By Trevor Lynch | 73 Comments
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.
Ive got a script prepared for the sequel, which I call Inglourious Defiance, in which Palestinian mothers form a unit that chases and scalps the IDF soldiers who killed their children and harvests their organs. Who in Hollywood should I send it to?
“Reptilian inhumanity”. Have you been reading David Icke?
I don’t plan to see the film. I guess the jewess/negro pairing is meant to show jews as inclusive and loving. Would jews in the audience want to see this image? Maybe they know it’s propaganda.
Best review I’ve seen…
I thought that the worst acting in the film was Brad Pitt’s. But (Jesus Christ!) Eli Roth is the personification of a pubic hair. Why on earth would anyone let him get on the wrong end of the camera?
Christoph Waltz’s character is very impressive until the “twist.” Landa is a detective who is passionate, thorough and decisive. It is so preposterous and unbelievable that this character would ever become a traitor. As a writer, even Tarantino obviously doesn’t believe in this change because the character suddenly transitions from cunning and deliberate to silly and sloppy (That’s a bingo!). A tremendous judge of character initially, we’re supposed to believe that Landa becomes an oblivious fool and uncuffs Aldo (his prisoner) in the middle of the woods, alone.
Food for thought: What was Landa’s motivation for killing the actress? Maybe I wasn’t paying attention, but it certainly seemed to me like a death sentence for treason…
I have no intention of seeing the movie because I am sick of Hollywood’s endless holocaust fest, besides I doubt it could be anywhere near as entertaining as this review.
I will add thought that I would pay to see Erik’s movie.
It’s more likely, Tarantino approves of movies being a Jewish “tool of vengeance,” and he like Brad Pitt’s character will help lead them (as he’s doing now).
Next, he’s considering a movie about John Brown whom he considers, “the greatest American.”
“Some white blood had to be spilled” to get the war started. (Charlie Rose show)
I’d like to believe that Tarantino has pulled a fast one on Hollywood Jews. But, unfortunately, I think this film really is as stupid as it seems.
Editor’s Note: I am posting the following with my parenthetical comments to give our readers an example of the kind of stuff churned out by Israeli cyber- “warriors” and their retarded patriotic American tools.
This was undoubtedly one of the greatest films I have ever seen. First let me say that I am a white christian. [Or a Jew using a fake declaration against interest to gain credibility with the people he wishes to deceive.] BUT first and foremost I am AMERICAN. [Yes, because being AMERICAN is something that is more important than being white or Christian.] This movie portrayed a fantasy that all nazi haters have had. [I will remember this. Perhaps Jews and their tools will now feel safe to bludgeon and scalp the people they hate. Perhaps Morris Dees will then sue the Weinstein Brothers for all they are worth.] The nazis were evil in its purest form and tarantinos portrayal of them as sofisticated, attractive and elegent speaks about their hypocrasy of their very soul. [All misspellings and stupidity are in the original.] I saw the movie tonight and everyone laughed and clapped and screamed at all the right moments and the last line of the film got the biggest laugh of all. [Good evidence that this was written in Israel or New York City.] The reviewer of this film is an ignorant anti-semite. Her [sic] hatred is all too transparent and so her review of the film is meaningless. [What American does not know that Trevor is a male name? Obviously we are dealing with a foreigner impersonating an American.]
I must say, I saw the film last night. I have news for this
reviewer: IT’S A FUCKIN’ MOVIE! This is the most despicable
review I have ever read. The entire dramatic tension of the
film is completely destroyed. Have you seen it yourself? I
am acutely disappointed by this drivel. You, in my opinion,
should not be distributing it. It is entirely irresponsible
and Trevor Lynch has violated every canon for a film review.
The suggestion that it is “anti-Semitic” is simply insane.
Editor’s Comment: Trevor Lynch really has the ‘tards in a twist with this one.
The one thing I don’t get is what were they taking revenge for? The war wasn’t over yet, and no one knew about the holocaust, you know, the Red Army didn’t enlighten us ’til 1945.
The other thing I don’t get is why the Germans are not protesting and setting rats lose on movie theaters and using violence against this disgusting piece of propaganda. Last time I heard, the movie critics were just loving it.
Steve Sailer is apparently one of Trevor Lynch’s readers:
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/kill_adopf/
Dear Jim Fetzer,
What dramatic tension?
