, but is frequently mentioned, including in the form of his famous quote about the battle portrayed: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." This is the typical Allied boasting of their commanders. The fact is that Winston Churchill probably had the ugliest character of any of the leaders of the Second World War - Stalin was brutal, but he didn't hide it, while Churchill was infected with the Jewish line of thinking and hiding all of his and his henchmen's criminal deeds.

Other Matters
This being a film about British boasting, it also neglects much of the help that the RAF received from non-British personnel. The Polish 303 squadron, which had the most number of aerial victories and least number of losses is briefly shown in a few scenes and those legendary pilots who proved vital to defending Britain are shown as goofs who don't follow orders. They are shown scoring a few victories, but their disorderly behavior is far from reflective of their overall performance. One scene has a Polish RAF pilot bail out of his fighter and parachute down into a field. A bit shaken by the experience, he introduces himself to some shocked farmers with a thick accent and they take him for a German. "Put your hands up you boche bastard!" In one smooth move, the film manages to, once again, make fun of the best RAF squadron and utter an anti-German slur. Though, this scene could also be viewed as an example of Churchill-style ignorance and racism, which actually makes it quite accurate in this respect.

I watched a non-subtitled version of the film on YouTube (first part here), perhaps someone who knows German can confirm a suspicion of mine: that the Germans in the film utter no slurs. Though, some minor expletives like "damn" are probably here and there.

Lastly, the film ends with the final battle tally. Even the German casualties are shown. However, there is a great oddity here: the last Allied pilot listed is said to be from Israel, when in fact, that territory was only illegally occupied and recognized by that name in 1948 or 8 years after the events depicted in the movie. The final tally of nations involved doesn't go in alphabetical order and the Germans are on a separate title card, or right after the lone Israeli is acknowledged at the end of the first title card. I would bet that it is just more Jewish lust for German blood.

Verdict: the film is aptly summarized in the title of this essay: "Allied Boasting." Or more specifically: "Anglo Zionist Boasting."

Now for a positive note: the epic opening credits sequence to the film with Ron Goodwin's military march-style score and the Luftwaffe in formation!

 --------------

SIEG HEIL!

-----------------

The Irony of "Conspiracy"

The word "conspiracy" is most often heard today as being on the fringes of the information sphere. This is largely due to the nature of what a conspiracy is, something deliberately not made public, however it is also a way to prove arguments wrong: "it's just a conspiracy theory."

Very odd then, that a film about the Sacred Cow of mainstream information, one that fully supports all of its absurdities, myths, fabrications and the like, all the while attempting to sell them off as perfectly feasible and even logical, is called Conspiracy. I am referring to the 2001 HBO production about what is commonly known as "the Wannsee Conference" where the "Final Solution" was said to have been concocted.

The very first frame of the film is the first oddity, it is the title card of the film. The letter "o" is also the wreath held by the Imperial Eagle on the NSDAP Emblem. My best guess is that the title "Nazi Conspiracy" would have sounded a bit lame, too much like pulp fiction, so they snuck in that notion with a small bit of graphics work. However, the thing that seals the deal with this film is the opening narration, which soon starts, and which states that "only one record of what was said and done here survives." Thus, within less than a minute the film admits to being highly speculative at best.

The next thing that happens is the third and final oddity, which is the entire rest of the film: the whole catalog of "evil Nazi" stereotypes. It is really quite amusing in a weird way. HBO is a major company and network, they hired some fine Shakespearean actors for this film and the production design is very good quality for a historical film; however all that is all just distraction from the sheer absurdity of what they talk about. You are supposed to be taken in by the dramatic performances so that you don't, by chance, happen to think that you could go and verify by yourself the information presented. The sights and wonders of good actors at work is supposed to be all that is required to convince viewers, and sadly, for the most part, it does.

