This is for you A.E.

The movie is not anti-semitic as Christ, his family and followers are unambiguously presented as semitic. As the movie is pro-Christ, it can’t then be anti semitic. However, and even if it sounds contradictory, it is perhaps the most anti jew movie I have ever seen. Though I don’t think it’s a good movie, I commend Gibson and compliment him on having what must be heavy brass balls for following through on his views in the face of entrenched jew media control. Once it is out on DVD, it should help in recruiting and wakening people up. That the pope recently decreed the movie not anti semitic unless the gospels themselves are - makes it better still. Of course the pope can’t talk straight on this subject, as his racket is founded on intentionally obscuring the fact that christianity and judaism are virtually identical with only accessories to set them apart. One creepy break away jew sect (Christianity) squabbles with and tries to exterminate the parent while that parent just as earnestly tries to exterminate it’s progeny. Typical jew behavior. CI nuts will never see this as they are even more pitiful than your average pope (who eats very well because of it). But there is hope for normal thinking men and women like Gibson who visually presents his material in a way that makes jew and christian indistinguishable, even though he persists in the good cop, bad cop scam that jews coined when they invented the Christ myth and big business christianity in the first place.

Having read Constantin von Hoffmeister’s review, I was nervous as a turkey in November because of his 'Roman characters as Hollywood Nazis.' Respectfully, I disagree. We see only the same 5 or 6 soldiers in all scenes involving Romans whupping Christ. We also see Mr. and Mrs. Pilate and Pilate’s adjutant and none of these characters has any antisocial tendencies – they are the only sane or likable characters in the movie. In contrast, the director has hundreds of jews kick the shit out of, spit upon and gloat over Christ’s sufferings. That suffering is entirely laid at the feet of the jews. I miss the famous line, but you don’t need it as the point is visually and structurally (through the cutting juxtapositions) made over and over again.

The movie communicates the total alien-ness of the jews as a people and a culture. My skin crawled throughout whether I was looking at the bad or the good characters - except for the Romans. Whether high priest slamming Christ across the mug, dude helping him with the cross or super hooked nose lady trying to give him water – they all engendered the same reaction in me - disgust and horror at jew demeanor, their way of looking at the world, their total self-centeredness. I was surprised that I remembered so much of the ‘story’ and the words from Catechism days, but they had never come across in the slippery jew way they did as uttered by the actor playing Christ. What a typical jew. Like every other kike in the picture, Christ is incapable of giving a straight answer to anything.

Christ was an Aryan? I can’t imagine a bigger collection of hideous jews than the crowd Gibson assembled here. None of them has ever seemingly heard of a bath or seen a bar of soap or pair of scissors, and the overall result was to make me feel pity for the Roman soldiers posted to this hell of eternally disputing scamming and spinning kikes. Those scriptural platitudes being spoken suggested to me a typical borderline clinically insane jew, so puffed up on his own bullshit that he comes to actually believe it and is able to convince, to a greater or lesser degree, the other denizens of the jew mad house to believe or semi believe it too.

I had no problem with the violence, except much of it was unrealistic and silly – the whipping special effects, for instance. The only times I looked away were when the nails were driven. After seeing The Christ punched in the head 55 times (and this is only in the first 10 minutes) I found myself not much caring. Ditto for the whippings, etc. And, the handling of the violence, like Gibson’s handling of the acting, is, from a technique point of view monochromatic and formulaic. The actors are allowed a very narrow range of technique and about two expressions each – pained, and more pained or gloating or more gloating. The actors always did exactly what I expected they would do – there were no surprises at all, let alone nice ones. Performances were low keyed, reverential and smug, and that was all they were. Mary was sad because she was supposed to be sad, not because she really was sad. Samo for the floggings and such – I saw what I expected to see, done as it has always been done. Check out Paul Verhoeven’s Soldier of Orange in which the Gestapo tortures a character to make him talk. We see the guy in close up screaming and slobbering, and then the director cuts to a long shot, which reveals why (a fully turned on fire hose rammed up his butt). The audience always gasps in horror, on cue, because the handling is so unexpected and fresh. In contrast, in the Gibson movie, both actions and the reactions of the actors are so predictable that they quickly become boring. A possible reason why Gibson includes so much violence is to provide some punctuation to enliven the mechanical and uninflected dramatics.