I agree that the film did not seem anti-Semitic. It is quite astonishing to me that the Jews have almost unanimously dismissed it as anti-Semitic. Of course, it is certainly obvious in retrospect that the producers gambled and lost.
Just read the article in the Atlantic. Methinks the Jew doth protest too much.
But as you so articulately expressed, Inglorious Bastards (like most Jew stories) is just fiction.
Oops, I accidentally spelled it right…
That’s an absolutely brilliant review of Tarantino’s new anti-German movie, Inglourious Basterds.
The movie basically reverses the mythology surrounding the so-called “holocaust” and puts the Germans into the fire, rather than the “Jews.”
One thing the reviewer missed, probably due to Biblical illiteracy, is the fact that the movie title itself fully identifies the movie’s main characters, from a Biblical point of view. The word “inglorious” means disgraceful, shameful, ungodly, and utterly void of glory. And of course the misspelled “basterds” is a reference to the Biblical tares of Matthew chapter 13 as being the hybrid children of Satan, which is to say in the Hebrew, children of the ultimate mamzer (i.e., half-breed), the bastard of Ashdod.
In other words, the movie title itself tells you that the movie’s main characters — the German-hunting “inglourious basterds”– are in reality Satan’s seed.
The other important thing the reviewer missed was Tarantino’s use of David Bowie’s 1982 Talmudic/Kabbalistic song “Cat People,” which is played just before the gory end of the movie in which Hitler and Goebbels and 350 of the cream of the crop of German high society and military are burned to death by a young “Jewess” and two “Jewish” murderers after being trapped in a packed movie theater with all of the doors locked.
Tarantino literally blares the Bowie song from the speakers, using it as a Satanic musical prelude to the death, destruction, and holocaust-like carnage to come at the end of the movie. He uses it as his homage to death itself.
For those who have not heard the song, it is basically sung by Bowie from Lucifer’s perspective as he callously waits out the millennium along with his tare seed to take his revenge on God by using the fire of Satanic deception to lead as many of God’s children as possible into the lake of fire, along with himself.
A sample lyric from the song: “Those who feel me near, pull the blinds and change their minds…And I’ve been putting out fire with gasoline, putting out fire with gasoline”).
For Tarantino’s purpose (and Bowie’s), the song is used as a direct play on the idea of the so-called “holocaust.” (For the deeper Bible student, it is also a play on the destructive nature of the fire of Satanic deception being mixed with the holy fire of God’s Word to create a bastardized set of vain religious traditions that cannot save anyone, but can only burn everyone who partakes of them.)
The bottom line is that the tare protagonists in the movie end up creating a “holocaust” that basically kills everyone — German and “Jew” alike. This is in line with a key sub-theme of Milton’s Paradise Lost, in which Lucifer, knowing of his own unalterable fate in the lake of fire, is depicted as deciding to seek revenge on God by destroying as many of His children as possible before he meets his own inglorious end.
The reviewer also misses the crucial double mention in the Bowie song of the “one thousand years” (i.e., the Biblical millennium), which in the movie is cleverly juxtaposed with a toast to Hitler’s thousand year Reich, which in turn is about to come to a fiery end before it ever gets started.
In reality, in the song, the “one thousand years” is a reference to the Lord’s Day, meaning the millennium, or one thousand year teaching period, during which Satan is forced to sit out until he is released from the pit at its very end in order to carry out his final fiery deception and meet his ultimate destruction in the lake of fire.
Finally, the reviewer missed the Biblical analogy of the swastika being carved into the foreheads of surviving German soldiers by the tare murderers as a reverse mark of the beast.
As background, in the movie, Brad Pitt plays the leader of a small group of ruthless tare murderers called the “Inglourious Basterds,” who spend their time hunting and murdering German soldiers. But when he has to release some captured German soldiers for propaganda purposes, he says he can’t stand the thought of seeing a surviving German soldiers wearing civilian clothing after the war is over. His reasoning is that their “shame” for serving their country in the German military will never be known by the public at large if they are out of uniform.
So to make sure their “shame” is always known, he has swastikas carved deeply into their foreheads with an over sized military knife, before releasing them.
Hence, the German “beasts” (i.e., in the eyes of the tares) are “marked” for life. In essence, Tarantino thumbs his nose at God by using the swastika (being a form of a Christian cross) as the “mark of the beast,” and portraying true Judah (i.e., the Christian Germans) as the beast itself.