NS Stereotypes
They were pretty unoriginal with them here. Adolf Eichmann, the man said to be responsible for scheduling all the trains to "death camps" as they are known by ZC, is shown to be a cold-faced, stingy bastard who is annoyed by the slightest mistake in order. We can see this right away as a kitchen worker drops some plates causing them to shatter. Immediately Eichmann barks in anger and orders that the cost of damage be taken from the worker's next paycheck.

The saying, "Heil Hitler," is used ad nauseam as the arriving NSDAP officials greet each other. They shout it repeatedly despite being indoors and each time they whip out the accompanying salute. Literally, the lobby of the mansion feels like a parade ground during this scene.

The most ludicrous, and also the most generic, stereotype is the portrayal of Gerhard Klopfer, who was a slender man, but in this production he is portrayed by the quite obese Ian McNeice. The actor plays his role as a perverse, gluttonous slob and the film's speculative nature begins to partly fade and be replaced with the sense of "deliberately misleading." In fact, the here fictional Klopfer very much resembles the real Ariel Sharon who is a bigoted war criminal, albeit with an efficient public relations department that covers up his and his fellow Zionists' crimes against the Palestinians and other groups. The film's portrayal of Reinhard Heydrich also bears a key element of ZC Propaganda - in the film Heydrich is shown as being blonde and blue eyed, the so called "Aryan ideal" of the Third Reich. The real Heydrich was blue eyed, but he wasn't blonde as many readily available colorized photos of him show. Even from the black and white photos we can see that his hair appears as too dark to have been blonde.

Racism and Bigotry
In compliance with ZC, the film portrays the officials meeting as quite racist. This comes in the form of intermittent spouts of bigotry. Many of these are anti-Polish. I found this odd, since the National Socialists of Germany were said to have hated everybody (but especially the Jews) so why do they seem to insult the Poles more than other groups? The answer is a simple Jewish manipulation. Poland had a large Jewish population and many Poles were put into the internment camps along with Jews where they suffered from the same typhus epidemic, many of them dying. Thus, when the Zionists pitched the "6,000,000 figure" the Poles were among their easiest to lure goys. The Jew had nestled his way into winning sympathy for fictional atrocities. The film's dialog just continues that myth: "You Poles should hate the Germans just as much as we do since they were trying to kill you too." To keep this myth in line, stories of dedicated soldiers like Herbert Kaminski and Gerhard Michalski are totally ignored in the mainstream sphere. Both men were ace pilots in the Luftwaffe and identified as Germans, but their names clearly show them to be of mixed extraction, thus exposing "German racial mania" as fiction. In a great irony, practically all of this German anti-Slavic bias is actually a Jewish creation; a false flag to gain support for policies and campaigns. I, as an ethnic Slav born in Poland, have never been discriminated against by Germans despite having come into contact with many over the years. I have, however, been insulted on basis of heritage by Jews from Russia and they were the only group to have spit bigotry in my face. This is also in contrast to ethnic Russians who have never directed any such remarks toward me.

It is also worth noting that the Wehrmacht was incredibly diverse on an ethnic scale. Many times more so than the Allied and Soviet armed forces.

In the film, the Germans at the table discuss all sorts of ways to isolate Jews and prevent them from mixing with ethnic Germans. They rant about statistics and fractions and "preserving race" and "not polluting blood" and basically everything that the Jews condone and actually do themselves today! They invented the Nazi myth to downplay the Israeli reality.

Excerpt from this IHR interview with General Otto Ernst Remer:

IHR: Is it true that the Germans referred to the Russians as "subhumans?"

Remer: Nonsense! The Russians are human beings just like everyone else.

Your question, whether we called the Russians "subhumans," is nonsense. We had a first-class relationship with the Russian people. The only exception, which was a problem we dealt with, was with the Soviet Commissars, who were all Jews. These people stood behind the lines with machine guns, pushing the Russian soldiers into battle. And anyway, we made quick work of them. That was according to order. This was during a war for basic existence, an ideological war, when such a policy is simply taken for granted.

There was sometimes talk about the so-called Asian hordes, and ordinary soldiers sometimes spoke about subhumans, but such language was never officially used.

General Remer was a top ranking NS official who knew Adolf Hitler very well.

