By Trevor Lynch | 77 Comments | 
Print
Inglourious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds [sic, sic] has been hyped as World War II action movie-cum-sadistic gorefest. In reality, it is a self-indulgent snorefest. I thought I would need a gin and tonic before I went in, but it turns out what I needed was a cup of coffee. Yes, there is some gore and sadism, but frankly I found myself hoping for more of it. Anything, really, to relieve the sheer boredom.
This is Quentin Tarantino’s worst movie, and that is saying a lot, given how bad Kill Bill, vol. I is. Pulp Fiction was Tarantino’s Citizen Kane, and it has been The Magnificent Ambersons ever since. If you find this review entertaining, let me assure you that it is far more entertaining than the movie itself. Nothing here should be interpreted as encouragement for you to waste your time and money on this preposterous and dull film.
Inglourious Basterds is about a team of American terrorists, consisting of seven Jews led by a gentile, Aldo “the Apache” Raine (played by Brad Pitt), who hails from Tennessee and claims to be part American Indian. The character is clearly based on Tarantino himself, since he too has an Italian name, hails from Tennessee, and claims to be part Cherokee. The mission of the Basterds is to terrify the Nazis by killing them in the most sadistic manner possible and mutilating their corpses. The dead are scalped. The survivors have swastikas carved in their foreheads.
Holocaust narratives are filled with tales of thousands of Jews herded to their doom by relative handfuls of Germans and their collaborators. Although this sheep-like behavior seems rather unlike the hyper-aggressive and unruly Jews of my acquaintance, most people accept it at face value and then wonder: What was wrong with these people? Why didn’t they fight back?
Tarantino has asked the same question: “When you watch all the different Nazi movies, all the TV movies, it’s sad, but isn’t it also frustrating? Did everybody walk into the boxcar? Didn’t somebody do something?”
Inglourious Basterds is his answer. During WW II, the Jews needed the leadership of someone like Aldo the Apache, a mostly white man with a bit of red savage mixed in, just like the people who have churned out six million holocaust flicks need to take direction from Quentin Tarantino. With Tarantino in charge, the war would have had a very different end, and Inglourious Basterds shows us how.
Should Jews be insulted by this premise? Of course they should. But the movie itself is far more insulting still. Indeed, this is probably the most anti-Semitic movie ever released by Hollywood. Tarantino’s Jewish characters are one-dimensional, inhuman monsters. The Jewish Basterds are all as ugly as Der Sturmer cartoons. They have virtually no lines in the entire movie. All they do is skulk around, waiting for Aldo the Apache’s commands to murder and torture Germans.
Eli Roth and Brad Pitt, Basterds
The most prominent of the Basterds is played by Eli Roth, just another degenerate Jewish director of repulsive horror films. Roth plays the “Bear Jew,” who beats Germans to death with a baseball bat. He is the funniest thing in the entire movie, with his pouting, prissy mouth, drag queen makeup, and shiny brilliantined coiffure. Roth’s large, hairy body (anyone can take steroids) looks menacing until one hears his high, hysteria-edged voice. There was laughter in the audience every time this castrated gorilla opened his mouth on screen.
Too shallow to realize that he was playing a monstrous buffoon, Roth really got into the role, praising Inglourious Basterds as “kosher porn” (is there any other kind?). He really gets off on fantasies of killing Nazis: “It’s almost a deep sexual satisfaction of wanting to beat Nazis to death, an orgasmic feeling. My character gets to beat Nazis to death. That’s something I could watch all day. My parents are very strong about Holocaust education.” They sound like lovely people, and I am sure they are really proud of what a successful boy Eli turned out to be.
Other Jews were equally smitten: Tarantino’s producer, Lawrence Bender, told Tarantino, “As your producing partner, I thank you, and as a member of the Jewish tribe, I thank you, motherfucker, because this movie is a fucking Jewish wet dream.” Harvey and Bob Weinstein, the film’s executive producers, also reportedly enjoyed the film’s theme of Jewish revenge.