The story is structured in a linear way, with awkward and pointless flashbacks injected in a vain attempt to also liven things up. Transitions are strictly filmmaking 101. For instance - Jesus falls down, cut to mom hesitant to go to him because she might flip out, cut to flashback of baby Jesus falling down with mom there to comfort him, cut to mom going to comfort grown up Jesus. Jesus F. Christ – talk about painting by numbers. Or how about - Christ in agony POV shot scanning the light blue sky which whites out as he sees the sun, cut to white bread at a disciple dinner, cut to Christ’s white (well…sort of) bed sheet being ripped asunder by bad Roman soldiers…again, does it get any simpler? Actually, yes it does, in most of the cutting in Swindler’s List, for instance. But it still sucks even if one can find more grotesque examples of just how low filmmaking has fallen.

Everything, until he finally drags his big stick outside the city walls, in filmed inside a studio, and sometimes the look is so artificial and air brushed that I thought I was looking at an MGM musical with blood, or a Tim Burton Batman movie. That opening betrayal in the garden…well, Gibson really should not let those faggy art directors ride rough shod over him. Blue gels on all the lights, heavy diffusion, fog machines going full blast, rim lights on the fucking rim lights. I was expecting a dance routine to break out any moment. When he cuts to the kikes, they get a yellow gel on their lights – the color of money, no doubt. And the Romans get clear, limpid light and no diffusion – an indication that whether he knows it or not, Gibson’s mind is with the rational and sane characters – and with us.

I saw no patterns in the use of the mise en scene to characterize or contribute to telling the story. Temples were only temples and doors and staircases were only doors and staircases. Primitive. The cutting consistently tends to make the jews look guilty as Gibson often follows showing something bad happening to Christ with a shot of some kike reaction that tends to demonstrate a causal relation between the two.

That dude or dude-ess with the wan mug and the snake under his, her or its bed sheet is cutting edge, I suppose. And that brings to mind the way-cool aspects of the film. IE, the upside down POV shots, the rain drops that hit with heavily miked boulder effects, the crane down through the floor into a dungeon, the music video during the hanging around on the cross segment. All very stale and perfect illustrations of Wagner’s famous comment about Meyerbeer’s empty, posturing operas: effects without causes. These flashy, meaningless tricks are futile attempts to synthetically jazz up what is a plodding and uninspired piece of filmmaking.

The finale of the movie is a good place to end this interminable rant. Christ strides forcefully into the light and the future with a kick ass but oh-so-righteous expression on his dark and oily jew face. In one of the few tricky stagings of the film, we see his perforated palms, but all the laboriously created results of the whippings and stabbings are miraculously gone. And, he must have had one A list hairdresser in that cave with him to be able to exit it looking like a 60s jew college activist, drug dealer or rock star. If only they could have worked in a filter tipped cigarette and a black light it would have been perfect. We see that He is indeed Risen, as the movie ends by setting up a sequel (how about RoboChrist for a title?). As ridiculous as the mindless setting aside of the effects of two hours of Hollywood torture is the extreme fussiness and prudery with which Gibson avoids showing the Sacred Genitalia. So much boring blood that sometimes the Christ dude wheezes and coughs up red clouds of expectorant, but show the Holy Dick? Mercy no, everybody knows the savoir (like christians ever since) didn't have a dick. How fucking coy, and coyness isn’t usually reckoned a virtue, let alone a Christ like virtue.

Bad movie, but potentially great propaganda for waking up the lemmings.
.