Now, some words from influential Jews:

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."
~Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 (NY Times, 2/28/1994, pg 1)

"The nation of Israel is pure and the Arabs are a nation of donkeys. They are an evil disaster, an evil devil, and a nasty affliction. The Arabs are donkeys and beasts. They want to take our girls. They are endowed with true filthiness. There is pure and there is impure and they are impure." ~Rabbi David Batzri, head of the Magen David Yeshiva in Jerusalem (Israeli newspaper Haaretz, 3/21/2006)

So there you have it. Thoughts on racism from a top NS official and from top Jewish Rabbis. Predictably, the racism comes from the Jews.

The Big Deal
As with any "Holocaust" movie, the big thing here is the "gas chambers." These are also the film's biggest gamble, since if one manages to disprove this issue, then the whole films goes from highly speculative to definitely false.

Soon after the fictional film Nazis finish with their obligatory racist ranting, the "logical" conclusion of the evil Nazi mind is reached: extermination. This is ZC's key tool of attack in this film. First, they provide a slightly more sophisticated surface picture of the NS personnel, however the core of film's message it is just the same thing as Wolfenstein 3D. It is a clever move so as to make the demonization of the Nazi ideas and not the Nazis themselves. The more plausible than usual surface of this presentation makes for a greater chance that the audience will swallow the underlying falsehoods. Even if these are taken in subliminally, the job of the film to deceive is done.

Additionally, the film also says that "it is not the Germans that are bad, just Nazis who could potentially be of any ethnicity." It is a subtle distinction, more of a grey area really, but in demonizing ideas and not people, ZC effectively broadens its range of attack, yet hones its accuracy as well. For the most part, the guilt tripping of Germans is only a part of their propaganda, the biggest part is guilt tripping anyone who dares to think positively about National Socialism.

The irony is that in doing so, we can see that ZC fears that more and more people are realizing that National Socialism is not just a German thing. This means that they have effectively acknowledged the universal applicability of NS! Now, people just have to see through the morbid Jewish fiction, which comes next.

In the film, Eichmann states that with the building of a new camp at a location called Auschwitz, they will be able to kill 2,500 Jews per hour and 60,000 Jews per day. Many of the members at the meeting react in shock, except for the blonde, blue eyed fictional Heydrich who smiles coldly. The figures amount to just over 21,000,000 dead per year, according to the film. The shock is, of course, a positive and happy surprise as the fictional Nazis then proudly say that it will be like an assembly line to which Heydrich responds that "the clever Americans have taught us that one!" This particular line is nothing other than a stab at Henry Ford who wrote The International Jew and distributed The Protocols of the Elders of Zion after he saw how much of the text was reflecting what was really happening in the World at the time.

The film's discussion about gas chambers amounts to just sneering and throwing big numbers around, which is effectively just sensationalist entertainment and shock value. One should find it odd that the men in the film don't discuss where they'll get the equipment and how they'll construct it. They go into much detail about many other things, like the aforementioned racial issues, yet this key aspect of the film is totally ignored. It is as if they say: "I got it! Gas Chambers!" The End. The reason for this is quite simple once one has found where to look.

These photos are a start:

Note the caption: it's in German.

A German company's advertisement for industrial gas chambers:

Yes, that is an actual advertisement for a German company's product, which makes it something that Adolf Hitler would have had unlimited access to if he wanted. This is particularly true after Germany went into "Total War" with all of the country's production geared for war efforts, which supposedly included a "war on the Jews." Yet, never in any "Holocaust" movie do we see any of these REAL GAS CHAMBERS. Nor are they in any of the camps. I have been to Auschwitz and Majdanek and nothing of the sort pictured above can be seen there. "Holocaust Denial" is NOT the refusal to admit a painful truth, but the refusal to accept a lie.

Historian Friedrich Berg has compiled an excellent online library of information about this and other subjects from the Second World War. The above images are from his site.

One should also note this article that acknowledges that the "gas chambers" were built after the war under Soviet supervision (read: gun-point).