Tarantino also reported received uniformly positive reactions from his Jewish friends: “The Jewish males that I’ve known since I’ve been writing the film and telling them about it, they’ve just been, ‘Man, I can’t fucking wait for this fucking movie!’” he told me. “And they tell their dads, and they’re like, ‘I want to see that movie!’”
If all these Jews have no objection to their tribe being portrayed as one-dimensional vengeful sadists, who am I to complain? Perhaps the shoe fits.
Mélanie Laurent
The most prominent Jewish character in the movie is the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Shoshanna (played by Mélanie Laurent), the daughter of a Jewish dairy farmer (that got the first laugh of the movie). Her family is massacred in 1941 by the SS, and somehow she turns up a few years later with an assumed French identity running a movie theater in Paris with her Negro lover. When her theater is chosen to premiere a new German movie in the presence of Hitler, Goebbels, Goring, Borman, and other leading Nazis, she plans to bolt the doors and burn the place down as an act of revenge.
Shoshana is a character of reptilian inhumanity. A young German, Frederick Zoeller (played by Daniel Brühl) is obviously smitten with her. A film enthusiast, he tries to strike up a conversation about movies. The contrast could not be clearer. He is warm, sincere, and polite. He sees her as a fellow human being and a fellow film-enthusiast.
She sees him only as a racial enemy. She takes no interest in him until she discovers that he is both a film star and a war hero, which she thinks she can use to her advantage. (He does not reveal these things to her initially, for he does not merely wish to impress her, but to befriend her.)
Daniel Brühl
Her only flash of human emotion comes at the end of a scene in which she meets the SS man, Standartenführer Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), who murdered her family, but it just heightens the impression that she is a cold-blooded master of deception and intrigue.
Shoshanna’s inhumanity is heightened by comparison to Uma Thurman’s revenge-driven character “The Bride” in the Kill Bill movies. The difference is not just a matter of who played the role (although Tarantino decided that as well) but of how the actresses were directed.
Hans Landa claims that he is effective at hunting Jews because he knows how they think. The meaning of this is made clear at the end of the film, when he turns out to be a traitor.
The Allies do not come off much better than the Jews. Aldo the Apache is the only American. He is a loud-mouthed, sadistic, duplicitous jackass with a hillbilly accent. Brad Pitt plays him for laughs, and he is genuinely funny. There are three Britons: the handsome German Michael Fassbender as film-critic Lt. Archie Hicox, Mike Myers as General Ed Fenech, and the wreck of Rod Taylor as Winston Churchill. The first two come off as effete wankers, and Churchill might as well be Jabba the Hutt.
Christoph Waltz
All of this is in strong contrast to the portrayal of the Germans, even the German traitors. First of all, they are mostly quite good-looking and sexy. (As P. J. O’Rourke said: “Nobody has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually revished by someone dressed as a liberal.”) Second, they are dignified, charming, and polite with strangers; warm, playful, and fun-loving among friends. Even though the Germans are supposed to be the bad guys, they are the only people in the film with whom most white people can readily identify themselves. This means that white audiences can only feel revulsion at the sadistic Jews who murder them.
Hitler, of course, is portrayed as a monster. He first appears wearing a cape, which is appropriate, since he is played as nothing more than a comic book villain. (Martin Wuttke is surely the ugliest Hitler ever.)
Goebbels, although he is portrayed as somewhat arrogant (like a film director, perhaps), comes off overall as warm, sincere, playful, and even a bit lovable(!). Tarantino has obviously immersed himself in German films of the era, and it is clear that he has some admiration for what Goebbels accomplished. (In a scene set in England, it is stated as plain fact that Jews run Hollywood, and Goebbels is given credit for giving them a run for their money.)
The true star of the film is Christoph Waltz, whose portrayal of Hans Landa is absolutely riveting. He is such a magnificent character that Tarantino had to turn him into a traitor in the end, otherwise he would be the true hero of the film as well.
The other star is Daniel Brühl who plays Frederick Zoeller, the young war hero who becomes smitten with Shoshanna. His character is the most likable and most tragic of the film.
