This afternoon the wife and I took in Troy, a movie by Wolfgang Peterson based on Homer.

Just one thing surprised me: Brad Pitt was highly impressive as Achilles. Maybe I was expecting him to slack off or something, but it was an interesting performance and it holds the center of the film very well.

Wolfgang (or somebody) must have read the "alternative Troy theories" before they made this thing, because the film comes off as highly Celtic. (Some of the alternative theories include: Troy was actually on Britain but the story travelled to Greece and was told there; Troy was actually in the Baltic otherwise ditto; Troy was a Frisian pre-flood epic that Homer redacted, etc.) Either way it is interesting to compare what you see on the screen to the stories you read about the Celtic British Isles and I assume that is not a complete accident.

The movie is 2 hours and 40-odd minutes long but seems much shorter, which I put down to compelling editing and directing. The TV-fkick was roughly the same length minus commercials and seemed to last forever.

Also unlike the TV-movie version, there is hardly a trace of feminism. The TV flick seemed to be scripted by Gloria Steinhem and it only added to the tedium. The movie treats the women about the way they would have been treated in the Bronze Age, which works pretty well.

Last and not at all least, Helen is played by Diane Kruger, who according to IMbD is German-born and has done other things. I think she's likely to do even more things now.

Diane Kruger in Troy

I'm surprised that you're surprised by Pitt's solid performance (I might add that this would be somewhat of a pun in Swedish - maybe Fredrik can explain it to you). Hasn't he proven the prejudiced snobbery levelled against him wrong at almost every turn during his career?

I think I was surprised that Pitt was seriously intense here because he usually comes off as more of the matinee idol type. None of that here.

Another point I should mention. The movie is deeply infused with the concept of honor, of personal integrity, and it might be the only one out there I would recommend as an "act white" primer. When Achilles falls from grace, as when he refuses to grant the fallen Hector the proper funeral rites, he is rebuked by old King Priam and feels genuine remorse for his infraction of the code. In the context of a popular movie I found that impressive.

Despite the fact that there's bloodshed and a smattering of nudity, I really wouldn't hesitiate to take the kids. Troy handles the material so well that, for once, the gritty parts enhance the story. Or, put another way, compared to the average teen comedy or even sitcom, an intelligent white youngster might come away from this movie with some appreciation for the ancient stories of his race.

It's not a bad achievement. The movie changes Homer considerably and the ending is so far from what happens in The Illiad that I was a little concerned at first. Then I remember that when they rearrange the plot for dramatic effect, it has the perverse effect of making bright viewers seek out the original material just out of curiosity. So even Troy's small negatives might work in its favor.

Overall, it's good for whites. That's not faint praise anymore.

Reading about the plotline it seems similar to Kirk Douglas's 1958 film "The Vikings".

I saw Troy yesterday. I thought Pitt was fantastic in the roll of Achilles. Whoever directed him in the fight scenes did a marvelous job of making him out to be a killing machine. He moved like an animal and really pulled off the heavy physical stuff in the roll. I have never seen Pitt so pumped up and in such great shape. I have read the Iliad twice...once in college and once again for the sheer fun of it. Of course typical hollywood license was exercised in changing the storyline somewhat, but I really didn't mind that much. I know that in the Iliad Achilles never saw the horse, he was dead before that occured (Paris shot him in the heal outside the walls), but they simply couldn't kill off Brad Pitt earlier in the film so they let him die inside the walls being a nice guy (which Achilles never was). Off course there was no love interest for Achilles in the Iliad, as many scholors argue that he was actually gay! All in all, I loved the film for the action, authenticity of costumes, portrayal of characters, and the use of weaponry. By far the best acting of Pitt's career.

I know that in the Iliad Achilles never saw the horse, he was dead before that occured (Paris shot him in the heel outside the walls)

It's important to note that in the book Paris didn't shoot him full of arrows, like in the movie. He shot him just one, but with a poisoned arrow. Normally a heel wound wouldn't be fatal.