With all this in mind we can see the greatest irony at play here: it is the film itself that is the "conspiracy."

Let's take a look at the meaning of that word, it is defined as such:

con·spir·a·cy
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

This film production perfectly fits with #1 - it is wrongful and subversive. The filmmakers and the Allied and Soviet propagandists (with many Jewish racists on both sides) are #2. The Allied and Soviets are all guilty of #3 - accomplish a legal purpose (prosecution) through illegal action (with fabrication and falsehood). This process continues today with films like this that justify the previous lies. Lastly, these actions, and Jewish actions today, are most certainly a "sinister design" - they know that they are wrong and that is why they fear revisionist investigation. That is why the "Holocaust" is protected by law, because it cannot stand by itself, it needs a witch hunt to frighten people into believing it.

"As long as people believe in absurdities then they will continue to commit atrocities." ~Voltaire

Certainly we can see as that being the case with Israel, the self-proclaimed Jewish state, in today's world. Dropping illegal chemical weapons, in the form of white phosphorus, on innocents. Detaining people without trial. Lobbying their biggest guard dog, the USA, to shelter them from all international criticism and prosecution.

Conclusion
The film's epilogue is rather interesting in that it states that many of the men were released for "lack of evidence." This, once again, shows that the film is speculation for if solid evidence did in fact exist about the matters said to have been discussed here, then all involved would have been arrested and jailed if not executed. However, even after the supposed "one record" was found in 1947 (by that point Germany had been under occupation for 2 years by the Allies and Soviets) nothing changed in the men's fates. For one, Klopfer lived and worked freely until 1987!

There is an interesting anecdote at the end that Kritzinger tells to Heydrich: it's the story of a young man who detests his father so much, that when eventually the man dies, the son breaks down in tears, because his life is now empty of all purpose after having directed all of his energies into despising his father. This is Kritzinger's warning about the hatred that Heydrich and the Nazis feel toward the Jews. The brief story amounts to nothing more than yet another short chapter in Judeo-arrogance. The Jews cannot help, but place themselves in the center of everything. The study of World War 2 will soon simply be reduced to the sentence, "The time when 6,000,000 Jews were gassed." National Socialism will become, "The belief that all Jews should be killed via gassing." Etc, etc...

It is rather pathetic, but a rather perfect example of the self-centered nature of the Jewish mind, the morbidity of its beliefs, the aridity of its ideals and the parasitic persuasion that affects non-Jews and gets them to spread the Jews' lies. And it all goes back to the herder archetype.

A related essay HERE as well as a close analysis of the Wannsee Conference Protocol HERE.

The War of Words: Storytelling Front

We are in a War of Words. There are many frontlines in this highly amorphous conflict. The Political Front may be the most obvious, but I believe that storytelling is also vital for this.

“An important prerequisite of a movement is a common vocabulary. The ability to form a unified front against Zionism, as well as the pursuit of Aryanism, requires clean and accurate expression of our positions. Emphasis must be placed on the use of common vocabulary by all supporters and allies of our movement.”

~Aryan Glossary

Thus, vocabulary is absolutely indispensable to the Aryan Movement, but words are only a means to a goal or ideal. Much like the National Socialist view on money, as a tool to serve a purpose and the lifeblood of an economy, words are the lifeblood of commincation, be it story/recollection, philosophy or political rhetoric. The Movement may be small now, but as it grows, there will be key ideas keeping it standing and goals still driving it forward. These ideas will have started as mere words and it is how we apply those words that will make the ideas, and goals that they lead to, uniquely Aryan.

In this article the reader can find an overview of the Campaign we find ourselves in. These ideas, however, will apply a little differently depending on role an Aryanist within the movement. A medic, a rifleman, and a radio operator may all be on the same general front line and may all have learned many of the same skills in basic training, but when the going gets real, each has a critically different duty to carry out so that the campaign proceeds forward.