Wayne, The question of whether one or another plot will be pulled off
is the key to the film. I found it quite engrossing. Of course, there was
exaggeration of various figures and their actions, but what of it? This
guy praises “Pulp Fiction” but denigrates “Inglorious Basterds”? That
is just a bit too much. But then, what should we expect from a movie
critic who will not identify himself by his real name but hides behind
a pseudonym and uses an editor to insulate himself from his critics?
This is simply the most unethical review of a film I have even read.
Editor’s Note: This is the second time Dr. Fetzer has asserted that our reviewer is somehow “unethical” without explaining what he means and offering reasons for his viewpoint. I expect better from our commentators, particularly those with Ph.D.s in philosophy and long teaching careers. If Dr. Fetzer ever ventured to cross the line into genuine dissidence, I imagine he might choose to use a pen name as well.
Another thing I fear is that this movie will incite even more violence from the immigrant Turks against the Germans while yelling “Nazi Schwein!” among other things. You know, “we’re immigrants but you’re the evil ones, Germans don’t deserve to live, don’t deserve their lands.” Rapes and beatings will go up but the authorities will not tell us.
Editor’s Note: If this happens, I am sure that Morris Dees will happily sue the Weinstein brothers on behalf of the German victims of such hate crimes.
Well well well, the “9/11 Truther” himself, Jim Fetzer.
I see your search for the ‘Truth’ has even brought you to this site here. Welcome.
Hope you won’t be disinvited to too many other venues now.
Sailer blatantly ripped his review on Takimag.com from this piece. BLATANTLY.
Sailer is easily the best writer currently writing for our side, as he garners a huge audience with each piece he publishes.
However, he should not have published his piece on Takimag without mentioning this article, written by Mr. Lynch.
Kudos to Lynch for braving it through this hate-fest of a movie, which with its mere existence proves the reality of white, gentile dispossession.
A thoroughly entertaining review. Great writing Trevor.
Catherine [cyberwarrior-basterd] Campbell was hilarious.
Likewise Jim [professor-basterd] Fetzer.
Will d/l the film when possible.
Original review: “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.”
I believe the modern English idiom for the above sort of announcement is “spoiler warning.” This terminology has been in common use for more than ten years.
Fetzer: “This is the most despicable review I have ever read. The entire dramatic tension of the film is completely destroyed.”
The review gave a spoiler warning. There were certainly some plot spoilers below it. This is why one reads reviews starting at the top and stops when one hits the spoiler warning if one wants to preserve dramatic tension.
I have read reviews that were vastly more despicable than this one, since they failed to use spoiler warnings.
Amusing review indeed. This is probably a quite accurate depiction of what goes on inside a Talmudic mind. Consider the mass rape of everything that walked on two legs east of Berlin, the programmed starvation of Ukraine, and in Germany after the war, the incident in Postville and, of course, the slaughter of Palestine and the related organ trafficking. I think this movie will give a peek inside the Talmudic hate-drenched mind, as Lynch says.
One retard in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung did actually observe a little bit of what Lynch wrote; he was concerned with the fact that the Germans were, on occasion, depicted as civilized and thus this movie could have a bad influence on the German youth. Comments are superfluous.
The Junge Freiheit ends its review thus: /…/ Er dient als plumpe Masturbationsvorlage für all jene Antideutschen, /…/
I can’t agree more. Even though the aspect of the movie that Lynch discusses really is there, the contemporary post-literate Judaized sheeple will not be able to see anything else than hate and violence, which they cherish so much.
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.
Fetzer should realize the only rational, and evolved, basis of morality is that of reciprocity. Fetzer’s conception of morality is “false and pernicious” for the reason that “respect” can be given consistent with all the false gods of the age in the contest for status. How easily “respect” can degenerate into base flattery and the outright betrayal of the highest good of the survival of our people. I need no Ph.D. to discern that.
Now Fetzer, show “respect” and give it straight: ought European Man live or die according to you?
This trashy film is Jewish in the fullest sense. Bloody, violent, hateful, uncompromising. Entirely subjective. The Southern US hayseed (Brad Pitt) as the dupe. The black man doing the nasty work (shades of the filthy film The Dirty Dozen). The typical Jew duping a good-hearted gentile who might be attracted to her as a person. The so-called heroine. Hating manners, neatness, style. The nonsense of Adolf Hitler as a personal ogre. (You don’t command millions by being ugly.) Take note: the vandalizing of the bloody Iron Cross (not a Nazi Party decoration) is symbolic of Judaism’s hatred of all Western Culture, and that includes all you so-called good anti-Nazis.
