← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Kevin_O'Keeffe
Thread ID: 14476 | Posts: 29 | Started: 2004-07-08
2004-07-08 11:16 | User Profile
I saw "King Arthur" on its opening night. It was pretty good. Its not a classic, mind you, but its worth seeing. Its definitely a White man's movie. The audience (which was surprisingly large for a 10:30 pm, Wednesday crowd) didn't seem to like it very much, which may well have been explained by the fact that this was San Jose (I doubt Whites made up even half of the audience - and that's with no Blacks!). It was also a bit long and sometimes a little slow. With that said, its one of those movies that belongs to our people, as opposed to their people, if you know what I mean ("Braveheart" being the more-or-less penultimate example of that sort of film). I have yet to see "Troy" (although I may well see that tomorrow), so I can't say which is better....
Welshman Clive Owen plays a suitably dignified and leader-like Artorious/"Arthur." Keira Knightley is gorgeous and and actually can act fairly well. The movie's action scenes can be difficult to follow, from a visual standpoint, but remain entertaining.
2004-07-08 15:33 | User Profile
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Mov...r.ap/index.html[/url]
The movie is filled with jews and breeds, and pushes the foolish, dangerous (to both sexes) notion of women warriors (note the 'armor' ââ¬â what warrior would dress themselves like that?! What protection could that possibly offer? Very, very little!). It may prove to be a box-office failure, but it surely distorts historyââ¬Â¦
2004-07-12 01:44 | User Profile
I don't have a problem with a White, female warrior -- if she is fighting to defend her kin, and her volk. I still plan on seeing this film -- even if it was directed by a Negro (who was most likely trained by a White man). It still seems to me to be a "White" movie, regardless of its creator's intentions.
and [url=http://www.keira-knightley.org/]Keira Knightley[/url] is indeed gorgeous.
[img]http://img30.exs.cx/img30/6898/a_2a.jpg[/img]
2004-07-12 06:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle][url="http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Mov...r.ap/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Mov...r.ap/index.html[/url]
The movie is filled with jews and breeds, and pushes the foolish, dangerous (to both sexes) notion of women warriors[/QUOTE] Ever heard of Boudicca, queen of the Iceni (a celtic tribe in Britannia), who led one of the most notable revolts against Roman occupation?
"King Arthur" may not have been historically accurate, but females warriors most certainly did exist.
2004-07-12 10:29 | User Profile
blah ... she's one of those "Christian Identity" freaks. She's probably waiting for the story of Esther :caiphas: . She doesn't give a :dung: about White history.
2004-07-12 20:46 | User Profile
This is basically a story about darked-haired Roman/'Briton' types killing--with the help of a Jewish looking girl--blond German men who believe in genocide. (They even got a German actor to play the son of the Saxon lord--that part was kind of cool.)
Historical and literary accuracy: close to none. The Saxon's cruelty has been greatly exaggerated, but this idea that they would not mate with foreign women is just more Jewish progaganda. (It was rape and pillage, not just burn, burn, burn.) Likewise, to suggest that Arthur and his knight were anything but Celts is questionable--and to have them be wanderers from Eastern Europe who fight genocidal Germans is just a ****ing joke.
Interestingly, this idea that (blond) Saxons wont mate outside of their own race is combined with a lot of jokes about the darker-haired Jewish--wait, I mean 'Saracan'--men having kids by the wives of their blonder compatriots.
I have a question: Does the Saxon king shout out 'Allah' right before he died? I know this is impossible, but who knows what the Jewish sound engineers will get up to.
2004-07-13 01:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Interestingly, this idea that (blond) Saxons wont mate outside of their own race is combined with a lot of jokes about the darker-haired Jewish--wait, I mean 'Saracan'--men having kids by the wives of their blonder compatriots.[/QUOTE] The knights were cast as Sarmatians, not Saracans or Jews. The Sarmatians were Indo-Iranian language speakers from the Black Sea region, who were believed to be descended from Scythians. They were Indo-Europeans, not Semites.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians[/url]
Yes, "King Arthur" is ahistorical, but the people on this board seem to be just as deeply entrenched in their own historical fantasy world as the movie they criticize.
2004-07-13 04:15 | User Profile
Women warrior stuff is stupid, especially with technology more primative than ray guns. (Okay, I loved Xena)
The best women athletes in the world can't match high school boys' records. The average middle-age male couch potato has more upper body strength than any women who isn't a professional weightlifter. And, back before modern times, there was hardly a such thing as women athletes because in the old days, women use to have children.