Gott, there's no denying that your review was a pretty damn good piece of work. You covered just about everything, and you were brutally honest. You even complimented Mel Gibson on having the balls to even make the film, (and so you should). Plus, you were funny and entertaining.

But, hey, did you have to be quite so damn cruel about Gibson's technical skills and his cinematic finesse? I mean, shit, have you forgotten all the crap movies you've watched down the years? I sure as hell haven't! And that other crap probably didn't have any redeeming features whatsoever! I'm not saying that The Passion should be immune to criticism just because it has some positive features for WNs. But let the criticism, especially technical criticism, be fair.

And I'm not for one minute saying that we should turn a blind eye to any stylistic faults that we may find in Gibson's work. Every movie-maker has to accept that scrutiny. But let's face it, you were pretty damn scathing, almost merciless in fact, about the things that you didn't like in "The Passion", (or the things you thought you would do better).

You ripped into Gibson's film-making ability as ferociously as a jaded critic might crucify some film-maker whose reputation had promised a totally flawless masterpiece, yet who had presented instead a cop-out load of garbage.

I just don't think Gibson rated that much heat, Gott. He's never touted himself as God's gift to Hollywood, (although his jew exploiters certainly did so), and he never said that his "Passion" was going to be a sublime work of art. Hell, he went out of his way to tell us that it was a very personal expression of his beliefs.

If he had given you a flawless, polished, sophisticated Hollywood movie, (such as you seem to have wished he had), you would have probably wanted to tear him to shreds for his "commercialism" or his "manipulative techniques".

No, I think that what you took as amateurism or naiivette was in fact the result of something that you and I haven't seen come out of Hollywood for many decades.

That is, a movie motivated by an honest man's personal integrity.

Gott, there's no denying that your review was a pretty damn good piece of work. You covered just about everything, and you were brutally honest. You even complimented Mel Gibson on having the balls to even make the film, (and so you should). Plus, you were funny and entertaining.

But, hey, did you have to be quite so damn cruel about Gibson's technical skills and his cinematic finesse? I mean, shit, have you forgotten all the crap movies you've watched down the years? I sure as hell haven't! And that other crap probably didn't have any redeeming features whatsoever! I'm not saying that The Passion should be immune to criticism just because it has some positive features for WNs. But let the criticism, especially technical criticism, be fair.

And I'm not for one minute saying that we should turn a blind eye to any stylistic faults that we may find in Gibson's work. Every movie-maker has to accept that scrutiny. But let's face it, you were pretty damn scathing, almost merciless in fact, about the things that you didn't like in "The Passion", (or the things you thought you would do better).

You ripped into Gibson's film-making ability as ferociously as a jaded critic might crucify some film-maker whose reputation had promised a totally flawless masterpiece, yet who had presented instead a cop-out load of garbage.

I just don't think Gibson rated that much heat, Gott. He's never touted himself as God's gift to Hollywood, (although his jew exploiters certainly did so), and he never said that his "Passion" was going to be a sublime work of art. Hell, he went out of his way to tell us that it was a very personal expression of his beliefs.

If he had given you a flawless, polished, sophisticated Hollywood movie, (such as you seem to have wished he had), you would have probably wanted to tear him to shreds for his "commercialism" or his "manipulative techniques".

No, I think that what you took as amateurism or naiivette was in fact the result of something that you and I haven't seen come out of Hollywood for many decades.

That is, a movie motivated by an honest man's personal integrity.

Hullo Mann, and nice to meet you.

