Aug 25, 2009

By | 78 Comments | Print Print

Inglourious Basterds

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.

rothpitt

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.

M

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.)

bruhl

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.

waltz

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.)

kruger-basterdMeanwhile, 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. If you don’t believe me, read the novel for yourself.

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.

schwigerI 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.

Share

Related Posts

  1. 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?

  2. “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.

  3. 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…

  4. 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.

  5. I will add thought that I would pay to see Erik’s movie.

  6. 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)

  7. 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.

  8. avatar
    Catherine Campbell said:

    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.]

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. avatar
    Greg Johnson said:

    Steve Sailer is apparently one of Trevor Lynch’s readers:

    http://www.takimag.com/site/article/kill_adopf/

  12. 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…

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

Leave a Comment

Comment Policy: Abusive, irrelevant, spammy, or trollish comments are prohibited. Repeat violations of this policy will result in a permanent ban.

Back to Top