Let’s get this straight: Jim ‘the core of morality is to treat others with respect’ Fetzer claims we are supposed to give ‘respect’ to the Talmudic minds who put this film together, who glamorize those terroristic Talmudic monsters (“Basterds” that they indeed are) who show/demonstrate NO RESPECT WHATSOEVER to their opponents/foes, and demonize them for generations on end.
And WE are the ‘bad guys’ for merely pointing this disgusting hypocrisy out.
Ah brother, just like I always suspected about those “9/11 Truthers” — Zionist shills to the core.
An excellent assessment. Thank you.
Too bad Hollywood doesn’t tell the truth about WWII:
As many as 150,000 Jewish men fought FOR the Third Reich (documented by historian Bryan Mark Rigg who is Jewish);
Some 2 million non-Germans fought for the Third Reich, most voluntarily (as documented by historian Veronica Clark);
600,000 Eastern Europeans fought for Hitler against Stalin (also documented by Clark and in the stenographic record edited by historians David Glantz and Hans Heiber);
or that many Africans served in Hitler’s ranks and in the OT (Organisation Todt) helping to build fortifications, repair railways, and build weapons (also documented by Clark). William Marcus Baarn, Werner Egiomue, Hans Hauck, Norbert Desiree, Herbert Sabac el Cher, Horst Sabac el Cher, and Louis Joachim Eugene are just a handful of Black men who volunteered to fight FOR Adolf Hitler.
Hollywood needs to do a movie about these men, and at the same time point out that FDR upheld lynching laws against Blacks here in the US all the while. Blacks were literally torched to death and lynched in a most bestial fashion in the US up until the 1950s. Not a single Black person was torched to death or lynched in Nazi Germany, and there were at least 20,000 Blacks living in the Third Reich during Hitler’s reign. Further, Hitler, not FDR, watched Jesse Owens race, and invited him to a festive dinner for champions at the Reich Chancellory with all the other athletes (including Jewish ones) (also documented by Clark).
It’s time for Hollywood to cut with the lies and false portrayals of history.
I went to see the film because it was Tarantino. This is the last time I will make that mistake. While Pulp Fiction was an imaginative, iconic film, this latest film feels like it could have been written by an adolescent boy who’s read too many bad comic books. In fact, I don’t mean to insult comic books, but the reviewer is right: this film was surprisingly boring at times, and completely lacked any depth. Tarantino appears to want to repeat the “Mexican Standoff” formula (Reservoir Dogs) and might as well have his protagonists killing vampires again. In short, the movie SUCKED . . . but a significant exception was Waltz’s performance: great until the ridiculous turn at the end. Tarantino definitely had his head up his A$$ on this one . . .
Tarantino is just kissing ass in order to get himself in good after his past failures.
Let’s face it, Tarantino is one glorious one-hit-wonder, though I still think Pulp Fiction was itself over-rated.
Quentin Tarantino has proved he is a psychopath, not a film director to take seriously.
I liked the review and would probably never go and see the film anyway. I saw Pulp Fiction many years ago, and the only things I remember are the large hypodermic needle being thrust into the woman’s chest, and the fellow’s brains being blown out in the car–a ludicrous Hollywood fallacy, as everyone would be deafened by a gun being fired in a closed car. Maybe that shows Tarantino’s tendency to depict unrealistic violence for the sake of it, with no pretense of logic behind it. In my trips in America, I was surprised by some people who still thought of the Germans as ‘bad people’ to be hated as a result of WW2. Maybe Hollywood has had more than a little part in this notion.
I haven’t seen the movie but the scene of the burning theater sounds like the scene of the exploding theater after watching snow white in Gremlins
Jim Fetzer,
I don’t have a stomach for people like you.
It is obvious that you don’t have a mind for philosophy. You may have chosen philosophy, but it didn’t choose you. In vain you worship real philosophers like Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche and praise them for their outstanding contribution to “the school of philosophy” but you blush at their Anti-Semitism and consider it an embarrassing inconvenience. You don’t have the balls to know truth.
Then you talk about the ethical responsibilities of the Reviewer, but you say nothing of the ethical responsibilities of the Artist. Must Tarantino also “treat other persons with respect?” Or is it only the duty of the people who are highly offended by this horse shit who must treat others with respect? Do the Jews in Hollywood portray whites as respectable?
