Monday, December 21, 2015

Girls should be mothers, not Jedi Knights

Star Wars - The Force Awakens has been released to incredible fanfare. The entire media, corporate and government complex has been pushing this film. Hillary Clinton even referenced the film in the Democratic debate.

So why the hype? Mostly because the director, J.J. Abrams has stated one of the goals of the movie was to promote "diversity" and the usual Social Justice Warrior propaganda.

As such, the lead Jedi character is now a girl called Rey. Rey is basically a Mary Sue character in that she has no flaws. She is an expert mechanic, pilot, warrior, and Jedi. She requires no training. Anything that a boy can do, she can do better. She is basically a Tumblr feminist fantasy, minus the blue hair and 100 pounds.

And it is axiomatic that showing girls in strong and empowered (read masculine) roles is a good thing. But no one asks why is this a good thing? How does it benefit civilization to push girls to be wannabe boys?


  1. I haven't seen the film yet, but judging by the trailers and the comments of the people that saw it, it's cultural marxshit at its finest. It's a remake with an empowered woman, a multicultural and a bad white male. It has it all.

    And it's a film of J. J. Abrams, and that means special effects and no story at all. Another shitty film, I'm sure.

  2. How does it benefit civilization to push [White] girls to be wannabe boys?

    J. J. ((((Abrams))))

  3. You're missing the larger point.

    Yes, ideally, women should be mothers, just like men should be fathers. Everyone was born of man and woman, and everyone's line will continue through his children.

    The big question is MOTHER FOR WHOM? And WARRIOR FOR WHOM?

    Joan of Arc was a warrioress but for her own nation, people, and faith.
    Who would you admire more? A white woman warrior who fights for the white race or a white woman mudshark who decided to become a stay-at-home mother for a Negro? Trust me, STAR WARS will get worse when Rey does become a mother cuz she will be the wife of the Negro and be a mother to a mulatto kid. Would you welcome the prospect of her laying down her light saber to put out to some ghastly galactic Obama Sr?

    Women can fight too. During the Vietnam War, North Vietnamese and Viet Cong women fought side by side with their Vietnamese men against the American Empire. Those women took on men's roles, but they did it for their race and land. In contrast, many women in South Vietnam, especially Saigon, played women's roles by becoming hookers, mistresses, and wives of American soldiers. They took on women's roles but for whom? For the men of the occupying power. They were race traitors.

    In Israel, Jewish women serve in the military. But they also become wives and mothers. They know how to use guns. They've been trained to be tough, but in the name of what? In the name of defending the Jewish race, Jewish nation, Jewish identity, Jewish pride, and Jewish heritage. They will fight side by side and die side by side with Jewish men.
    Now, what kind of woman would you find more admirable? A Jewish woman with a gun who fights for her race and homeland OR a Jewish woman who decides to be a stay-at-home wife of an Arab man who has his children?

    Or consider the American West. White women had to be like men. They worked alongside the men in plowing the fields. They learned to use guns to kill animals and fight off Indian raids. They rode horses and did physical labor. But they were also wives and mothers.

    So, Ramzpaul got it all wrong. The problem with women-in-military in the US is only because Jews and homos control the US military and because white women are made to serve with black men who impregnate a bunch of white women.

    But we see the same thing in the civilian sphere. Many white women never pick up a gun. They are ultra-feminine and only wanna do womanly things. So, what do they do? They line up to sexually surrender themselves to black football players or black studs at night clubs. And many of them decide to have mulatto kids and dream that their mulatto kid will become president of America.

    If white nationalism wants to be strong, it should welcome all white women, with or without guns, to unite and fight for the white race.