Well, I'm not, and never have been a particularly nice guy. And, I was asked to comment on the film (I had no interest in doing so but am very glad I went) and looking at movies from a technique/technical angle is my fach. I am a jaded critic, and I loathe Hollywood after spending an idiot life really liking their 'product', as they call movies. Now that I see the awful poison that is there in the material and even more in the handling of it, it's very hard for me to watch most movies unless they are really special. The last really special movies I've seen are those by Paul Verhoeven - RoboCop, Showgirls, Starship Troopers, etc. There, whether I do or don't agree with the message, I am always blown away by the handling. Gibson just isn't in that class, in fact he is nowhere near it. So, I was honest about the handling. There is lots more along those lines that I could have said too - the way he sets up and links his shots together is sleazy, for instance. It's just how most of the untalented filmmakers in Hollywood do it. There are better ways, ways that allow a man to show his craftsmanship and his pride in his work. But in that jew town, most go the easy, flashy way instead and Gibson is among them.

Gibson, aside from his first and best movies with George Miller (Mad Max, Road Warrior) is a complete Hollywood product. He reflects Hollywood in everything except the specific point of view of his films. If he is coming over to the side of the light (us), great, as professional organizational and technique abilities (which he certainly has) are desperately needed on our side. But that still won't make him a great, or even a particularly good filmmaker.

The christian thing obviously pisses me off, and I don't think I am remotely alone in this. So, maybe I was unfair. I have a point of view too; I am not pretending to be 'objective' like the jews are always pretending to be. But I do try to be honest, and funny too. I think christianity is absurd, and the movie shows many many of the inane inconsistencies of that scam religion very well (much of which my review didn't even touch upon - what a God to produce a earthquake on cue...but the moment his son is finished being lengthily tortured and is finally dead. He - God - can't do it before his son is tortured and dead? This God knows we are imperfect and are prone to SIN as we hear over and over again in this and all christian movies. Yet he sets us up the way he does? Whadda God. Only jews could ever come up with this equivalent of Satan for a God).

Anyway, here, where we regulars are all working in our various ways for the same cause - I see no point in holding my punches or being less than honest. It is always better to be honest. Also - striving for and expecting the best is really the Aryan thing to do, you know. We have the Faust myth to guide us, not that sick Oedipus thing the kikes foisted on us via Freud. There is always a higher mountain to climb, there is always more to do, you can always do better. I think that is an admirable philosophy and the main reason we white Europeans have made the world in our image. Gibson can do better partly because we can all, always, do better. Anyway, it's just a fucking movie for Christ's sake:)

I'm very happy it is (as I see it) so totally anti-jew, and I've very happy that Gibson is expected to make perhaps in excess of a BILLION dollars on the picture when it is all finished and done. I sincerely hope he does make a sequel; I sincerely hope that sequel remains fixed to traditional dogma and I sincerely hope that everybody goes to see his next movies as they are going to this one.

One of the best things that could possibly happen to us is - Hollywood dies. Things are headed that way right now, but the Gibson movie will enormously accelerate the process.

So...I think it is a bad movie if you compare it to good movies, but it is a wonderful movie for non-movie reasons.

Best to you

Well thanks so much for the review. I have sent a note to alex about it at rm. But let me say a few things. First, the last para about the coyness vis a vis the holy member was very funny. Secondly, I was intrigued by your perspective both as a non-practicing crade Cat and also a person of partly Italian ethnic heritage and upbringing. Most of my friends in "the world" with whom I have discussed this are hardcore German or German-Irish Cats and so the different viewpoint was absolutely interesting.

I was very suprised you werent moved by Mary. That thing with the little kid falling, ripped my guts out. Maybe it's because I've got a little tot who falls down like that, and I often imagine the life of torture they have in store at the hands of the evil kikes. It pains me, and for every stroke of the flagellum, I let my Jew-hate burn White hot.

That's my subjective feeling. About the technical stuff, I just dont know about all that. I've not tried to learn about it and I dont want to. Kind of like opera-- I'm an aficianado, but I'm not a participant. But it was worth it to hear it from you.

Thanks again. Your contribution enhances VNN greatly.

Yes, Gott, I'm 100% with you on almost everything there. I, too, have "spent an idiot life really liking their product" (well-said). Today, I cannot really watch "movies". I have to pick and choose form the sparse offerings available, and rarely do I find something that is completely free of jew drek. It's a shame, as going to the movies used to be my very favorite pastime.