It's important to note that in the book Paris didn't shoot him full of arrows, like in the movie. He shot him just one, but with a poisoned arrow. Normally a heel wound wouldn't be fatal.You are correct in that it was a poison arrow. It is also part of the myth that Achilles was basically said to be invincible except in the heel. His mother who was part god had dipped him in sacred water as a baby, the water being magic etc. However, she held him by the heel, therefore the heel was never dipped in the water leaving it a mortal spot. Also, it should be noted that the part about the horse actually was not in the original version of Homer's Iliad. The Trojan Horse story came later.

Also the scene at the end where Hector passes the sword on to Aeneas while the city is burning is from Virgil's Aeneid, which describes how the survivors of Troy traveled to Italy. A sequel?

Right AlphaNumericus! I hope they're thinking along those lines. They can go right from Homer to Virgil and not miss a beat. I figure if they can do 6 sequels for something like Star Wars, I can handle them doing comic book versions of the classics. Sooner or later someone will think there's money in filming parts of the Poetic Edda and things might actually get interesting.

Brad Pitt in that story is like an Aryan hero. No black in the cast and no mixing of any kind.

Also the scene at the end where Hector passes the sword on to Aeneas while the city is burning is from Virgil's Aeneid, which describes how the survivors of Troy traveled to Italy. A sequel?I hope you are right, and I hope that they maintain the degree of detail and authenticity.

Brad Pitt in that story is like an Aryan hero. No black in the cast and no mixing of any kind. we need more films depicting European history, be it Romans Celts, Germans or Greeks.. unfortunately the jews of hollywood are not promoting white history..

Plan to see it this weekend. The reaction to it seems to be rather mixed, but I'm still looking forward to an all White Cast. I swear, we racists really need to appreciate these films. Your average Hollywood production is little more than psychological warfare pretending to be art.
we need more films depicting European history, be it Romans Celts, Germans or Greeks..
You know, the Hollywood Jew Machine is producing TWO Alexander the Great films. Now, Alexander the Great wasn't exactly a "White Nationalist", if ya know what I mean. What are the odds that Hollywood will utterly distort the facts and use the story of Alexander to push a nightmarish miscegenation agenda? Fuck, I'm actually dreading the films.
http://www.livius.org/a/1/alexander/alex_bm.jpg

Plan to see it this weekend. The reaction to it seems to be rather mixed, but I'm still looking forward to an all White Cast. I swear, we racists really need to appreciate these films. Your average Hollywood production is little more than psychological warfare pretending to be art.

You know, the Hollywood Jew Machine is producing TWO Alexander the Great films. Now, Alexander the Great wasn't exactly a "White Nationalist", if ya know what I mean. What are the odds that Hollywood will utterly distort the facts and use the story of Alexander to push a nightmarish miscegenation agenda? Fuck, I'm actually dreading the films.
http://www.livius.org/a/1/alexander/alex_bm.jpgAll you can do is hope for some good action and that they skip the gay part. :D

Now, Alexander the Great wasn't exactly a "White Nationalist", if ya know what I mean. What are the odds that Hollywood will utterly distort the facts and use the story of Alexander to push a nightmarish miscegenation agenda? Fuck, I'm actually dreading the films.

Yeah, I think I'll skip both of those.

The Richard Burton version of Alexander showed him forcing the Greeks to marry the Persian babes. But it was made in the 50s so they were real discrete about it, showing what looked like a Moonie mass-marriage with what I swear were white chorus girls with a bit of make-up.

Now? Christ, I expect they'll do something like the second Matrix movie with conga drums and an open air orgy.

The only possible reason to do an Alexander the Great flick is to show him as the first guy to really "celebrate diversity". Forget it, he wasn't great anyway. The real innovater was his father King Philip, and I'd buy tickets to see a movie about him.

Off course there was no love interest for Achilles in the Iliad, as many scholors argue that he was actually gay!


He had a wife, a son - Neoptolemus - and his favourite slave/lover was the girl Briseis, the cause of the controversy between Achilles and Agamemnon, and subsequently of Achilles' surprising lack of presence in The Iliad. To say that he was gay, or that no love interest was expected, is to have not read Homer.

Alexander the Great wanted WORLD GOVERNMENT. Fuck him, the genius.

The Trojan war is the 'greatest story ever told' - fuck the bible, written and performed by jew know who.

