“The so-called 'Left-Hand Path' - that of Kaulas, Siddhas and Viras - combines the... Tantric worldview with a doctrine of the Ɯbermensch which would put Nietzsche to shame... The Vira - which is to say: the 'heroic' man of Tantrism - seeks to sever all bonds, to overcome all duality between good and evil, honor and shame, virtue and guilt. Tantrism is the supreme path of the absolute absence of law - of shvecchacarÄ«, a word meaning 'he whose law is his own will'." ― Julius Evola, The Path of Cinnabar.

“It is necessary to have “watchers” at hand who will bear witness to the values of Tradition in ever more uncompromising and firm ways, as the anti-traditional forces grow in strength. Even though these values cannot be achieved, it does not mean that they amount to mere “ideas.” These are measures…. Let people of our time talk about these things with condescension as if they were anachronistic and anti-historical; we know that this is an alibi for their defeat. Let us leave modern men to their “truths” and let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing amid a world of ruins.” ― Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga.

“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who died at his post during the eruption of Vesuvius because someone forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one that can not be taken from a man.” ― Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life.

Saturday, February 27, 2010


The film within the film was better than the film (Inglorious Basterds):


Hadding said...

The characterizations of Germans and Americans are completely ass-backwards. It was the Germans that had respect for old European landmarks. At the Battle of Monte Cassino the Germans refrained from using the 1400-year-old abbey as a defensive position until after the U.S. had bombed it into rubble. I really think that destroying ancient architecture was part of the Marxist-influenced U.S. agenda. It's easier to create rootless, malleable people when there are no reminders of the past.

Germans also did not shoot medics, and I suspect that a German soldier would have been more likely than an American to refrain from shooting a man saving a baby. Civilized warfare is a European tradition; it has never had deep roots in the USA.

JDS said...

Tarantino is scum. He put out a couple mildly amusing films, but he is essentially negrophile scum.

Hadding said...

It also occurs to me that the moral of this little vignette is that the way to succeed is to fight dirty. That is by now a well established American view. You see it in movies like The Dirty Dozen.

What Tarantino accomplishes by portraying this German as fighting dirty is to justify what the Judeo-Americans are inclined to do anyway.

JDS said...

It is also a very inaccurate portrayal of NS "propaganda" war films, which would probably stand out for lack of gratuitous violence.

In the actual film Inglorious Basterds, the Hitler character is portrayed as literally salivating over the violence in this film, where in reality it was well-known that Hitler, as an actual combat veteran, had an explicit distaste for senseless violence.

Delta said...

Re: JDS- Inglourious Basterds is an all out cartoon, a joke based on hyper-amplified American stereotypes of Nazis. It makes no attempt whatsoever to be historically accurate (Ending!!!) nor does it claim the film within a film (Directed by Eli Roth, the Bear Jew himself) to be a realistic portrayal of Nazi Propaganda. If Untergang or Valkyrie had stooped to this level I'd be pissed, but to fault so audacious a movie as this over an "Evil Hitler" or a spoof NS Propaganda short is faulting napalm for its stench after it's burnt your face off.

As for Tarantino- Negrophile? The guy cast himself saying "Dead Nigger Storage" 10 times in 2 minutes. His arguments with Spike Lee are notorious as is his crusade against political correctness. He is merely more open about the fetishistic state of his obsession with blacks (Jackie Brown, dullest movie ever). He is not a negrophile, if I.G. proves anything it's that he's a massive Judeophile. The whole movie is a love song to the antiquated idea of Jews as some sort of noble werewolf.

Still I maintain that analysis of I.G. as anything more than a Nazisploitation gore flick is akin to reading a communist agenda into Avatar (Green yes, but red was a stretch).

Re: Hadding- I can't really think of any culture that hasn't in some way tried to destroy the preceding idols. From the ancient Egyptian vandalism of cartouches to the Taliban vs big Buddhas to the USA to the USSR. The Nazi destruction of old undesirable cultural remnants is so well chronicled (lies or not) that it's now played for laughs in pop pulp shoot-em-ups.

JDS said...

Yes it is true the film is not intended to be taken seriously on ANY level.

Yes, QT is a negrophile. Just because he says "nigger" in his films doesn't make him racially edgy, but more that he wants to demonstrate that he is so cool with the niggers that he can say "nigger" and get away with it. The "dead nigger storage"-saying character is also married to one in the film.