Now let’s examine the climax of the movie. I have no qualms about giving it away, since I don’t want any of you to see it anyway. Shoshanna hosts the premiere. Hitler and all the top Nazis come to the theater. She splices her face into the fourth reel of the film. Once the fourth reel is playing, her Negro lover bars the doors to the theater. Suddenly, Shoshanna’s face appears on the screen: “This is the face of Jewish vengeance!” she screams, while the Negro sets the building on fire. The kindling he uses are movies printed on highly flammable nitrite film. (Jews use movies — and Negroes — to create mass death and destruction in this country too.)
Meanwhile, two of the Jewish Basterds (including the preposterous Eli Roth), who have infiltrated the theater without knowing of Shoshanna’s plot, run amok with machine guns, killing Hitler and Goebbels and other Nazis. The theater then explodes. Everybody dies, Jews and Germans alike. Götterdämmerung.
The climax of Inglourious Basterds is obviously based on the Oscar night massacre in neo-Nazi Harold Covington’s novel The Brigade
The symbolism and the message could not be clearer: Jews use movies and movie theaters as tools to destroy their enemies. And since the white people in the audience can most readily identify with the Germans, the message gets through: the Jewish movie business is a tool of hatred and vengeance directed against all white people.
Why would Quentin Tarantino make a movie about World War II in which Germans are portrayed as attractive human beings, Americans are portrayed as sadistic buffoons, Englishmen are portrayed as effete wankers, and Jews are portrayed as cold-blooded, inhuman mass murderers?
Why would Quentin Tarantino borrow plot elements from neo-Nazi Harold Covington’s The Brigade to craft a climax for his movie? Why would he use that climax to expose the true anti-white agenda of Hollywood?
Is Quentin Tarantino a Nazi-sympathizer?
Of course not. Nothing could be further from the truth. Quentin Tarantino is simply a nihilist with an unfailing instinct for finding and desecrating anything sacred. In Pulp Fiction — his one great movie, and his most sincere — Tarantino showed a profound grasp of the spiritual meaning of the duel to the death over honor, symbolized by the Samurai sword. In Kill Bill, vol. I, he made a giant joke of it.
In Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino has taken the one truly sacred myth in modern Jew-dominated America — especially in modern Hollywood — namely WW II and the holocaust, and he has desecrated it by inverting all of its core value judgments and reversing its stereotypes. In the process, he has exposed the true anti-white agenda of Hollywood. Why? Just because he can.
The fact that Quentin Tarantino could desecrate the holocaust, expose Hollywood’s agenda, and sell it back to Hollywood’s Jews is a testament to his twisted genius and their shallowness and moral imbecility.
I wish Inglourious Basterds were a better movie, since I think that many white people would benefit from seeing it. Yes, the explicit message is that it is good for Jews and their hillbilly dupes to sadistically murder Germans (and any other enemies of the Jews, for that matter). But the largely white audience with which I saw the film did not seem terribly comfortable with this message.
Yes, they found Brad Pitt funny. He really was funny. But the sadism directed at Germans did not amuse. In the last scene of the film, where Aldo the Apache graphically carves a swastika in the forehead of Hans Landa and pronounces it “my masterpiece” — pathetically enough, this is probably Tarantino’s view of the film — there was no laughter.
For the subliminal message was coming through loud and clear: we are all Germans now, and every time we turn our eyes to a movie screen we are seeing the face of Jewish vengeance.
Great article. Upon my asking them why they wanted to go see this movie most fellow white people I know who went to see this film simply replied, “because it’s a Tarantino movie.” I at least found it somewhat reassuring that their reason for wanting to see it wasn’t pure hatred of Germans and a desire for revenge, as was undoubtedly the case with Jews who went to see this film.
I’m somewhat skeptical about white audiences picking up on any accidental or subconscious pro-German, anti-Jewish messages in the film. Most white people know on an intuitive, subconscious level that the various races of mankind are not equal in very significant respects, but this doesn’t stop them consciously asserting that they are in fact equal in every important respect.