One thing no WN has mentioned of yet - Homer is the origin of "EAST VS. WEST." No doubt the Persian Wars are to follow - mildly dusky, Islamic-looking fellows get trounced by small numbers of "we brothers, the poor poisecuted" Greeks straight outta the Maccabees. I can't confirm whether Yasser Arafat has accepted the role of Xerxes the Great. Script follows the defeat of Persia at Plataea and Salamis by "glider attacks" on the Acropolis and the launch by the Greeks of their ill-fated Persian expedition (cf Xenophon) on the "evil axis" of Middle-Eastern Persia, Media, and Babylon. Incidentally, Xerxes was no fan of the Jews, as history tells us. Comes across as a noble character in Herodotus, in true white, western style - the enemy is never vilified.

I hate to say this, because he is the prototype of the White Warlord, in the same vein as Charlemagne or Hitler or Napoleon, like em or not; but Alexander promoted miscegenation throughout his empire in the sense that he promoted intermarriage between Greeks and Persians. Of course many would say Greeks and Persians are not so distinct to begin with and perhaps even less so two thousand years ago. I'm not saying that of course... still you have to admire Alexander. All, and so young!

still you have to admire Alexander
Sure I do. Another example of White achievement. It's the Hollywood Spin I fear. I can just picture them giving us Black Persians and a nifty little speech from Alexander:

"The only way to end racism is to intermarry! So from here on out, all Whites will marry non-Whites so as to promote global harmony and tolerance! Meanwhile, I'll be fucking little boys like a real man!"

I mean, can ya just hear it??

Good movie. Definately worth seeing on the big screen, and 10x better than most of the crap out there at the moment.

It's a movie that promotes WN values better than anything else I've seen recently. It was made by a German director, the same one who made "Das Boot." My review of the movie is here:

http://www.whitealert.com/troy.htm

Go see it...itz better than all the hype,

rich

I actually liked Troy in terms of its WN themes much more than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. First, let me say I think its historical accuracy is much less important than the messages the movie conveys in and of itself.

After seeing the movie I was struck by the utter tragedy of the movie. The Trojan War, in the context of the movie, is nothing but an utter tragedy for all its participants. In short, one word sums it up: FRATRICIDE. It is a profoundly sad movie in that there really is no victory or happy ending when two White nations engage in pointless war. How appropriate a theme as we begin the 21st century looking back on the extremely destructive White fratricide of the 20th century.

I was very impressed by both the Achilles and Hector characters in the movie. Both men of honor and reason and NOT religion. Achilles the perfect warrior loathes his corrupt King, and ultimately does what so few Whites seem capable of today, he denies his services to what he deems, correctly so, an unjust King and an unjust cause. Hector, also a tremendous warrior, correctly realized that the Trojan victory in the first Greek attack came about precisely because the Greeks underestimated the Trojan morale and defenses, as well as the absence of Achilles, the heart of the Greek army. Hector says as much when he argues against a followup attack on the Greeks. I feel this is the most important moment in the movie.

Hector from the first moment in the movie constantly advises his father, the King, in the best interest of the Trojan nation. His arguments always based on sound reason and logic. For example, he urges the King to put Helen on a ship back to Sparta. Why fight a pointless fratricidal war over one woman??? The King of course makes his decision based on "love," love of his son Paris, but also the abstraction of "love" between Helen and Paris. As he says to Hector, there's something different about Helen for Paris. I think this is an extremely important foreshadowing of future decisions. The King is willing to sacrifice any number of Trojan lives and Greek lives in the process all for "love." Do we not see this very same foolishness today??? How many Whites are content to sacrifice everything including their lives, as many already have, all in the name of racial egalitarianism??? Hector, however, sees no purpose or interest of the Trojan nation in warring over Helen, and this abstraction love. At that point, one must wonder who should be King and who should NOT.