Historically, storytelling has been a vital part of culture. Ancient Greece may be long gone, but Homer’s Odyssey is still being read and discussed. Der Fuhrer Adolf Hitler may have passed from this Earth, but Mein Kampf still lives strong. It can be said that this book was a key element in National Socialist mobilization in 1920s Germany. Ideas amount to nothing unless they are communicated, and so Der Fuhrer did just that. He effectively spoke to an entire nation - no scratch that - to the entire World with his book. The work contains many forms of written word: story/recollection, philosophy and political rhetoric. When it was being written, the NS movement was small and had just been overpowered and repressed, so this vital cornerstone that would prop it back up had to arch over many aspects in order to contain the full founding philosophy of a movement.

“First there was the Word.”

Mein Kampf was a major step in Adolf Hitler’s will to “recreate mankind anew.” The recreating of so many things anew needs to get more and more specific and storytelling is one of the next steps. I have looked at some films and media on this blog, in which I have identified both Aryan themes and ZC Propaganda. This is by no means an exhaustive examination of each story presented, but should serve as a springboard into the reader’s examination of their own favorite films. Note that Aryan themes are often subtle and in today’s mass-media they can usually be found in bits and pieces, here and there. Very few works are brimming with Aryanism, though there are exceptions like Cutthroat Island or ThunderCats.

Once a good sense of Aryanism is developped, identifying it in other streams of information should be easier. Today there is an immense amount of information flow, thus Aryanism has many potential routes, but also can be fairly easily drowned out in irrelevance. The mass-media is expert at creating programs that amount to Aldous Huxley’s imagined drug of Soma, thus it is easy to get lost and disoriented. On the other hand, this means that Aryanism, once spotted, is likely to be very obvious. Skepticism is always good for investigation, so take nothing at face value, but with a careful sense and dedication little shining embers of Arya will likely surprise you from very many different vantage points. Go to them!

Also important - Start to speak Aryan rhetoric so that when you are confronted by a Zionist or one of their lapdog goyim (i.e. an American neo-conservative) their words will be powerless. Kamerad Delendaestziobot wrote a good piece about rhetoric. Take careful note of how this applies to your chosen specialization within the Aryan Movement as well as generally. Again - medic, rifleman, radioman; all different, but part of the same unit.

Aryanism will only live if we live it. Or, the words of Ghandi, “You must be the change that you wish to see in the World.”

Tower of Babel
This is the Jewish paradigm for goy management. It applies to politics (capitalism vs. communism, right vs. left, etc…) as well as culture (social strife, religious conflict, etc…). To put it in brief, it is an idea to keep the goyim perpetually busy and yet achieve no progress. As the story goes, the people wanted to build a great tower to reach the heavens, but YHWH the Jewish idol, confused their speech and the tower was never finished. YHWH attacked their way with words to make unity impossible. Jewish over-influenced politics today is much the same thing - we have so much technology and capacity and labor power as well as people needing the work and wages, yet what gets done? A recent and iconic example would be left-wingers arguing with conservatives over a Mosque in downtown Manhattan. This conflict also played out along religious lines. The Jew can’t eliminate the Gentiles’ word, so he strives to make it useless and impotent by degrading it down to bickering. He does this all while ever refining his own words. Thus, today’s Tower can be seen as one of language and words, those that are needed to form a unity against the Jews, or the Aryan term, Unity through Nobility.

Work, work, work... and never get anything done.

ZC Propaganda Inc. routinely demonizes and vilifies everything the Jew disagrees with and it is a near perfect transposition of Kosher Slaughter into the form of word and story. Just take a look at some of the films glorifying violence, and especially the Quentin Tarantino trashterpiece Inglorious Basterds. Tarantino showed the film in Israel and the Jews cheered during the final mass slaughter of a shootout, since, in a bit of childish revisionism, Tarantino has Hitler shot to pieces in a Paris movie theatre to conclude the movie. Jews hate Hitler and despite that he has been dead for so long they still want to kill him brutally. Or see him die. The Jewish pleasure with slaughter never ceases to disgust. They literally feed themselves off of it. I direct the reader to my post on The Carnegie Deli to see just that I mean with that last sentence.