As with the modern custom, another white character has been colored in Cat Woman, Haley Berry. I haven't seen a movie but I hope they don't have her and her weeny arms lifting anything heavier than a house cat.
But, TV and movies is where Hollywood tries to convince us of things that aren't true. It's were whites write scripts for blacks and other than the stilted speech, intelligent things come from blacks almost the same as whites. Nearly every top bad guy guy is white, if he's black he's a genius. Homosexuals are more moral than heterosexuals. Sexually transmitted diseases don't exist. If a woman is a warrior, she can clobber just about any man, or any group of men.
2004-07-13 04:22 | User Profile
Look, bud, they were wanders from Eastern Europe who fought genocidal Germans. I never claimed they were literally cast as Semites (I will beg your nerdy forgiveness for thinking they were cast as 'Saracans,' not 'Sarmatians'--as if it matters in the slightest to the Jews involved in making the film).
If you can't figure out the symbolism involved, I suggest it is you who are lost in a fantasy world. But why don't you just slink back to your televitz? This 'literal' vs. 'symbolic' stuff is probably a little too hard for you.
PS
[QUOTE=angloiberian]The knights were cast as Sarmatians, not Saracans or Jews. The Sarmatians were Indo-Iranian language speakers from the Black Sea region, who were believed to be descended from Scythians. They were Indo-Europeans, not Semites.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians[/url]
Yes, "King Arthur" is ahistorical, but the people on this board seem to be just as deeply entrenched in their own historical fantasy world as the movie they criticize.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-13 05:08 | User Profile
Is this supposed to be a clever retort? lol
[QUOTE=darkstar]Look, bud, they were wanders from Eastern Europe who fought genocidal Germans. I never claimed they were literally cast as Semites (I will beg your nerdy forgiveness for thinking they were cast as 'Saracans,' not 'Sarmatians'--as if it matters in the slightest to the Jews involved in making the film). [/QUOTE] It's not a nitpick, considering that Saracens were Muslims and Semitic speakers. Big difference.
[QUOTE]If you can't figure out the symbolism involved, I suggest it is you who are lost in a fantasy world. But why don't you just slink back to your televitz? This 'literal' vs. 'symbolic' stuff is probably a little too hard for you. [/QUOTE] Give it up. You were making an insinuation that "the Jews making the film" were casting Semites as more noble than Germans, because it somehow advances their interests as Jews. I shot down your argument, and now you're throwing a fit. Yeah, the Germanic Saxons were portrayed as ridiculously evil, just as the Celtic Picts were portrayed as more noble than they probably really were. Stupid Hollywood shenanigans, sure. A Jewish plot to advance Jewish interests? Pretty doubtful.
2004-07-13 05:12 | User Profile
Actually, it mostly meant to be restatment of facts that certain overly dense nerds and philosemites want to consign to the world of 'oh, it's only [I]fiction[/I]... No use worrying about, you know, the imaginative world of millions of Americans and Europeans being colonized by Holocaust-traumatized homosexuals and leftists--or anything like that.'
To repeat the main points (corrected with the help of my 'Anglo-iberian' friend):
'King Arthur' (the movie) is basically a story about darked-haired Roman/'Briton' types killing--with the help of a Jewish looking girl--blond German men who believe in genocide. (They even got a German actor to play the son of the Saxon lord--that part was kind of cool.)
Historical and literary accuracy: close to none. The Saxon's cruelty has been greatly exaggerated, but this idea that they would not mate with foreign women is just more Jewish progaganda. (It was rape and pillage, not just burn, burn, burn.) Likewise, to suggest that Arthur and his knight were anything but Celts is questionable--and to have them be wanderers from Eastern Europe who fight genocidal Germans is just a ****ing joke.
Interestingly, this idea that (blond) Saxons wont mate outside of their own race is combined with a lot of jokes about the darker-haired Jewish--wait, I mean 'Sarmatian'--men having kids by the wives of their blonder compatriots.
I have a question: Does the Saxon king shout out 'Allah' right before he died? I know this is impossible, but who knows what the Jewish sound engineers will get up to.
PS 'Lol,' nerd. Also: ISHHIJH (very loud).