    1. I think you are overstating the role female warriors played. Joan of Arc isn't known for her fighting skill or as a master military strategist. She's known for getting captured and subsequently being burned at the stake. That the NVA used women is no justification for putting women into battle. Many countries/rebels groups have put children into battle. Does this make children equal to men as it relates to fitness for battle? Does this mean that women and children meet the minimum physical standards for battle? No. Putting women and children into battle will actually hinder male soldiers. A soldiers first instinct will be to put the life of women and children ahead of his own. When a woman is in trouble he will seek to protect her well being rather than carry out his mission. And if a woman gets captured in battle, she will get gang raped and forced to be a comfort woman for enemy troops. Women in Israel may get some military training but at best they will only LARP as soldiers. They are not going to be put on the front lines of battle.

    2. I agree that it shouldn't be official policy to use women as combat troops.

      But there are times when both men and women must take part in combat. Suppose US were invaded and occupied by a foreign power. Suppose US military is defeated. In a guerrilla war, there would be a need to recruit everyone. This is why lots of partisan armies had women as well as men.

      Even so, I think the female issue is secondary to the racial one.
      As long as the women are race-ist and patriotic, they can be admired as patriots.
      But a woman who chooses to be a traditional mother by having children of a man of another race is the true traitor.

      Also, there are times when women should serve in the military cuz of man-power issues. If your nation has only 5 million people whereas the enemy state 50 million, you may have to recruit women as well as men for possible military service. Israel requires men and women to serve because Jews are outnumbered by Arabs and Muslims by a huge margin.

      As for children, the age limit will have to be lowered in emergency situations. If all the men are in combat and there is a dire shortage of men, you might have to recruit even 15 yr olds for combat. But of course, there's a limit to this. I can't imagine having a 7 yr old fighting in combat.

      US was never in that situation, but desperate nations had no choice.

  4. Besides, no one takes women-as-warrior roles in fantasy movies all that seriously.

    In Kung Fu movies, a woman whups dozens of men. It's just for fun.

    In anime, there are action heroines.

    Milla Jovovich is fun and exciting as killer babe.

    Bella fights for her own clan.

    1. I doubt it. Most of our entertainment is just propaganda. And unfortunately, most people believe that there is some truth associated with what they see on TV or at the movie theater. Want proof? In a Gallup poll, the American public estimates on average that 23% of Americans are LGBT.

      The actual number (per the CDC) is 2.3%.

      Why is the American public is one order of magnitude off? It's because LGBTs have purposely been they have been inundated in the media. This has been a deliberate mind control. This demonstrates the power of the media to warp people's perception of reality. If Ultra Bitch® were in few movies would mean to me that having the strong heroine is just for entertainment value. Having Ultra Bitch® in every movie means that this is propaganda.

  5. One thing for sure, most of history was not about this -ism or that -ism.

    It was about the ruling elites or radical rebels invoking whatever -ism to seek power.

    Most people are clueless about -isms of all kind.

    The prevailing -ism happens to be whatever is promoted by the ruling elites. It can change if the ruling elites adopt a different ideology or if they are overthrown by radical rebels who become the new elites and use media power to enforce the new prevailing -ism. And most people will go along since they don't think and don't want to think. They just wanna believe whatever is told to them and whatever is taught to them in schools. People are sheep, and sheepdom is more effective than ever cuz of mass media, social networking, PC education, and globalism. Look how fast 'gay marriage' craze spread among the masses, not least through celebrity worship.

    Oftentimes, when we focus on this-ism or that-ism, we lose sight of those with the power to control which -ism should prevail and how.

    Also, all -isms are at the mercy of those who control it. The same -ism can be very different depending on WHO controls it.

    Communism can come in many flavors. Surely, Trotsky's communism and Stalin's communism were at odds. So was Khrushchev's communism and Mao's communism. So, who-had-the-power mattered more than the nature of communism. If Mao said communism is pro-Russian and anti-American, it was. If he then said communism is anti-Russian and pro-American, it was the new truth.

    1. Indeed, when Jews complain that Russia isn't a 'liberal democracy', they really mean that Russia politics isn't controlled by Jews.

      Suppose Russia were to adopt genuine liberal democracy but suppose the vast majority of voters were to elect a right-wing populist-nationalist government in Russia. Would Jews then be happy with Russia's liberal democracy? No, of course not. Jews are less interested in ideology than in who gets to control the ideology.