White people are professionals when it comes to ignoring their own intuition, gut instinct and common sense, especially when it comes to racial matters.
Tarantino is such a whore. Women and Jews “on top” is the way to get your movie made these days.
Hollywood has produced something like 500 films and documentaries on the Zionist fantasy known as the holocaust.
What’s one more blood-fest laden revenge fantasy that allows Jews to appear as some kind of G-d’s ‘Chosen’ warriors?
I haven’t seen it, nor do I plan on seeing another QT movie.
Pulp Fiction was great, and ever since, he’s been in a decline, getting high from sniffing his own farts.
Editor’s Note: Now this is more like it. I am posting it with Trevor Lynch’s responses.
I can’t help but wonder what version of the film you saw where the German characters were sympathetic. I thought they were the most awful, one dimensional characters in the film.
Zoeller was a conceited opportunist. “I’m a war hero, so I can have any French girl I want.” He tries to be nice about it, but always with a certain smugness. He thinks, “it’s only a matter of time before she gives in to my charm.” [This is quite wide of the mark. He does not seek to impress her with his war hero status. He does not even tell her about it. She only learns from the reactions of others. All he wants to do is talk about films with an attractive girl.]
His “warmness” is complete bullshit. This is evident at the end when he forces himself upon her. [He forces himself in the projection room, exasperated with her rudeness. The poor lad cannot fathom that this woman is a Jew who hates him simply because he is a German, so he cannot understand her behavior. Beyond that, there may be a bit of calculation in his actions: he has been Mr. Nice Guy, and perhaps he wonders if that is not what she wants. There are women who goad men until they become aggressive, because it is the brute that attracts them, not good manners. It is the only point in the movie where it becomes believable that Zoeller could actually have killed more than 300 men. It is the point when the darker, more complex dimensions of his character finally show themselves. He is anything but one dimensional.]
She doesn’t craft a plan to seduce him and his good intentions. [Nonsense: as soon as she learns that he is somebody she can use or harm, you can see the light go on in her head. Her manner changes markedly.]
He kidnaps her and tells her that the premiere has been moved to her theater. [No, he does not kidnap her. But the guy sent to pick her up is a boor and mishandles the whole thing. She thinks she is being arrested. Do you think that Hans Landa would have told her to get her ass in the car without any explanation?]
He’s doing it to impress her, yes, but he leaves her no choice but to host the film. [He assumes, quite reasonably, that any owner of a small theater in occupied Paris would leap at the business opportunity to host a prestigious premiere. Yes, that is presumptuous of him. His root presumption is that she is a French woman, and that their common race provides a foundation for cooperation in spite of their different nationalities. He has no clue that she is a Jew and that an unfathomable abyss of race hated lies between them. But it is only when Goebbels is sold on the idea that it really becomes an offer she cannot refuse.] Her decision to blow up the theater comes after she has accepted her uncomfortable fate. [You make it seem like therapy.]
How is Goebbels is any way likeable to you? He’s a stiff control freak and a complete racist. [Goebbels is an emotionally complex character too: the control freak aspect is, of course, negative because it is hard on the people around him; but it is also something that Tarantino admires, since it is one of the most important traits that film producers and directors must have if they are to achieve anything great. Beyond that, though, Goebbels is portrayed as an emotionally open, sentimental, and even vulnerable character: he is affectionate and avuncular with Zoeller; he weeps when Hitler praises his work; at the conference about the premiere his translator's French poodle has a seat at the table.] The “credit” that he gives to Jewish Hollywood is horribly condescending. It’s a far cry from actual praise. [Goebbels is likened to David O. Selznik by the British film critic, and it is clear that he is sincere.]
