Brave Heart

A White Nationalist Classic.

Braveheart, is THE white nationalist masterwork.

It's message is remarkably explicit.

Braveheart the movie, and indeed, the life of the historical Sir William Wallace, dramatizes the very central dilemma of Western Civilization.

But before you can really understand Braveheart, you must understand The Seven Samurai, that giant of Eastern Nationalism.

There is a reason why I reviewed it first, before reviewing Braveheart.

Recall that The Seven Samurai is written from the perspective of the aristocracy, the Samurai. The message of that movie is that the Japanese elite exists to sacrifice themselves for their people. And the movie itself powerfully reinforces that sense of duty and sacrifice among that Japanese elite. It is the Japanese peasants that are inconstant and untrustworthy - at times disloyal and self interested. But in times of danger and external threat, the Japanese elite will always rally to defend them.

It is a picture of a nearly perfect nationalism.

In sharp contrast, Braveheart shows us a peasant revolt. A revolt of a nationalist White underclass. The main message of Braveheart is that the Western elites had entered the age of decadence at least 700 years ago. Even in nationalistic and intensely tribal places like Scotland, these elites have been divorced from us for a very long time. They do not represent us, and perhaps, never will. This message of Braveheart is something we must contend with and plan for.

So let's examine the nationalism of this movie. It consists of five distinct phases.

The first phase is the education of youth. As a young boy, Wallace sees a dozen rebellious Scottish nobles lured to a parley only to be hung by the English king. Wallace's father and older brother head off to battle and return dead, as young Wallace is handed over to his uncle who sees to his education.

As far as we know historically, Sir William Wallace (1270-1305) was the second son of Sir Malcolm Wallace. The title "Sir" meant that Sir William and his father owned some land, a few horses and some weapons. They were also under military obligation to some Barron or Earl. But the economic portrayal in the movie is accurate. No fancy art collections, furniture, china or other extravagant displays of surplus would exist in the homes of Scottish nobles, much less in the homes of working knights of the common "Sir" variety.

The significance of this phase of the movie is to introduce the audience to the fine art of racial and ethnic decapitation. Kill off the independent minded leaders and more compliant and treacherous ones will fill the void. Note well that this actual historical practice long preceded the Marxist ideological justification for it and its exponential expansion under Bolshevism.

The second phase of the movie finds an adult Wallace, the courting male, returning from his foreign education, and displaying all the right symbols of evolutionary fitness for marriage and child rearing. He is, according to the movie, a man of peace, wishing only to be a farmer and to raise a family. Those of you in the movement should mark well his displays of self-discipline and intellectual accomplishment in courting his intended. He does not rise to provocation. He displays all of those qualities that indicate his ability to support and nurture her children over the long haul. He certainly does not daydream out loud about Scottish nationalism nor wars of independence and secession.

It is only when the woman he secretly marries is assaulted by English soldiers, that his violence begins, and only after the English magistrate kills her that his massive rebellion begins.

Thus, in the movie, the cassus belli is the defense of Scottish women. And indeed, it is hard to conceive of an individual motivation more powerful, or closer to the hearts of modern nationalists.

It is here in phase two that we get our first deviation from the historical William Wallace and our first evidence of explicitly nationalist choices in the construction of the story line. The historical Sir William Wallace certainly did rise to provocation, as he killed a young Englishman named Shelby in a one-on-one fight which would have been classified as a hate-crime had King Edward been burdened by the need to wend his way past the halachic complexities imposed on a criminal justice system bent on coddling criminals but punishing severely any assault against preferred groups of victims. The historical Sir William was outlawed, and had no choice but to head for the hills and rally his countrymen to attack the agents of the King who were hunting him down.

But the Producer, director and star chose a modification of history which he must have known would have a much greater emotional impact on the typical modern male moviegoer. Upon seeing phase two of this movie, every male descendent of European Christendom would immediately understand its modern relevance.

For the dimmer lights among us, who might not be entirely clear by this point how profoundly disagreeable this movie is to the sensibilities of the inner-party, Mel Gibson threw in a gratuitous but very nice touch in the form of an explicitly homosexual English Prince of Wales, who, along with his pretty-boy friends, is portrayed in a most unflattering and negative light. It is unclear whether this subplot is there for our edification and amusement or whether it was included for the additional purpose of jabbing the proverbial finger in the eye of the Hollywood culture destruction machine.