[QUOTE=angloiberian]Is this supposed to be a clever retort? lol[/QUOTE]
2004-07-13 05:23 | User Profile
Crackpot nonsense. You are seriously reaching with this theory.
[QUOTE=darkstar]Actually, it mostly meant to be restatment of facts that certain overly dense nerds and philosemites want to consign to the world of 'oh, it's only fiction... No use worrying about, you know, the imaginative world of millions of Americans and Europeans being colonized by Holocaust-traumatized homosexuals and leftists--or anything like that.'
To repeat the main points (corrected with the help of my 'Anglo-iberian' friend):
'King Arthur' (the movie) is basically a story about darked-haired Roman/'Briton' types killing--with the help of a Jewish looking girl--blond German men who believe in genocide. (They even got a German actor to play the son of the Saxon lord--that part was kind of cool.)
Historical and literary accuracy: close to none. The Saxon's cruelty has been greatly exaggerated, but this idea that they would not mate with foreign women is just more Jewish progaganda. (It was rape and pillage, not just burn, burn, burn.) Likewise, to suggest that Arthur and his knight were anything but Celts is questionable--and to have them be wanderers from Eastern Europe who fight genocidal Germans is just a ****ing joke.
Interestingly, this idea that (blond) Saxons wont mate outside of their own race is combined with a lot of jokes about the darker-haired Jewish--wait, I mean 'Sarmatian'--men having kids by the wives of their blonder compatriots.
I have a question: Does the Saxon king shout out 'Allah' right before he died? I know this is impossible, but who knows what the Jewish sound engineers will get up to.
PS 'Lol,' nerd. Also: ISHHIJH (very loud).[/QUOTE]
2004-07-13 05:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE]and Keira Knightley is indeed gorgeous.[/QUOTE]
Definitely high babe factor there.
Walter
2004-07-13 05:43 | User Profile
Well, if some guy with the screenname 'Anglo-iberian' thinks so, I guess I'll just have to accept that as true....
Could you please stop spamming threads I post on, AI? I am sure there are some nice philosemitic sites where you can play--and don't worry, Hollywood wont hurt you.
It's all just pretty lights, and means exactly what the Jew tells you it does.
2004-07-14 17:18 | User Profile
I saw the movie myself and greatly enjoyed it. I would pay to see it again with no problem. And as far as jews and half-breeds, I never saw any! Clive Owen is welsh and Keira Knightley is English-Scottish.
2004-07-14 19:58 | User Profile
Has anyone here ever visited Mr. Cranky's movie reviews? Sometimes he's a little too crude, but he's fun to read if you can't stand the obnoxious hype hollywood spews out. Hollywood plots are so predictable nowdays, sometimes reading a Mr. cranky review is more entertaining than actually having to sit through the movie. His review of this one was worth reading:
[url]http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/kingarthur.html[/url]
I loved the line, "Fortunately for Arthur, the Saxons beat on a drum wherever they go, which I can say with great historical accuracy has proven to be a poor strategy for planning military attacks."
Actually given that the Anglo-saxons mainly moved into areas that had already been subjugated by the Romans, they could be seen less as a conquering army and more as an influx of illegal immigrants. Now that would be an interesting historical twist.
:D
2004-07-14 20:22 | User Profile
No kidding.
I am glad you enjoyed the movie. It was an enjoyable movie. However, there was still a theme in concerning, at the least, the horrible nature of the Germans. And, undeniably, the Knights (opponents of the Germans) are portrayed as wanderers from Eastern Europe (I am hoping people realize that this has some connection to Jews).
When you put these historical inaccuracies and literary 'fudges' together--well, then, Houston, we have a problem.
To believe that they are just accidental 'mistakes' and 'revisions'--yeah, sure, and Saddam had a chest full of nukes, right?
[QUOTE=shamrock44]I saw the movie myself and greatly enjoyed it. I would pay to see it again with no problem. And as far as jews and half-breeds, I never saw any! Clive Owen is welsh and Keira Knightley is English-Scottish.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-14 20:34 | User Profile
Thanks for the Mr. Cranky link--I'd note he mentions Jerry Bruckheimer's role as producer.
I think the Saxons might very well have beaten their war drums when attacking--to scare their opponents. In any case, I don't really care about historical inaccuracy. I care about about selectively bringing elements together in order to:
1) imply that those of Germanic origin are dumb & genocidal (and un-willing to spread their genes).