This theme, of reason versus emotion continues. When Achilles successfully attacks and destroys the Trojan temple of Apollo, the Trojan King and his priests and advisors are most concerned with the desecration of the temple. Hector on the other hand is most concerned with the reality that the Greeks were able to in fact sack the Temple with impunity. Again, his connection with Achilles is brilliant. Achilles is approached by his trusted lieutenant that perhaps they go too far in attacking the temple, that it might bring retribution from the God himself. Achilles response is to chop off the statues head! Both men are clearly governed by reason and cold logic. And of course, ultimately as Troy burns we see the folly of faith and religion in decision-making at the end.

Returning to the most crucial moment of the movie, after the first battle, when the Trojans were victorious, Hector argues against a followup attack in the royal assembly. It is here I think WNs can learn a most valuable lesson. The King turns first to his priests, who assure him that they have read the signs correctly and an attack will be successful. It is at this point we see the failing of the noble White warrior. Hector, the only voice of reason in the royal assembly is ignored in favor of the voices of faith. The King commands an attack against the wise counsel of Hector. It is here that I find fault with Hector and this White trait of nobility and devotion to duty. Hector of course obeys the wishes of his King, but in his mind he knows it will mean the destruction of Troy.

The lesson for WNs in that crucial moment and the scenes to follow is that victory in the political arena sometimes requires the most ruthless of actions, which are justified when safeguarding the survival of a nation. Had Hector accepted that philosophical point, instead of foolishly marching off to his personal destruction and that of Troy, he would most likely have assassinated the King and the priestly class before they could impliment their folly.

We see a parallel in today's political climate. Where insane and corrupt Whites are leading our race as a whole into the abyss. Most Whites dutifully accept this racial insanity, and of course respect the hierarchy, regardless of the consequences. One thinks of White police and soldiers first and foremost, but at all levels of society and sectors.

So two very striking themes are present in Troy. The first reason versus emotion. The second survival versus obedience to hierarchy. I wonder if the German director made this movie as a mirror for us to look at ourselves and how we arrived at where we are today as a race???

Whitefist makes some good points along with a crackerjack short review.

Why not put it on the VNN mainpage where more people can see it? There's a whole morass WNs have a tendency to sink into because they are caught up in the emotion of their position. I know it's hard to think clearly when the deck seems stacked against you, but that's when clear thinking is essential. This is a good example of clear thinking. I'd spread it around.

I actually liked Troy in terms of its WN themes much more than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. First, let me say I think its historical accuracy is much less important than the messages the movie conveys in and of itself.

After seeing the movie I was struck by the utter tragedy of the movie. The Trojan War, in the context of the movie, is nothing but an utter tragedy for all its participants. In short, one word sums it up: FRATRICIDE. It is a profoundly sad movie in that there really is no victory or happy ending when two White nations engage in pointless war. How appropriate a theme as we begin the 21st century looking back on the extremely destructive White fratricide of the 20th century.

I was very impressed by both the Achilles and Hector characters in the movie. Both men of honor and reason and NOT religion. Achilles the perfect warrior loathes his corrupt King, and ultimately does what so few Whites seem capable of today, he denies his services to what he deems, correctly so, an unjust King and an unjust cause. Hector, also a tremendous warrior, correctly realized that the Trojan victory in the first Greek attack came about precisely because the Greeks underestimated the Trojan morale and defenses, as well as the absence of Achilles, the heart of the Greek army. Hector says as much when he argues against a followup attack on the Greeks. I feel this is the most important moment in the movie.

Hector from the first moment in the movie constantly advises his father, the King, in the best interest of the Trojan nation. His arguments always based on sound reason and logic. For example, he urges the King to put Helen on a ship back to Sparta. Why fight a pointless fratricidal war over one woman??? The King of course makes his decision based on "love," love of his son Paris, but also the abstraction of "love" between Helen and Paris. As he says to Hector, there's something different about Helen for Paris. I think this is an extremely important foreshadowing of future decisions. The King is willing to sacrifice any number of Trojan lives and Greek lives in the process all for "love." Do we not see this very same foolishness today??? How many Whites are content to sacrifice everything including their lives, as many already have, all in the name of racial egalitarianism??? Hector, however, sees no purpose or interest of the Trojan nation in warring over Helen, and this abstraction love. At that point, one must wonder who should be King and who should NOT.