The Aryan Counter-Paradigm
Unity through Nobility, as I have said, is the motto behind the Aryan Movement, but our goal is NOT another (and better, stronger, etc…) Tower of Babel. That would be pointless. Our Aryan Counter-Paradigm is a Distillation Tower; only the noblest make it to the top and pass on to the infinity of Arya. Jews would think we’re playing with and stacking blocks… how wrong they are! We are recreating mankind anew with a complex new order that once in place for a solid amount of time, it will be impossible to imagine a different one. Our new system, and the words and stories that we’ll create within it, our new Noble Culture, will be increasingly impossible for the Jews to degrade. They have gotten used to same old thing, for one, but also, not enough people have actually attacked the Jew where it hurts him most - his tools for creating lies, namely his use of words. Render his production facilities useless and he’ll have to give up, and knowing the self-preserving nature of the Jew, he will.

Will you meet us at the top?

One example of this is that the popular term “anti-Semitism” (which is absurd to begin with, but hey, the Jews created it) went from meaning “envy of Jewish success” to “disgust towards Jewish racism” and the new catch phrase “an anti-Semite is not one who hates Jews, but one whom Jews hate” quickly started to make headway. One step in distillation has been made, a little lie reversed and the new meaning pure, but the process continues.

Another important aspect is that the Zionists’ (both Jews and Gentiles) main strategy has been effectively compromised.

Summary of Zionist trick:
1) Promote a policy that they know most people are too degraded to successfully execute.
2) Blame the policy instead of the people for the failure, allow their agents to reverse the policy and thus gain public trust.

Summary of Aryanist countermeasure:
1) Blame the people instead of the policy for the failure.
2) Make the policy work by gathering sufficiently capable people.

This reverse bluff paradigm applies to virtually the whole field of anti-Zionism. An Aryanist should see how it applies in their specialized field.

On the storytelling front, Hollywood plays a major role and all the Jewish owned studios routinely release films that echo what’s coming out of Washington DC. Just note the portrayal of Arabs throughout Hollywood’s history or for a specific example, just look at the film 300. I have a feeling that the recent film Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was a sort of apology from Hollywood about 300 and they finally showed Persia in a more pleasant light, however, they didn’t have any of the major roles played by Arabic actors and the main role went to Jake Gyllenhaal (Jew) and the film was produced by the Jerry Bruckheimer (Jew). Oh, Hollywood.

There are films that do contain genuine Aryan themes, some of which I have looked at here. An Aryanist’s examination of some their favorite films might reveal a deeper reason why they like them. Or maybe show that a film is actually un-Aryan. My opinion of many films that I used to greatly enjoy has changed much since I became an Aryanist. Right around the time that I started to read beyond the mainstream about the Third Reich, Tarantino’s Jewish fantasy from 2009 hit screens, and while I still viewed National Socialism as wrong at the time, I was approaching it from a rationalist view point (unlike the being spoon fed propaganda view point I had before) and the gleeful violence ending the film literally made me sick. I was only once before so furious at the stupidity of a movie before and that was when I saw Michael Bay’s Bad Boys 2 (another offering from the Jew, Bruckheimer) and it was also a spectacular disaster of gratuitous excess that all the goyim in the theatre cheered at. Perhaps, it’s odd that it took me this long to see past the goy illusion, literally it took all of college. Complex steps however, take time. As do campaigns. Aryanism is not an assembly line creation, it is expert craftsmanship and we are still all learning our trade. It took Adolf Hitler over ten years of hard work, which included prison time and the murder of Horst Wessel, among many other things, before his Kampf had a full scale mobilization. To create something genuine in a land of superficiality is hard work, especially when superficiality works day-to-day with illusion to create semblences of authenticity. And so it is, we must work hard and not lose our honorable standards. Never!

Prophet Mohammed, the Muslim's first teacher, lived by a much higher standard than he demanded of his followers. He was at the top of his movement, but not from pulling favors, he was fit to lead by his own honorable actions.