2) cast 'Jew stand-ins' as our heroes and saviours.
(I also somtimes like to call the stand-ins 'the Shabbos Goyim,'--Vince Vaughn being a great example here.)
2004-07-15 07:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]'King Arthur' (the movie) is basically a story about darked-haired Roman/'Briton' types killing--with the help of a Jewish looking girl[/QUOTE]
While you may think Keira Knightley is Jewish-looking, that's hardly an objective fact. Are all attractive brunettes "Jewish-looking?" The Arthur chartacter was indisputably a Roman citizen (albeit of mixed Roman/Celtic ancestry), who just happened to be posted in Britain; his Latinate features make sense, considering his father's Latinate origins. The movie is good, not great, in my opinion. To suggest its somehow an evil Jewish film strikes me as lame. I doubt anyone making that claim has actually seen it....
2004-07-15 07:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]undeniably, the Knights (opponents of the Germans) are portrayed as wanderers from Eastern Europe (I am hoping people realize that this has some connection to Jews).[/QUOTE]
Other than for members of the ADL and posters on this board, there are virtually no people in America who would ever associate the term "wanderers from Eastern Europe" with the Jews; the educational background just isn't there. And besides, they weren't wanderers at all; they'd been assigned a 15-year term of service at a posting along Hadrian's Wall. They did not engage in any wandering.
2004-07-15 17:55 | User Profile
i agree it's not an objective fact, it's just window dressing for my case
as i say, i found the movie enjoyable as well. i would have found it more enjoyable if it had portrayed the saxon's differently--but i am sensing that an 'o'keeffe' might not be too sympathetic to the Anglo-Saxon cause
some sundry points: i think knightley looked rather doggish in this movie, but in any case there is more to looking jewish than being a brunette. the eyes, facial features, etc., come into it. knightly (in the film) could be jewish, she could be a arabic, scott, irish, welsh, whatever. what i am thinking of is she was a dark girl rescued by the americans from a concentration camp... oops, i mean she was a dark girl rescued from an iraqi prison (american prison in iraq?)... wait, i mean a celtic sacrifice camp.... no a christian torture camp run by a blond man.
arthur was represented as a briton/sarmatian who was a citizen of the roman empire. ???? he would (on this assumption) thus have no roman blood. in any case, he looked fine.
of course, the fact that he had dark hair (like most of the jewish producers' family members) while his side-kicks and enemies were blond is only significant when placed in the context of the thousands of other movies from the last two decades where the same thing occurs.
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]While you may think Keira Knightley is Jewish-looking, that's hardly an objective fact. Are all attractive brunettes "Jewish-looking?" The Arthur chartacter was indisputably a Roman citizen (albeit of mixed Roman/Celtic ancestry), who just happened to be posted in Britain; his Latinate features make sense, considering his father's Latinate origins. The movie is good, not great, in my opinion. To suggest its somehow an evil Jewish film strikes me as lame. I doubt anyone making that claim has actually seen it....[/QUOTE]
2004-07-15 17:56 | User Profile
whatever. all educated people know the origins of the various jewish groups. and the knights were 'wanderers' in precisely the same sense that jews are/were.
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Other than for members of the ADL and posters on this board, there are virtually no people in America who would ever associate the term "wanderers from Eastern Europe" with the Jews; the educational background just isn't there. And besides, they weren't wanderers at all; they'd been assigned a 15-year term of service at a posting along Hadrian's Wall. They did not engage in any wandering.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-16 07:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]arthur was represented as a briton/sarmatian who was a citizen of the roman empire. ????[/QUOTE]
No, he wasn't. The men under his command were Sarmatians, not Arthur/Artorious himself. His father was a Roman from Italia and his mother was a Celt from Briton. He'd been born in Briton and raised in Roma.
2005-01-06 21:36 | User Profile
I missed "King Arthur" in the theaters but just rented the DVD the other night and I thought this movie was EXCELLENT. Superb acting, especially Clive Owen and Stellan Skarsgaard, among others. Amazing period costumes and sets. I thought it was filmed beautifully and although some folks here had problems with the storyline or "jewish-looking" actors, I found the myth of King Arthur presented in the film to be a very realistic interpretation. Of course there's modern enhancement and/or anachronisms but I really didn't think it took anything away from enjoying this film. Not a perfect film but quite entertaining.