This theme, of reason versus emotion continues. When Achilles successfully attacks and destroys the Trojan temple of Apollo, the Trojan King and his priests and advisors are most concerned with the desecration of the temple. Hector on the other hand is most concerned with the reality that the Greeks were able to in fact sack the Temple with impunity. Again, his connection with Achilles is brilliant. Achilles is approached by his trusted lieutenant that perhaps they go too far in attacking the temple, that it might bring retribution from the God himself. Achilles response is to chop off the statues head! Both men are clearly governed by reason and cold logic. And of course, ultimately as Troy burns we see the folly of faith and religion in decision-making at the end.

Returning to the most crucial moment of the movie, after the first battle, when the Trojans were victorious, Hector argues against a followup attack in the royal assembly. It is here I think WNs can learn a most valuable lesson. The King turns first to his priests, who assure him that they have read the signs correctly and an attack will be successful. It is at this point we see the failing of the noble White warrior. Hector, the only voice of reason in the royal assembly is ignored in favor of the voices of faith. The King commands an attack against the wise counsel of Hector. It is here that I find fault with Hector and this White trait of nobility and devotion to duty. Hector of course obeys the wishes of his King, but in his mind he knows it will mean the destruction of Troy.

The lesson for WNs in that crucial moment and the scenes to follow is that victory in the political arena sometimes requires the most ruthless of actions, which are justified when safeguarding the survival of a nation. Had Hector accepted that philosophical point, instead of foolishly marching off to his personal destruction and that of Troy, he would most likely have assassinated the King and the priestly class before they could impliment their folly.

We see a parallel in today's political climate. Where insane and corrupt Whites are leading our race as a whole into the abyss. Most Whites dutifully accept this racial insanity, and of course respect the hierarchy, regardless of the consequences. One thinks of White police and soldiers first and foremost, but at all levels of society and sectors.

So two very striking themes are present in Troy. The first reason versus emotion. The second survival versus obedience to hierarchy. I wonder if the German director made this movie as a mirror for us to look at ourselves and how we arrived at where we are today as a race???

this should be a main page essay, why dont you polish it and mail it to alex?

Enjoyable review, Whitefist. Spot on. I, too, found the film tragic, and agree that films like Troy provide an important allegorical lesson. Too bad only we have the eyes to see it.

films like Troy provide an important allegorical lesson. Too bad only we have the eyes to see it.

Thanks to FranzJoseph, Antiochus Epiphanes and Strasser for those kind remarks. Hopefully WNs will view Troy as potentially powerful propaganda, but also learn from it that our race can no longer suffer fools at the helm.

He had a wife, a son - Neoptolemus - and his favourite slave/lover was the girl Briseis, the cause of the controversy between Achilles and Agamemnon, and subsequently of Achilles' surprising lack of presence in The Iliad. To say that he was gay, or that no love interest was expected, is to have not read Homer.

Alexander the Great wanted WORLD GOVERNMENT. Fuck him, the genius.

The Trojan war is the 'greatest story ever told' - fuck the bible, written and performed by jew know who.

One thing no WN has mentioned of yet - Homer is the origin of "EAST VS. WEST." No doubt the Persian Wars are to follow - mildly dusky, Islamic-looking fellows get trounced by small numbers of "we brothers, the poor poisecuted" Greeks straight outta the Maccabees. I can't confirm whether Yasser Arafat has accepted the role of Xerxes the Great. Script follows the defeat of Persia at Plataea and Salamis by "glider attacks" on the Acropolis and the launch by the Greeks of their ill-fated Persian expedition (cf Xenophon) on the "evil axis" of Middle-Eastern Persia, Media, and Babylon. Incidentally, Xerxes was no fan of the Jews, as history tells us. Comes across as a noble character in Herodotus, in true white, western style - the enemy is never vilified.
you are correct on all counts -also where i got my username, besides the fact I am part Greek.. As for movies, do not bother with "Alexander" unless you enjoy homoeroticism, I live near San Francisco and see it all the time, yet was repulsed by seeing these men making googoo eyes at each other, real stomach churning stuff.-Also I think it is disgusting that "brotherly love" or "comrade in arms" love is turned into faggotry..as if a man cannot have "comrade love" without being a homo..