Basterds is not art; it is propaganda. Art should be critiqued, and propaganda should be exposed. So Trevor has shown himself superior to you from the beginning by identifying what Inglourious Basterds actually is.
Your philosophy of “respect” is weak and it sickens me. You embarrass yourself.
Jews took us into WW2 because everything they represent Hitler politically opposed. The war was all about them. Thus we have The Holocaust industry today that is all about them even tho 60 million non Jews died.
It would be nice for hillbillies to get a little respect because we are the ones most likely to be on the forefront of any movement to take America back.
White people, white people, white people….
The astute movie critic degrades the thrust of his critique by aiming it solely at one segment of humanity and by using crude polemics like “Jew-dominated Hollywood”.
I can never understand the blanket collectivist endorsement of “white people,” similar to Judaism’s blanket tribal endorsement of Judaics generally.
Weren’t Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft all white, and among the worst would-be tyrants to ever gain power in America?
Isn’t white America in the 21st century, with honorable exceptions, the golem of Judaism and Zionism, pleased to serve as cannon fodder in the “war on terror” i.e. the Crusade against the enemies of the Israelis?
As a German political blogger I’m using a pen name against my usual habit, for this is a “white site” that could water me down as a Nazi through one single sympathetic commentary on one single review.
I’ve read quite a few reviews on the film, American, British, NZ and German speaking ones (German, Swiss, Austrian), but Trevor’s has been the most impressive one as yet.
Hitler’s Hollywood is making its way: I expect to see Waltz as the Führer soon, Pitt polishing his boots.
I read Sailer’s piece on Takimag too and also found it heavily based on the here aforesaid; that he did not mention Lynch ain’t nice, but I have to confess myself that I wanted to base my blog-piece today on his article, some translated, some untranslated citations, peppered with my own commentary.
As I found out though, where it is published, I had to recede to minor stealth and just state, among other things, that there had been a respected American conservative site surprisingly seeing antisemitism in the film, and one other, more extreme, as one would see it in Germany, that even laughed at the Jewish producers for their stupidity to bring this up against themselves.
Sorry, that’s all I could do; I don’t feel ashamed; regarding these matters we Germans are bound to loose everything, to go to jail, to shut up, or to be very careful sometimes.
We’ll probably have to be more careful in the US within a week or so too when the hate bill gets signed. Reckon Ernst Zundel is still locked up in Germany for digging up some dirt on ww2’s zionistically inconvenient truths. At least when folks see the movie they might wake up to what the Zionists are up to and prepare to defend themselves. Let’s pray that police officers will be shocked awake to the point where they’ll question the orders of their usually demonic superiors. Knowing how to arrest Zionist criminals such as the one in Tasmania who surrounds himself with at least 2 dozen mishravim (sp)carrying automatic weapons would require an elite unit of soldiers. Probably why they’re always sent off to die elsewhere.
Hoffman: “I can never understand the blanket collectivist endorsement of “white people,” similar to Judaism’s blanket tribal endorsement of Judaics generally.”
Then you miss in whole what is best in life, the affirmation of our peoplehood. Is your own family life so barren as to be hurt not in the least by the inclusion of ever bum off the street? Or does its value, even its very continued existence, lie in exclusivity?
“Weren’t Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft all white, and among the worst would-be tyrants to ever gain power in America?”
LOL! I think I taste straw. They are traitors to their people who acted contrary to our interests.
“Isn’t white America in the 21st century, with honorable exceptions, the golem of Judaism and Zionism, pleased to serve as cannon fodder in the “war on terror” i.e. the Crusade against the enemies of the Israelis?”
(spitting straw out)
As if the assertion of our peoplehood is mutually exclusive to our not being the foot soldiers of Jewry. In fact, pretty well the opposite. You see, if we can become awake to ourselves we will view the Jews as what they really are, as the Other with interests other than our own.
The more I seen the adds for this film, the more I realized it was both the worst film Tarantino has ever made, as well as one of the worst films ever made period! My sister is a very wealthy limousine liberal, and she can’t wait to see this film. So, along with most Jews, that is their target audience.
In a sense, I think, the film is not as important as the reception we see by the public; one dame even of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung discovered herself partaking in the lust of killing Nazis, i.e., Germans, possibly her own father or uncle. Elsewhere, Jews get the sex-craze on the bloodspill; and Christoph Waltz is getting ever more cryptic in his interviews.