Aside from the racial aspects, in terms of actual film-making JACKIE BROWN is probably QT's best film.

Clint Eastwood has made more confrontational vs. negro film heroes than QT would ever have the balls to do, and bagged on Spike Lee, yet he's rolled repeatedly to make askissy pc films such as BIRD and the upcoming Mandela biopic.

JDS said...

Inglorious Basterds sucked no matter how you reframe or look at it. It sucked as an exploitation film, as a war film, as a comedy, etc. It was just lame.

Delta said...

In terms of photography, suspense and eccentric playful style, I.B. (Sorry I kept saying I.G. in the last post for some reason) is well done. But as a Tarantino film, a genre in itself to his fans like Woody Allen films, it is a master work. I enjoyed it immensely (Of course that may be more a conviction than a compliment depending on how one interprets my background) as have countless others. Tarantino didn't make it to the top of film by pandering to big audiences, he earned it with raw skill and daring.

Jackie Brown is his most normal film, so I find it dull though anyone looking for a solid drama will find it more rewarding. All taste on that one- But you may be correct about his 'chummy' motives in ebonic slang.

Eastwood's Mandela film is an atrocity. Regardless what you think of the man, who the hell makes his biography into a friggin sports movie?

Hadding said...

Delta said: "Re: Hadding- I can't really think of any culture that hasn't in some way tried to destroy the preceding idols."

On the contrary; this is a behavior especially characteristic of monotheist fanatics. The Romans didn't do this and the Germans in World War II didn't do it either. I have a nice photo on my blog of Hitler paying respects at the tomb of Napoleon.

Delta said: "The Nazi destruction of old undesirable cultural remnants is so well chronicled (lies or not) that it's now played for laughs in pop pulp shoot-em-ups."

The analogy is obtuse. You are trying to excuse wanton destruction by an army of hypocritical make-believe liberators by comparing it to the work of people trying to cleanse their own society of unhealthy influences. It's the difference between renovation and demolition.

If you want to compare the Allies to barbarian hordes of various ages that's fine with me. It's the pretense that they were something better than that which is annoying.

Delta said...

I'll agree that monotheists have a terrible track record when it comes to destroying everything that doesn't praise their god of choice, but the Nazis had their own streak of shattering and burning what elements of culture didn't fit into their cultural agenda. I do not excuse the American desecration of German sites in any way, but there can be no renovation without demolition and be it book burning or church bombing, the motives change but the results do not. I will make a small distinction between organized cultural violence and wanton vandalism, but you imply the Allies were trying to create a "rootless, malleable people," so I'd lump that in with the "Higher" purpose in the acts. Unless it was aimless bombs, then that's just war.

I have no illusion that the Allies were anything better than the barbarian hordes, but the implication that Nazi acts are more justifiable as "renovation" implies the same faulty standard. Do you consider Germany more in the right because their acts were domestic rather than foreign?

Hadding said...

Delta says: "Do you consider Germany more in the right because their acts were domestic rather than foreign?"

Absolutely. It's their own business what they do with their own culture. Can you not grasp that?

Plus there is the fact that in general the agenda of the NSDAP represented health while the Allies represented leveling and decay. The whole war against Germany was dishonest. American people were lied into it and lies are still told to justify it.

Delta said...

"Grasp" yes, hence the question. But that's still a ways from agreeing that a nation's sovereignty absolves them from criticism of ethnic cleansing. I will however, in the context of your posts here, be giving it serious thought. As for WW2, it's been a few centuries since populations lusted for war, leveling and decay the way the they to. It seems lies are a prerequisite for any popular American war.

Perhaps France and Poland needed less convincing as they were getting "healed".

Hadding said...

Ethnic cleansing is an emotionally charged yet nebulous term, as is genocide. (Read the UN's definition: it is very broad.) The combination of vagueness and emotional charge makes it ideal for war-propaganda.

I am pleased to hear that the Serb Radovan Karadzic is giving a vigorous defense of his country's actions in response to the accusation of ethnic cleansing there. In that case, Karadzic denies that ethnic cleansing per se is what the Serbs were doing.

Karadzic of course is catering to the moral biases generated by World War II propaganda.

Sometimes removing alien populations and alien influence is for the greater good.

CCC said...

Inglorious Basterds was nothing more than an ass-kissing Jewish fantasy made to mollify the Weinstein brothers after Tarantino nearly bankrupt them with Grindhouse. The film was aggravating nonsense at best.