Can't say I agree with your three "special movies", though, Gott. In fact, when I read the titles "RoboCop", "Showgirls", and "Starship Trooper", I was sure you were being ironic. I've seen, (or rather, tried to watch, those movies, but I just don't get it. I won't come right out and say I hated them, but that's only because I am a particularly nice guy. ;) )

As for Gibson being a Hollywood product, maybe it will sound like 20-20 hindsight, but I've always thought that Gibson was the least "Hollywood" actor of all. I mean, he always seemed to me to be painfully uncomfortable when he was acting. Have you noticed that? It was as if he knew what a load of crap it all was, and he hated it. Actually, I found it hard to even watch him sometimes, because I felt embarrassed for him.

He's not a great actor, nor even a very good one. And I believe that is because he simply cannot get his head around what it takes to be a "great actor"; namely, an ability to bullshit. Jews, as we know, take to the work readily, but for most Gentiles it's something that has to be studied and practised. Some, like Gibson, never get good at it.

You note that Gibson used standard hackneyed Hollywood tricks and techniques to make his "Passion". On consideration, I guess I agree with you there. I've only just seen the film, (yesterday), and its emotional impact is still too strong in me to allow me to be analytical about film technique. But I'm trying.

Yes, there were some very basic film-school elements there. Yes, his editing was simplistic. Yes, some of his transitions were obvious and predictable. But we're talking about a film which attempted to depict a mere twelve hours of real time, and which treated an event that was, cinematically speaking, loaded with incident and nuance. A question, Gott; how do you think another director would have handled the film, given the same guidelines?

I wonder that you were unmoved by the scene where JC falls down, and his Mom hesitates to run to him, but finally does, intercut with a similar incident in his boyhood. Gotta tell ya, Gott, that one got the chin trembling, big-time! Sure, thinking back, it was manipulative. But hell, it also could have happened on the day. Why not? It fitted. If it had been in a film about a real person, and without the religious subtext, it would have been one of the "Great moments in Film".

But I admit the whole Christian thing was a barrier for me also, (strange thing to say for a guy who actually paid money to see the film, I guess). But no, I don't buy it. The blatantly obvious illogic of it all, and the fact that adults actually believe it, really amazes me.

Anyway, nice to chat with you. Love your critiques, look forward to more.

Yes, Gott, I'm 100% with you on almost everything there. I, too, have "spent an idiot life really liking their product" (well-said). Today, I cannot really watch "movies". I have to pick and choose form the sparse offerings available, and rarely do I find something that is completely free of jew drek. It's a shame, as going to the movies used to be my very favorite pastime.

Can't say I agree with your three "special movies", though, Gott. In fact, when I read the titles "RoboCop", "Showgirls", and "Starship Trooper", I was sure you were being ironic. I've seen, (or rather, tried to watch, those movies, but I just don't get it. I won't come right out and say I hated them, but that's only because I am a particularly nice guy. ;) )

As for Gibson being a Hollywood product, maybe it will sound like 20-20 hindsight, but I've always thought that Gibson was the least "Hollywood" actor of all. I mean, he always seemed to me to be painfully uncomfortable when he was acting. Have you noticed that? It was as if he knew what a load of crap it all was, and he hated it. Actually, I found it hard to even watch him sometimes, because I felt embarrassed for him.

He's not a great actor, nor even a very good one. And I believe that is because he simply cannot get his head around what it takes to be a "great actor"; namely, an abilty to bullshit. Jews, as we know, take to the work readily, but for most Gentiles it's something that has to be studied and practised. Some, like Gibson, never get good at it.

You note that Gibson used standard hackneyed Hollywood tricks and techniques to make his "Passion". On consideration, I guess I agree with you there. I've only just seen the film, (yesterday), and its emotional impact is still too strong in me to allow me to be analytical about film technique. But I'm trying.