      There is no single liberal democracy, just like there was no single communism or fascism. Indeed, some of the most fanatical and toughest Polish resistance fighters against Nazi fighters were far-right nationalists.

      And some of the toughest anti-Russian forces in current Ukraine are far-right nationalists. But Jews don't complain about them because those right-wingers are working with globalist Jews. Jews also don't complain about the anti-liberal Saudis because Saudis are allied with US and Israel. Jews bitch that Putin has been working with people like Assad and the enemies of the US, but US is allied with arch-reactionary nations like Saudi Arabia that kills journalists and has no use for liberal democracy. Actually, Assad is more liberal than the rulers of Saudi Arabia, but Jews who claim to care so much about liberal democracy prefer the Saudis over the secular Assad.

      So, all this stuff about -ism misses the point. It's really about who has the control.

      When Liberal Democracy was firmly controlled by Wasps in the US, many Jews turned to socialism/Marxism and were against democracy and capitalism. But once Jews took over the American system, they've been championing 'liberal democracy' while dumping Marxism.

      So, wasp-ruled 'liberal democracy' was bad, but Jewish-ruled 'liberal democracy' is good.

      When Jews controlled communism, many Jews liked it. But when communism grew independent of Jewish influence, Jews came to hate it. Jews prefer the value of power over the value of any ideology. And even when Jews use ideology, it is to make it serve their power. In contrast, naive dumb white liberals use power to serve an ideology(that is really manipulated by Jews).

      So, Jews were always more about tribal power than about the purity of any ideology.

      And this is why Jews hate fascism. Fascism developed as an adaptive, malleable, and flexible meta-ideology and strategy of power that didn't fixate on a single ideology. It took ideas from socialism, capitalism, nationalism, imperialism, traditionalism, futurism, modernism, and etc in the service of the Power of the Nation and Race. In a way, fascism is a gentile form of Judaism. Jews have been very adaptive and flexible in using all kinds of ideas and all forms of organization to gain more power and wealth.

      Via fascism, gentiles learned to do the same thing. Jews hate gentiles most when gentiles act most like Jews. Gentiles who act like Jews have learned the secret of power from the Jews. Don't fixate on any ideology. Fixate on your race and nation and then use whatever ideas that are useful to further your own interest. Paradoxically, Jews hate gentiles who think and strategize most like Jews. Jews want others to fixate on ideologies while they themselves fixate on the power. Jews want others to use their power to serve an ideology(shaped and molded by Jews) while Jews always use ideologies to serve their power.


    2. It's like the ultimate obsession in STAR WARS is the Force. It is not 'equality', 'diversity', 'progress', 'tradition', 'tolerance', etc. It is the Force. Force can come in the shape of anything but it is always more than any one ideology, any single viewpoint, any single cause.

      The Force is a fascist idea because it cannot be explained with a single ideology, viewpoint, or philosophy. It has a light side, a dark side, and so many facets. The thing is to have it. You can do good with it or do bad with it. But unless you have it, you aint got shit.

      It looks like with the new Star Wars, Jews finalized what they've been working toward for a long time. They've come to own the fascist aesthetics as their own. FF Abrams looks like Sergei Eisenstein and uses images like Riefenstahl.

      Lucas is a political Lib but he was obsessed with fascist-Nazi imagery and modern rightist mythology. The idea behind Star Wars is very 'modern rightist' with its immersion in the Irrational, sacred, and mystical. In the 20th century, the Left was into rationalism and materialism. The modern Right was into romanticism, spiritualism, the power of the irrational, etc. Himmler was into the Occult. Hitler drew inspiration from Wagner and partly from Nietzsche. Americans in WWII were about democracy and industry. Japanese were into Shinto, Bushido, vision of Japan as a sacred land, identity of Japanese as part of a sacred race. Americans believed in the might of arms. Japanese hung their hope on the spirit world: kamikaze and pure faith of warriors.