2005-01-06 22:16 | User Profile
"of course, the fact that he had dark hair (like most of the jewish producers' family members) while his side-kicks and enemies were blond is only significant when placed in the context of the thousands of other movies from the last two decades where the same thing occurs."
What? I am Celtic and my ancestors short of a stray German and a Frenchie about 150 years ago and an occasional Saxon (reds and blondes) are Irish (Comer), Scottish (Wallace), and Welsh (Jones). My hair is dark brownish red, and my eyes are brown with flecks of green an gold.
Caeser , if memory serves, in his notes on the Gauls (Celts every one of them) noted that their hair ranged from light to dark.
What is this Jewish dark hair garbage? Not all historic Europeans, much less Celts are blondes.
2005-01-06 22:48 | User Profile
I saw this movie again just the other night, and was horribly disappointed…it seems it gets worse with viewing…
From the blatant misrepresentations of European people, customs and weapons to the cheesy dialogue sequences to the poorly directed and unrealistic battle scenes, this movie was a disaster.
The dark, non-Celtic, half-clad Woads were a sad misrepresentation…their so-called battle wear looked like a bad combination of undergarments, swimwear and American Indian clothing (Gueneviere’s was especially lovely, but all were noteworthy – can you imagine going to battle clad like any of those clowns? What protection would such garb offer, when whole portions of your body [including much or all of your stomach and chest] are completely bare?)
Several of the Sarmations were dressed like Mongols (Tristan most notably).
The Saxons, often blonde and light-eyed, were cruel, senseless killers; they wouldn’t ‘mix their blood’ with ‘weak people’. This was a furthering of the jewish myth that valuing any purity in blood is evil (after all, look at the utter freaks that valued purity…they were loony toony killers with no thought for anyone…they even killed their own number, without cause, when the spirit moved them).
The heroes of the movie were almost all dark-haired and jewish…in contrast, the brutal killers, the most evil men of the entire movie, had lots of people with light hair in their numbers, including the two main leaders.
The jew’s beloved anti-Christian propaganda was littered throughout this mockery of a film like debris in a trash heap.
The battle scenes were often lacking in realism…for example, you see a line of archers shoot, and then many, many more arrows than there were archers raining from the sky…or how about the final battle scene…just how exactly did those gates close when the Saxons entered, when there was no one about to close them?! Magic, compliments of the American-Indian/Celts, perhaps?
I suppose it wouldn’t be difficult to find this movie entertaining, but I cringe at the thought of people actually accepting this film as history…in reality, it is nothing but a jewish re-write of European history and a gross misrepresentation of white peoples, cultures and legacies.
2005-01-06 22:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]blah ... she's one of those "Christian Identity" freaks. She's probably waiting for the story of Esther :caiphas: . She doesn't give a :dung: about White history.[/QUOTE]
A fool speaks...
2005-01-07 00:08 | User Profile
Gabrielle,
Great post. I have not seen it, but it did not sound like a good film to start with. They never waste a chamce to push Bolshevism do they...
[QUOTE]The Saxons, often blonde and light-eyed, were cruel, senseless killers; they wouldnââ¬â¢t ââ¬Ëmix their bloodââ¬â¢ with ââ¬Ëweak peopleââ¬â¢. This was a furthering of the jewish myth that valuing any purity in blood is evil (after all, look at the utter freaks that valued purityââ¬Â¦they were loony toony killers with no thought for anyoneââ¬Â¦they even killed their own number, without cause, when the spirit moved them).
...
I suppose it wouldnââ¬â¢t be difficult to find this movie entertaining, but I cringe at the thought of people actually accepting this film as historyââ¬Â¦in reality, it is nothing but a jewish re-write of European history and a gross misrepresentation of white peoples, cultures and legacies.[/QUOTE]
2005-01-07 15:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Gabrielle,
Great post. I have not seen it, but it did not sound like a good film to start with. They never waste a chamce to push Bolshevism do they...[/QUOTE]
The film also really had it in for orthodox Christianity. The protaganist Scythian Arthur was a convinced follower of the heretic Pelagius, whose religious teachings were presented as liberating and progressive whereas orthodox Christianity (in the person of a German bishop) was presented as repressive and backward.
Who wrote that thing, anyway? What's the scoop on that? Whoever dreamt that up hates Christian orthodoxy.