Yes, there were some very basic film-school elements there. Yes, his editing was simplistic. Yes, some of his transitions were obvious and predictable. But wer'e talking about a film which attempted to depict a mere twelve hours of real time, and which treated and event that was, cinematically speaking, loaded with incident and nuance. A question, Gott; how do you think another director would have handled the film, given the same guidelines?

I wonder that you were unmoved by the scene where JC falls down, and his Mom hesitates to run to him, but finally does, intercut with a similar incident in his boyhood. Gotta tell ya, Gott, that one got the chin trembling, big-time! Sure, thinking back, it was manipulative. But hell, it also could have happened on the day. Why not? It fitted. If it had been in a film about a real person, and without the religious subtext, it would have been one of the "Great moments in Film".

But I admit the whole Christian thing was a barrier for me also, (strange thing to say for a guy who actually paid money to see the film, I guess). But no, I don't buy it. The blatantly obvious illogic of it all, and the fact that adults actually believe it, really amazes me.

Anyway, nice to chat with you. Love your critiques, look forward to more.

Oh I mean it about Verhoeven - I think he's just about the only really talented filmmaker out there today. He's got PhDs from the University of Leiden (the oldest and ritziest school in the Netherlands) in math and physics, and he is as smart as they come. He also has a command of his medium that leaves every other filmmaker in the dust at his feet. Even if you don't like the three I mentioned for content (and the content is a blast and a covert attack on just the vermin who are paying his very high salary), once you get into the things a filmmaker can do with acting and staging, camera movements, etc. they are vastly more impressive still.

I think of Starship Troopers as no sci fi movie at all - it is an objective documentary/satiric comedy about OUR world today, so realistic that it's frightening...when it isn't so funny. Showgirls as well - I think it is a movie that reveals the monster behind the propaganda machine and shows the real nature of this nightmare world the jews have made better than any other movie I've seen. With as dazzling a command of style as in S.T.

Oh, maybe Gibson is uncomfortable in that town, but he is there and he's spent most of his life there. And he has made a whole series of nigger buddy movies and decries all the standard things one is supposed to decry in the movies he acts in and directs. Herr Linder made a comment...about somebody else's comment...about the cut away to a shot of a nubian slave showing sympathy for Christ at the court of King Herod, and for sure, as Herr Linder says, it's just standard PC bullshit. Niggers are so sensitive you know...why, it's virtually the law that they are. Ditto for women who are also so much better than we evil white men. That's in Gibson's movie.

After all, how could Gibson be anything other than a product of Hollywood? I think he is moving fast our way. Having made the movie has earned him the implacable, undying hatred of the jews, so he may move faster in future. They will try very hard to destroy and marginalize him now. The snoops must be working overtime to find affairs, drugs, anything they can...and will make it up if they can't find it.

A.E. also remarked about my not being moved by the mother son thing. I was really surprised myself. I'm half Teutonic but I'm also half Italian - the good half:) The movie did not at all piss me off, so it wasn't that I was fighting it. I just don't think either actor did anything at all with the scene and neither did Gibson the director...it just sat there and the situation wasn't enough to get my tear ducts moving. It (the last goodbye of Mary and Jesus) is vastly better done in Nick Ray's The King of Kings where I am deeply moved and do cry.

No movie maker can be original - shit, there are only supposed to be something like 38 plot situations in all for dramatic treatment, and we have seen the few really popular ones over and over again. Even a 'doomed love' story between a gerbil and an elephant isn't really original in kind, only in degree. It's just another doomed love story. All a good filmmaker can be is honest and try to come at the material with a fresh and sincere perspective. I thought the goodbye between Christ and his mother was not fresh and not sincere - it was formulaic and totally pedestrian. When Ray does it, he has the two in the same frame, but one far to the left and deep background, and the other far to the right extreme foreground and the gigantic space between them signals that this is it, and that they both know that this is it. The acting is really beautiful also. I'm tearing up just thinking about it.