      The Left was supposed to have simple rational and material answers for everything. In the realm of science and medicine, materialism and rationalism won. But in the realm of art and culture, the appeal of the romantic, occult, mysterious, magnificent, and magical was undeniable. It couldn't be suppressed. But such themes were associated with the Nazis and the style of fascist narcissism, and Jews were nervous about playing with them.


    3. But the success of STAR WARS showed that this stuff was appealing to many many many people all over the globe. It wasn't just somewhat successful but the making of the biggest movie hit of all time.

      Jews tried to suppress this kind of aesthetic initially, but it was too bankable, too profitable. So, they decided to appropriate fascist imagery and themes but ostensibly in the name of fighting fascism.

      So, the new SW is very multi-culti. But if we look at the nature of its struggle for power, it's really about multi-culti fascism vs mono-racial fascism. It is about micro-fascism vs macro-fascism. The good guys are obsessed about the Force, the power of the occult, the themes of unity and sacrifice, the need for iron discipline and warrior honor, the heroic ideal. The female hero is like the heroine of many Riefenstahl mountain-climbing movies.

      Susan Sontag was right to note that fascist themes are not exclusively intrinsic to Nazism or Europeans. its themes can be found or imposed on any people. For example, Riefenstahl's celebration of warrior culture among the Nuba of Africa was in keeping with her cult of the health and virility in her Nazi films.

      Jews want to own fascist aesthetics cuz it's so bankable and profitable, so appealing to people around the world. But Jews also know that such aesthetic has long been associated with anti-Jewish Nazis and the far-right Europeans.

      So, what the new SW does is to give fascist aesthetics a 'progressive multi-culti' sheen.

      It's like the fascist robot Terminator was reprogrammed to be 'good' and 'progressive' in part 2. But he was still the badass Aryan robot warrior.

      Likewise, the new SW keeps with all the fascist themes of heroism and superiority and irrational cult of holiness. After all, the very notion of the Jedis is exclusive and hierarchical, and the very idea of the Force is Nietzschean-Jungean.

      It is not about equality or tolerance but about a special elect with special superior powers. It is like the samurai, or the Nazi SS.

      So, how can this fascist idea be made palatable? By making the story 'interracist' and 'feminist'.

      But it is ultimately about feminist fascism. it is not about a girl fighting for equality for all women but gaining super power to be superior to everyone else. And it is about a Negro going from a storm-trooper(who was equal with other storm troopers) to a holy warrior imbued with special superior powers. It is about both of them gaining superiority over the rest. So, as they will surely mate and have a mulatto child(as the new Obama-like savior of the universe), it is not about equality but about interracism as the new form of supremacism. The mulatto Jedi kid of their union will be regarded as SUPERIOR because his parents are this SUPERIOR white girl and this SUPERIOR Negro.

      This way, the Jews came to own fascist themes and aesthetics. They appropriated elements of Fascism and National Socialism to serve the agenda of globalist Jews(who, of course, are Jewish supremacists who believe that Jews as the Chosen and Elect should rule the world).

  6. One thing for sure, if a white nationalist made a movie in honor of white men and white women taking up arms together to fight The Enemy, I think most white nationalists will like it whereas most Jews and cuck-traitors will hate it.

  7. The contradiction of casting in the new Star Wars movie.

    The lead character is a white girl. Why not a black girl?

    It's a white girl because people like to see white females all over the world. There must be something about white womanhood that is especially appealing around the world. After all, why would so many black men lust after white women? Why would Asian women get plastic surgery and dye their hair to look 'white'? Why do so many Jewish men slobber over 'shikses'?

    So, if there is something of value in white beauty, and if that is the reason why the new STAR WARS cast a white girl(as opposed to black girl, Mexican girl, Arab girl, Asian girl, Hindu girl, etc) in the lead, then it means white female beauty is something to prize, protect, and preserve. It must have value if it's so popular around the world. It's like gold is prized all over the world. If gold is prized for its gold-ness, how does it help to mix gold with lead?