By far the most inhumane person in the film is Landa, a Nazi. He compares Jews to rats, tortures his victims with his questions when you know he knows the answer. His “ability to think like the Jews” has nothing to do with his turning out to be a traitor. Like Zoeller, he’s an opportunist. He senses that the war might be coming to an end and also sees his opportunity to clear his own name. He cares about no one but himself. Far from a likeable German character. [You are focusing only on the negative. I would hang Landa as a traitor. But I also found it impossible not to admire him. He is magnetically charming and charismatic. He is a brilliant detective. Again, what we have here is a complex, fascinating, multi-dimensional character. I am convinced that Tarantino had to make him a traitor in the end, because otherwise the audience would have thought him the hero, warts and all. And when he becomes a traitor, the character seems to lose his brilliance, as one of our commentators points out. Again, the character is very complex.]
There is no Nazi sympathizing in this film. Rather, it reduces GERMANS, not the Jews, to one dimensional characters. The Basterds are part of the Allied forces, not just a band of Jewish trouble makers. The Allies are then justified in being as horrible as they like because their enemy is pure evil. [No, they are obviously not portrayed as pure evil.] Tarantino loves the camp value of 70′s b movies and that’s exactly what this movie is. The good guys are 100% good and the bad guys are 100% bad. Naturally the Nazis are the bad guys (who wouldn’t agree there?) and the Allies are the heroes. That’s the movie in a nutshell.
My reply in a nutshell: I saw the same movie as you, but I paid better attention to it. The root error of your reading is your assumption that this is a 70s B movie in which “The good guys are 100% good and the bad guys are 100% bad.” Because of this assumption, whenever you see the dark elements of the characters of Landa, Zoeller, and Goebbels, that is all you see. After all, you have been told all your life that you are supposed to hate these people. I saw more, because there was more there to be seen. As for the Jews and the Allies, they were all pretty much one-dimensional. The only partial exception was the British film critic. I stand by my reading that this movie is a deliberate exercise in genre subversion, in which Germans are shown to be complex human beings and Jews one-dimensional sadistic mass murderers.
Brilliant review! Utterly brilliant!
Alright, I thought this movie was pretty brilliant. Here’s why:
Basically, it’s not a movie about World War II. It’s entirely about movies and how film affects and distorts the way we perceive pretty much everything (but violence and justice especially). So the intended effect of the movie is to get the viewer cheering as the heroes torture and slaughter Nazis, and then on the way home question whether we should really be cheering at over-the-top violence. And there are all these other situations that explore how characters can’t really distinguish between life and the movies: how the British send a film expert to France as a spy, or how Zoller assumes he can win over Shoshanna by acting like a romantic comedy hero, or how Hitler sees a film premier as this really pivotal moment. So the ultimate effect of the movie is to set up all these fantasies and subvert the shit out of them. And then the movie explores how film acts as social glue (in the bar scene where the spy’s cover is basically his knowledge of film) or as a weapon (really obvious) or a deadening influence (the Nazis don’t hear all the gunshots because the movie they’re watching has a bunch of gunshots). So the message of the movie is “here are your fantasies, how do you feel about them?”
Very good movie review! It’s more honest and straightforward than what one would find from a typical Mainstream Newspaper movie critic.
A movie about Jewish war heroes can only ever be a fantasy.
Hollywood makes a holocaust related movie every 10 days. We are sick of it.
What about a movie about the Christians killed by Lenin?
Come on! This film was a persiflage.
It also had a secret message! It showed Americans as was the are: brutal idiots without ability to speak more than one language.
Those Jews weren’t pictured as heroes at all.
Thanks for asking. I am not surprised you did not understand what I was asserting, since you do not seem to grasp the nature of morality or the ethical responsibilities of reviewers of films. This review is unethical because the core of morality is treating other persons with respect, which this review manifestly does not do. (1) It is disrespectful to those who produced and directed it by attempting to sabotage its reception by the public. (2) It is disrespectful to the public by depriving them of the right to experience the film for themselves. (3) It is even disrespectful of history, because it turns out that a group a lot like that presented in the film appears to have been an historical reality, which suggests that “Trevor Lynch” was out to lynch Quentin Tarantino without a trial (that is to say, without an opportunity for the public to judge this film on its own terms). [. . .]
Trevor Lynch replies: Professor Fetzer thinks that the core of morality is treating other persons with respect. I think that view of morality is false and pernicious, but even on his own terms, his argument does not make sense.