Manipulation is inherent in all film making, it is the nature of the medium and OK, as long as we prospective slaves are AWARE that the filmmaker is attempting to manipulate us. If you are aware, you are still THINKING, and if you are thinking you can still decide for yourself. Anyway - as we all know, The Passion covers 12 hours, yet it actually runs for a few minutes over 2 hours. Who decides what of those 12 hours gets included and what gets excluded? This issue - included/excluded is a key to the nightmare power to influence and control that the film medium possesses. For a change in this movie, it is someone mostly on our side (I'm no christian at all, but I'm on their side in terms of having a movie that finally reflects their beliefs and value system). For EVERY other movie (except the Paul Verhoeven ones), it is someone murderously opposed to everything I stand for and believe in.

Writing up movies is fun and all...pontificating is always a blast. But I wish that we wild and unruly individualists could emulate the jews on this one. I work with plenty of them and they want to learn...and they do. They shut up except to ask the right kinds of questions that enable them to master the not very difficult business of making movies. They don't try to be original and they don't try to be ambitious...they want to know how to manipulate the medium so they can manipulate the viewer, and they do that. We desperately need to do it ourselves. It is fun, too, as nothing is more communal, except maybe combat.

For Europe and the Fuhrer

Havent I heard the comment that Starship Troopers is a "fascist" book because among other things it rejects "one man one vote" and it advocates corporal punishment?

I'm going to have to check that "Showgirls" film out very very carefully based on your recommendation!

"I thought the goodbye between Christ and his mother was not fresh and not sincere - it was formulaic and totally pedestrian. When Ray does it, he has the two in the same frame, but one far to the left and deep background, and the other far to the right extreme foreground and the gigantic space between them signals that this is it, and that they both know that this is it. The acting is really beautiful also. I'm tearing up just thinking about it. "

I'll have to check that out too. Even at the time, I thought this scene was a little weak compared to the rest. I think the scene where he falls and then her memory cuts back to him falling as a wee tot-- that was the best. Again, maybe that's a parental thing, but that cut me deeply. My wife was there too and we had the same reaction.

"But I wish that we wild and unruly individualists could emulate the jews on this one. I work with plenty of them and they want to learn...and they do. They shut up except to ask the right kinds of questions that enable them to master the not very difficult business of making movies. They don't try to be original and they don't try to be ambitious...they want to know how to manipulate the medium so they can manipulate the viewer, and they do that. We desperately need to do it ourselves. It is fun, too, as nothing is more communal, except maybe combat."

Well said. This is why VNN is "dangerous" to them. We have a certain number of folks who have attained a certain level of competence in real world endeavors, who have applied knowledge to the question of Jewcrit and our own situation. Often the answer coming from different topical areas is the same: emulate the Jews. Not imitate-- emulate.

It bears remembering that many of the things we thing of as strong points for the modern day Jews-- such as strong communal identity, or attainment in higher education-- were originally Aryan developments. For example, take higher education itself: from Plato's academy, to the medieval Sorbonne, our kind invented this. All others have followed in the footsteps.

So when it comes to strategies, we should be open to doing what works. Often doing what works is not "Jewish" at all but thoroughly Aryan and the Jews are merely aping our ancestors who. it seems to me, simply were better than us. That is a challenge then: we may prove our worth by whipping the Jews-- or not.

Writing up movies is fun and all...pontificating is always a blast. But I wish that we wild and unruly individualists could emulate the jews on this one. I work with plenty of them and they want to learn...and they do. They shut up except to ask the right kinds of questions that enable them to master the not very difficult business of making movies. They don't try to be original and they don't try to be ambitious...they want to know how to manipulate the medium so they can manipulate the viewer, and they do that. We desperately need to do it ourselves. It is fun, too, as nothing is more communal, except maybe combat.