    Anyway, how can white beauty be preserved if the white woman is made to mate with some ape-like Negro? If she mates with him, the result will be some mulatto. Her white beauty will genetically be lost forever via race-mixing.

    So, interracism is self-defeating. Interracism says that Jewish men, black men, and other men should have sexual access to white women because white women are especially beautiful(or uniquely beautiful). But, if white women mix with other races, the offsprings will no longer have that white beauty. That white beauty that is so highly prized will be mixed with Jewish genes or black genes or whatever genes.

    Interracism is a contradiction. It says the world will be a better place if everyone is racially mixed. And yet, so many Jewish and black men don't go after mixed-raced women. Jewish and black men want pure white women. Look at Tiger Woods. He's a mixed-raced guy but he only went after pure white women. If race mixing is so good and if the product of race-mixing is so good, why do Jewish men and black men often prefer a pure white woman? Interesting that those who are into race-mixing are actually most attracted to the pure race.
    It's like those who are into wiping their muddy hands seek out the whitest towels or sheets. Jewish and black men want pure white women, but once the mating happens and the babies pop out, the purity of white race is gone forever. What Jewish and black men desire most in women --- pure whiteness --- has been destroyed by the interracist mating.

    So, if the new Star Wars cast a pretty white girl because the world prizes white beauty, then doesn't it make sense to preserve that beauty that the entire world is so enamored with? Why should it be mixed with black ugliness and result in some mud-baby?

    Also, isn't the notion that black men should go with white women a way of saying that black women are TOO UGLY for black men or any men? There are plenty of black women who are unmarried. So, why should black men go with white women? Are black women so repulsive that we should expect black men to go with white women?

    Interracism seems to say so.


    1. Here is the logic of interracism:

      Negro: "Mixing the races is most wonderful."

      Me: "Okay, if you think so, go find a mulatto woman."

      Negro: "But I want a pure white woman."

      Me: "But why? You said race-mixing is wonderful, so why don't you get a product of race-mixing?"

      Negro: "I want some pure white meat."

      Me: "But that means you want something that is NOT the product of race-mixing because if the entire world were mixed and muddied racially, there would be no pure white women left."

      Negro: "I want to mix my pure blackness with her pure whiteness."

      Me: "But the product of such mating will be a mixed race person, the kind you deem less desirable than a pure white woman."

      So, you see, interracism destroys the very object of desire of black men and Jewish men.
      A big-nosed Jew wants a blonde shikse, but he wouldn't be attracted to the product of his mating with the shikse. The child will have the Jewish features of the father.
      And a flat-nosed and big-lipped Negro wants a blonde ho, but he wouldn't be attracted to the product of his mating with the ho. The child will have dark skin, nappy hair, and big ass nose and lips.

      Interracism destroys the very thing you are attracted to.
      A Negro male who is in love with white female beauty will destroy it by mixing his Negro genes with hers.
      Also, interracism is premised on the notion that the OTHER race is superior to your race in beauty. Why else would you go outside the race?

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. Ramzpaul, we love ya but you got this film all wrong. Abrams is actually ON OUR SIDE--in fact he goes further. He is a white supremacist, and it shows in the film.

    Read between the lines.

    Snoke--with his big nose and twisted world view--is clearly a Jewish media overlord. He rules through his brainwashed stormtroopers (social justice warriors) led by the (clearly lesbian/feminist) Captain Phasma.

    This politically-correct rule has deliberately turned the younger white generation (Kylo Ren) against their parents. There is not an uncucked white man left in sight in this awful dystopia--which is why it has fallen into ruin (symbolised by the Empire's huge derelict ships on the desert planet, Jakku).

    ...Jakku is basically Boston. That'ss what Abrams is saying.

    The remaining ethnic population realise what a mistake it was to allow the white males to stop running things, so the non-white males, symoblised by a negro (Finn), a Latino (Poe) and a woman (Rey) go on a quest to bring back the white male saviour (symbolised by the blonde, blue-eyed gentile, Luke).

    See. Basically a white supremacist movie, three thumbs up!