(1) Respect for persons cannot entail giving every crappy movie a positive review. Does respect for persons mean that I should respect the intentions of film makers and film companies to make a buck while poisoning the minds of their viewers? Or does it require that I warn white viewers not to waste their time and money on films that are calculated to insult their intelligence and sensibilities and promote behaviors and attitudes that are conducive to the degradation, oppression, and ultimate extinction of our race?
(2) Respect for persons does entail letting people make their own decisions. If people choose to read my reviews, then they are choosing to let me shape their perceptions of the film. That is why we read critics. If people choose to continue reading even after I tell them that I am going to summarize the climax of the movie, then they have no right to complain when I summarize the climax of the movie.
(3) I am not sure how “respect for persons” entails “respect for history,” but nothing in my review can be taken as a denial that Jews are capable of sadistic violence and mass murder; indeed, Jews have a long history of genocide and sadism, from the book of Genesis to the Bolshevik Revolution to the modern state of Israel, which seems dedicated to brutality, torture, and warmongering until the sun burns out.
Does “respect for history” require that I remain silent about Tarantino’s fictional account of the end of WW II?
Prof. Fetzer may preach “respect for persons,” but he does not seem to have much respect for their intelligence. His reply gives the strong impression that he is making it up as he goes along. What we have here is just after-the-fact rationalization for his personal hatred of me for having a sharply different opinion of a movie. Since the publication of my review, TOQ Online has been inundated with expletive-laden expressions of pure hatred. These are being deleted by the editor, but I have to say that I much prefer them to Prof. Fetzer’s posts. At least those authors have no pretenses about being rational or ethical.
I haven’t seen the movie but the bat-wielding bear Jew is not a stretch for anyone paying attention to what is going on in the Palestinian occupied territories. The most apt comparison of the bat and gun and knife wielding Jews in the movie is the armed mobs of Kazar Russian settler Jews in Palestine/Israel who beat and murder unarmed innocent men women and children.
Is that the message Tarantino is pushing? Armed Jew settler thugs are murdering and beating Palestinian NAZI children and farmers?
A good friend of mine, a young German-American fellow, was standing in a supermarket check-out stand in the late seventies. At the time, a move came out called Holocaust, I think. The customer in front of him was telling the cashier that she saw the movie and that she thought all Germans should be killed. How many Hollywood movies, have left this impression on other people since? Yet we talk about “hate crimes” constantly. Shouldn’t Hollywood and their enablers be subject to these crimes, or are they exempt, somehow? My friend had nothing to do with this stuff and yet he was terrorized mentally, because of what others may or may not have done. Is this fair?
I can only conclude more agitprop movies will be cranked out of Holly’s ass as we move perilously close to midnight.
Criminal State:
http://criminalstate.com/guilt-by-association/
What astounds me the most about this piece of crude agitprop is to think about the level of a mind of a person who would actually go to a theater and sit there and watch this movie?
“Declines. On the Rialto once.
The rats are underneath the piles.
The jew is underneath the lot.
Money in furs. The boatman smiles.” — Burbank with a Baedeker: Bleistein with a Cigar, T.S. Eliot
I thought Pulp Fiction was alright, but didn’t like it enough to see any of Tarantino’s other violent, juvenile crap. The trailers were always enough to ward me off. This review has me curious to see I.B., just to see if my take is similar, not because it might be good. I can wait for a second run theatre, though. Tarantino probably thinks this is a surefire route to an Academy Award nomination, unless too many Holocaust films are up again this year.
Terrible film. I knew it, but I had to go play along with the friends’ wishes. They weren’t real impressed either, to my relief.
Give up the bizarre Jew-fetish, Tarantino. Granted, your career would go nowhere afterward — your Judeophilia is the only reason you were ushered up front of the rest — but at least you could work on something legitimate. How about funding an unbiased, uncensored globally-affiliated research center into holocaust claims? That should do the trick.