"The worst one of the people in the sight of God is the one who does not put his knowledge into practice." ~Mohammed

Archetypes
The historical archetype for the Jew is the Herder, the sly manipulator and profiteer from slaughter. Today this has been transposed into things like the corporate overlord and sleazy politician. The process remains the same, however, profiting from lies.

The Gentiles are historical Hunters, and the ever scheming Herder has invited them onto his game preserve to chase after his own animals keeping the consumer goyim ever busy trying to sustain themselves all while paying the Herder.

Aryans, the historical Farmers, never cared for quantity so much as for quality. Thus, the Herder’s monopolization has pushed the Aryans into small pockets here and there. Chances are that if someone, somehow, discovers Aryanism, they’ll be alone in their immediate area.

What binds us is our writing, our words. Be they stories, philosophy, political rhetoric, or even a short humorous anecdote. Though, stories remain unique and ever important, since they do not merely communicate the possibility of an idea, they show the idea in action via the art of fiction. This is a powerful tool that can be used without the compromising of one’s own honor. Use it.

"An idea that is developed and put into action is more important than an idea that exists only as an idea." ~Siddhartha

The Lone Wolf Archetype

The Action/Adventure Film is one of the most popular genres in cinema. Virtually every big studio regularly releases films that fit into this category. These films are relatively easy to market to a wide audience and have consistently provided big studios with huge returns on their investments. The James Bond franchise is the most successful series of films in history and is part of the action genre. Film stars like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris, Wesley Snipes and Jet Li (to name a few) have the action film genre to thank for their hugely successful careers. The adventure film was never really anything new and goes back to some of the earliest days of Hollywood. It was a genre that was successfully transposed to the big screen from some very popular in literature; the works of Jules Verne come to mind. One of the famous early films is A Trip to the Moon, which can be seen as a loose adaptation of Verne‘s From Earth to the Moon.

The film adventure hero, mainly the archetype propagated by Hollywood, gradually took on a distinct shape of his own as more and more films came out. Due to film being a visual medium (in fact, the first films were silent and thus purely visual) the superficial characteristics of traditional hero archetypes came more and more to the front and by now have become a standard and mainstay of the male action hero. One does not need to look at any one film to see this at play, rather this phenomenon is prevalent over an entire spectrum. However, a good place to start would be the adventure serials that came out in the 1930s, by that point Hollywood was a booming film industry.

The action hero in these films was most often an Anglo-American male with the most basic male traits accentuated. Commonly these were: apparent facial hair, high physical strength and endurance, and sexual prowess. Later, as restrictions in the cinema-code became less puritan there was a steadily revealing display of male muscular build with the musculature of the hero steadily veering into the superficial with a body-builder, Mr. Olympia-look. At a glance, just think Bruce Lee of the 1970s (natural build result of ascetic motivation) to Schwarzenegger in the 1980s (artificially induced result of vanity). The hero’s sexual exploits also become more graphic with a high (sometimes absurd and even comic) dimorphism between male and female; the woman that the hero woos was often a coy, oversexed lass. Together with the overly macho male, it makes for an image that propagates the differences between male and female, instead of a profound unity leading to mutual respect.