Compare White learning:

Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right

John Stuart Mill

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/free/excerpts.htm

With kike edjewcation:

The Jewish view has always been that every Jew has an obligation to instruct his or her children in Judaism, not in the virtues of free thinking.

Elliott Abrams

http://www.ncpa.org/design/slate_demo/dialogues/mixed_marriage/mixed_marriage_msg1.html

Compare White learning:



John Stuart Mill

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/free/excerpts.htm

With kike edjewcation:



Elliott Abrams

http://www.ncpa.org/design/slate_demo/dialogues/mixed_marriage/mixed_marriage_msg1.html

To learn, let alone master, anything one needs discipline. And some things require team effort - a bunch of people with good work ethics and discipline. Thinking for oneself is the most important thing, of course - but discipline is sorely lacking in our community and time is short.

To learn, let alone master, anything one needs discipline. And some things require team effort - a bunch of people with good work ethics and discipline. Thinking for oneself is the most important thing, of course - but discipline is sorely lacking in our community and time is short.

Thank you. We need to be reminded and remind ourselves.

I also thought Gotts critique of The Passion was excellent. A little harsh maybe, but thats what critics do. Make harsh and carping judgments, stir the pot, draw attention, invite debate. Gott certainly does that!

I'd like to see Gott lend his usual, effective talents and do a hatchet job on Swindlers List. It has recently been put to DVD with great fanfare by Slimeywood, only weeks after Gibsons Passion was released, the timing of which is uncanny!

Of course I ask a lot of Herr Gott. For a man, such as Gott, to sit through 197 minutes of agonizing, mind numbing, sheer hell would be too much for his soul! It would be like asking a new born babe to walk through a black and fiery place of eternal torment for the damned!! Evil would surround Gott and the mental torment and anguish he would suffer would surely cause the spiritual, rational, and immortal part of himself to spiral into a bottomless perdition, forever to dwell.

That being said...if Gott reviews Swindlers List I will personally provide him with a truckload of Tums and a 15 gross of barf bags...just to see him through it!!!!!

Whadya say Gott???

Gott is certainly a brave soul and not averse to accepting challenges, but subjecting himself to "Swindler's List" would be going above and beyond the call of duty, I think.

What a load of drivel it was! What a revolting piece of utter, utter jewishness! Its only redeeming quality was the "executions". I never thought I was a callous man, but honesty compels me to admit that I enjoyed the various scenes where jews were summarily shot. What does that say about me? Am I homicidal? Am I a rabid killer?

No, my pleasure in watching those scenes was derived from my sense of justice. In the same way that I would be gratified to be a witness at the execution of a child murderer, I "enjoyed" watching the elimination of the jewish vermin in the film. Oh, as usual Kikeberg tried to use children to wring some emotion from us. But as far as I'm concerned, those children were doomed anyway. Doomed to become full-fledged jews.

And there's no worse fate than that. They were better off dead.

I also thought Gotts critique of The Passion was excellent. A little harsh maybe, but thats what critics do. Make harsh and carping judgments, stir the pot, draw attention, invite debate. Gott certainly does that!

I'd like to see Gott lend his usual, effective talents and do a hatchet job on Swindlers List. It has recently been put to DVD with great fanfare by Slimeywood, only weeks after Gibsons Passion was released, the timing of which is uncanny!

Of course I ask a lot of Herr Gott. For a man, such as Gott, to sit through 197 minutes of agonizing, mind numbing, sheer hell would be too much for his soul! It would be like asking a new born babe to walk through a black and fiery place of eternal torment for the damned!! Evil would surround Gott and the mental torment and anguish he would suffer would surely cause the spiritual, rational, and immortal part of himself to spiral into a bottomless perdition, forever to dwell.

That being said...if Gott reviews Swindlers List I will personally provide him with a truckload of Tums and a 15 gross of barf bags...just to see him through it!!!!!

Whadya say Gott???

Okidoki Steve, it's done.

no fair rewinding the good parts! all the way thru front to end.