Folks please do not mistake Jim Fetzer for a serious representative of 9/11 Truth, he is — as his work here for the usual suspects shows — a gatekeeper, at best.
I thought the review to be excellent and agree the movie is rubbish too. Pulp Fiction will always be one of the great movies and in its genre the best. The most intelligent violence I’ve seen portrayed on film, and I am not a fan of excessive violence anytime. But Pulp Fiction managed to weave a great story and make it funny whilst believable.
This latest offering is nothing but gratuitous violence for its own sake. The story is not believable, and the humor alone doesn’t make the movie worth watching. I was fascinated to read the take on how it is effectively telling a deeper truth, beneath the kosher exterior shell. Spencer’s post definitely makes one think twice about it possibly being intended.
Of course it is not beyond Hollywood to include both messages within one vehicle. The empty myth and propaganda — which doesn’t need to be deep, just have action and a familiar storyline which doesn’t tax comfortable delusions — can still contain the lesser-known but reality-based truth — perhaps as a means of taunting those who can see it.
I can sense a tinge of racism towards hillbillies from this nimrod, Trevor Lynch. Let me tell you something: hillbillies are the strongest and smartest breed of human regardless of what you think or the racist stereotypes laid on us by Yankee nimrods and weakling Jews.
Inbreeding is a myth and despicable rumor started by weaklings. I bet your state has a higher rate of inbreeding than any Appalachian state, check STATEMASTER.COM. We have kept our German-Irish accents all of these years. Ever heard a New Yawka talk? Now that accent is far more laughable than a hillbilly accent.
We are the last of REAL white people. We have strong community ties. We grow, can, and hunt our own food. We make our own wine. We grow our own tobacco. When something breaks we fix it ourselves. We are innovators. We are architects. We achieve. We lead. We are compassionate. We are understanding.
We are the last thing that you’ll want to see stomping through city streets in a revolution. Why do you think that when things get tough in war that the whole front line is West Virginians? Ask any military official. He’ll tell you why. It’s laughable when whites from other states are racist towards the only people that will be able to save them in the revolution that’s just around the corner.
Trevor Lynch replies: Don’t blame me for Hollywood’s negative stereotypes of rural white Americans, especially in Appalachia.
It is ironic that Jews like to portray Southern white people as inbred, when the truth is (1) that first cousin marriages were probably no more common in the South than elsewhere in the US among those descended from Protestants from the British Isles (there were many such marriages in my family, going back all the way to the Reformation, and none of my ancestors settled in the South); (2) such marriages were by no means confined to the lower stratum of society; they took place among aristocrats and leading families (Charles Darwin, for example, married a Wedgewood first cousin); and (3) Eastern-European Jews are probably the most inbred population on the planet.
My only quarrel with my rural Southern cousins is something that my critic himself confirms: they are the first people to volunteer as cannon-fodder for the very regime that hates them.
Now let me get back to my rat killin’.
I’m with you Mark. The real atrocities of the 20th century have yet to receive mass exposure.
This movie is also a stepchild of a previous WW1 fantasy sequence in the great romantic film Legends of the Fall also starring BP and having a theme of an American Indian-style revenge upon Germans (Whites) that is itself might based on the black exploits of a legendary American Indian WW2 soldier who was let loose to perform sadistic torture and murder on surrendered German soldiers.
It’s all part of the unfolding Hollywood narrative that ultimately aims to bring the same kind of horror to Turtle Island as was done in the the Russian Empire. This time they will fail though. That much is promised.
This movie is financed by basterds, made by basterds and for other basterds to watch.
Tarantino-style inglourious basterds already killed least many millions of people (mainly Christians) in the former Soviet Union years before the Nazis came into power. The inglourious bastards did not kill Germans only, but any “totally evil capitalist pig” on the globe was on their hit list.
Guess who financed the inglourious basterds of the past? The same circle of people who financed this Tarantino movie.
We learn nothing from this Tarantino movie (like so many other WWII movies), for instance how masses are manipulated by propaganda and mass media, and who are controlling and financing inglourious basterds for the creation of industrial and political monopolies.