Another key trait of the action hero is his “lone wolf” attitude. He does things his way. He is his own boss. Even if he is part of an organization, one with concise procedural rules, he still does things his own way and gets away with it. In fact, by the end, it has become commonplace for him to be applauded for what he was originally warned about, his recklessness. One of the first “rogue cop” films, Bullitt, has the hero facing the consequences of his tactics. It is not shown to be all his own fault, others too were reckless, but the point is that all around recklessness leads to all around destruction. The case Lt. Bullitt was working on doesn’t get solved and the film ends with him looking glumly into a mirror, most likely reflecting on his ways. Dirty Harry was another popular film in the same style with a rogue cop protagonist. It came out in 1971, three years after Bullitt, and has a noticeable increase in sensationalism with many crooks being gunned down by the lead character. In contrast, Lt. Bullitt only fired two shots resulting in one death. Though, Dirty Harry also ends on a glum note with Detective Harry Callahan somberly reflecting on his job and on his actions, he even throws away his badge, the film, however, spawned four sequels with each one more destructive than the last and it was in the 1970s that the “lone wolf cop” archetype had become a mainstay. John Wayne’s only role in a cop thriller, McQ from 1974, is also the lone wolf formula, but with some new details: not only does he gun down all of the crooks, but he acquires and illegal firearm to do it with after he is kicked off the police force. And he’s supposed to be the guy we’re rooting for: one who is effectively an impulsive vigilante murderer on the loose. The Dirty Harry sequels are much in the same light, gunning down crooks and breaking skulls all while looking “bad ass.” It isn’t impossible to imagine a scenario where violence is necessary to end some wrongdoing, but these films’ stories are designed in ways that connote violence as the inevitable answer to all wrongdoing.

Lone Wolf McQuade
A perhaps perfect example of the Lone Wolf archetype can be found in the very aptly titled film Lone Wolf McQuade with Chuck Norris. It has virtually all the characteristics that were described above. The “hero” J.J. McQuade is Texas Ranger who lives as a loner in a dirty trailer out in the desert; he is unkempt and rather arrogant. The film’s story is the basic good guys vs. bad guys deal that ends in a big shootout as well a martial arts duel between hero and villain. The film is not a standout movie in any way, it is just another product straight from the action movie assembly line at the Hollywood film factory. I only chose to talk about it since its name is so fitting to the archetype described in this post.

Take a look at one of the film’s promotional posters:

No caption needed

That pretty much says it all about the film and hero right there. It makes a good guy out of a vanity obsessed brute and glorifies his acts of excessive force and violence. His self-serving nature and macho image can also be seen as a corrupted image of Aryanism; he has some of the right traits, but virtually all the wrong motivations. He is a survivalist and self-preservationist. He doesn’t care about anything unless it comes riding up his driveway. He is disconnected from society in everyway almost, except to serve his needs.

Kamerad Delendaestziobot wrote an article about this archetype as it can be seen in real life.

Sowing Discord
Storytelling has always been a human mainstay of introducing ideas into society and with the effective industrialization of filmmaking in Hollywood, the introduction of ideas through story in the last 70 years has been going on overtime. The US Department of Defense even regularly helps productions that are military oriented and many of these promote the reckless Lone Wolf Archetype, which seemingly goes against military procedure. One film of note here would be the 1987 action film Death Before Dishonor, in which a US Marine goes on a vigilante rampage after some of his men are killed. Featuring cartoon cut-out Arab villains and, of course, innocent Israelis that are victims to Arab terror, the film is nothing but propaganda once examined rationally.

This archetype is meant to appeal to base human instincts, and especially pride, in order to sow discord in society. Weekend Warriors, Closet Commandos and survivalist types are undoubtedly influenced on some level by these kinds of films. It’s the much propagated “American can do spirit” that promotes individualism so much so that the message ends up being comprehended and acted out as arrogance. The aforementioned Chuck Norris has often made public his anti-statist and wild west orientated political views thus it is no surprise that he made his career playing like-minded characters. Upon rational examination the libertarian ideals that such an archetype preaches are almost pure folly. It’s as if the people believing in those ideals are denying the existence of a state and government. They want to be in their own little comfortable Hobbit-hole. “The Lone Wolf dies. It’s the Wolf Pack that lives.” Some are arrogant lone wolves, many are just naïve little pups, but both are effectively pulled apart by their own doing thanks to propaganda and thus prevented from uniting to achieve goals that benefit the noble in society and punish the ignoble.

The Lone Wolf is motivated by vanity, is bound to himself, he lives by false honor. He will DIE.

The Noble Warrior on the other hand:

He is motivated by Honor and Duty.
He is bound to his Kameraden and to his society by it.
He lives by it. He is an Aryan.

Which One Are You?