One other critic I saw on vid declaring that after the grandiose opening scene everything got too long and fell apart and complaining that there had been even one more killing scene in the trailer than was actually shown in the movie(!).
Others, Pitt the most hilarious, have tried to assign the work a transcendence of at least divine proportions, stating that the film had broken all symbols and made done with it.
At the same time of his babble, we already had unswastikified German movie headlines and helmets and trailers on the net, other than the international version.
There will be more nonsense, but also some insight coming; if I were a Jew and just a bit more paranoid than not at all, I might well see some more trouble bubbling out of this Tarantino chutzpah and the idiocy it has entrained.
Saw the film and reached very similar conclusions. There is something seriously wrong with the director’s psyche. Inglourious Basterds is an unfortunate waste of everyone’s time & resources.
The ancient Greeks valued magnanimity above all else. Magnanimity to ones’ defeated enemies was part and parcel of the Aryan psyche and ethos. In stark contrast, the Jews always placed primary importance on vengeance. The prevalence of the vengeance theme in Hollywood probably has something to do with the total Jewish control of movie-making in America.
The ‘Unknown Holocaust’ and the Hijacking of History by Mark Weber
http://www.ihr.org/other/july09weber.html
Better to spend time reading this than watching another Tarantino blood and gore fest.
“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.” Trevor Lynch to Appalachian Kings
Great post.
Not just whites but all non jews have been fed lies about jews since we were born. That is why we must teach all non jews, white, black and brown, who the real enemy is. The jews hate ALL non jews. They use financial power to pit one group against each other and kill the ‘goyim’ off. That is their method described in the Protocols of Zion.
Audit and abolish the Fed.
For Michael Hoffman: white is a color used to describe people; Jewish is a religion used to describe people. Jews can be white people (and many of them are). . . Think about your use of terms.
Good analysis. But the brain is bombarded with fiction from the beginning of the movie, so even if there is truth in the movie, especially at the end, it is read by the brain as fiction.
Over 100 books online in full text about the jews.
http://jewise.wordpress.com/
500 videos about the jews.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=222jewise&view=favorites
Check out Richard Spencer’s take on IB on Taki’s Magazine: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/holocaust_revisionism/
Great review! Smart and funny. I enjoyed reading it. Thanks!
A lady friend from South America just called and told me she was listening to an NPR discussion about the movie. She told me the guests and host were all saying pretty much the same thing, ie; “I hope everyone realizes that it’s just a parody, a joke.”
The problem with this is, that parody, in an age of absurdities, so closely resembles reality as to be unrecognizable as parody.
I have not visited the Kosher cave of nasty, shivery lights in a long time, and films such as this one are the reason. Thank you for the review – I was curious – and I will be saving my shekels.
The more they push, the more we “white people” (sorry Mr Hoffman (III?)) feel it.
Those of you that wants to see the original movie from 1978; see INGLORIOUS BASTARDS starring Bo Svenson & Fred Williamson. It was forbidden twice in many European countries and released uncut for the first time in the 90s It’s a war-movie adventure in very much the same spirit as Kelly’s Heroes: plenty of action from the beginning to end with scores of dead Nazi-Germans. Quentin Tarantino is claimed to have called it, quote: “My favourite among all war battles.” Funny than, that he couldn’t copy it better in his own war-movie!
Trevor is right–the Jews in the movie are right out of Der Ewige Jude. Eli Roth delivers his lines with a squeaky voice and comes across as a drag queen. Tarantino betrays a fascination with Goebbels and NS regalia in general. The best lines are delivered by the charming and charismatic Col. Landa, who comes across as a brilliant and humorous super-detective. In fact, most of the best dialogue belongs to the German characters, from Daniel Bruhl as the war hero to the non-commissioned officers in the beer cellar scene, playing a fun-filled game of “guess who I am?” Tarantino even highlighted the SD within the diamond on Landa’s uniform, another example of his fascination with the Germans. Could it be that he pulled a clever one on the Jews, presenting a little Jewish revenge against the Nazis to dull the senses, while delving into the cleverness and sartorial splendor of the Germans?
Such a usefule blog…whoa
Brad pit saved the movie … Deserved best supporting actor for it. But I thank they gave it to the jew hunter , etc …