Once the love of William Wallace's life is dead, and the violence begins, phase III of the movie, that of rebellion, warfare and betrayal follows.

Throughout the movie, King Edward is constantly bribing the Scottish nobles with more lands and more titles if they will deny Wallace and his infantry the armored cavalry and other support they need to win battles. The Scottish nobles see the issue as purely one dimensional - what is in their interests. Never once do they recognize that the only reason the English king is willing to give them lands is that their peasants are rebellious and tribally minded. Giving the nobles additional lands is far cheaper than fighting the Scots as a unified people.

The nobles never ask themselves what would happen to them if their own people were suddenly de-nationalized and rendered meek and obedient. Would not the English King strip them of their lands just as quickly as he granted them? Indeed, they acquired the lands only because of the threat of nationalist rebellion. Once that nationalism is extinguished, how secure are those lands? How could they possibly keep those lands except by keeping that nationalism alive?

Indeed, the nobles see none of it.

And in this respect the dilemma faced by William Wallace is unchanged to this day. We have an inner party composed primarily of aliens who have taken over all positions of power in the electronic media, the universities and the government in the U.S. They have mounted a massive cultural attack on the descendants of European Christendom throughout the Western world through their electronic media with the objective of de-racinating and de-nationalizing them. At the same time, they have enacted a series of anti-discrimination laws, sexual harassment laws and other schemes that are clearly intended, and have the actual effect of displacing the outer party elites.

And the ultimate tragedy for our Western elites is that they are incapable of understanding that their own collective survival depends on ours. Without us they will be displaced and quickly perish in this Darwinian world of racial and ethnic competition. Neither prosperity nor intelligence guarantee victory, and a disembodied elite, with no base of racial support simply cannot compete.

Yet our outer party elites prattle on about individual merit, racial integration and globalism, all wonderful sounding universalisms, while remaining utterly oblivious to the particularist fate that awaits them once the inner party becomes secure that we have been stripped of our racial awareness and are no longer capable of mounting a meaningful "peasant revolt".

Like the Scottish nobles who attributed their own good fortune at the hands of the English king to the importance of their own individual positions, our Western outer-party businessmen attribute their own position to their own individual talents. It has never occurred to them to ask how long the inner party elite, or their black and brown coalition partners will allow them to retain those positions once their fear of us is gone.

Now it may have been somewhat reasonable for Scottish nobles in 1295 to reason that Scottish nationalism was a permanent condition and would never disappear. And indeed, the English King had no effective means at his disposal to displace those feelings of nationalism. But how can an outer party CEO of a fortune 500 company in the year 2000 possibly ignore the vast juggernaut of inner party propaganda directed at his fellow Euro-Americans as vast governmental and foundation resources are used to stir up tribalism and racial feeling among the inner party's black and brown coalition partners.

Only an outer party elite could stubbornly refuse to follow the massive flows of money and resources and find the truth. The racial and ethnic groups committing these vast resources do so with the idea that this massive investment will produce results. It is the height of arrogance and complacency for the outer-party elites to think that it will not lead precisely in the direction it is headed, to the utter displacement of them and their children.

How can a Euro-American CEO of a fortune 500 company possibly believe he will be allowed to prosper and keep his fortune once immigration makes his racial group a political minority and once the propaganda juggernaut has demoralized and destroyed the only threat which enforces restraint upon the racial coalition seeking to displace him?

In this third phase of the movie we are introduced not only to the central dilemma of the West, its corrupted elites blinded by individualism, but to a potential, if temporary, solution as well.

In Sir William Wallace, we have the charismatic leader who rallies the peasants and overcomes the reluctance and self interest of the corrupted elites. In this respect Sir William Wallace is perhaps first in a long line of nationalist leaders, including Cromwell, Napoleon, Forrest, Paul Kruger, and Hitler, all of whom conform to the same broad pattern. First, they have enormous charismatic appeal. They have the ability to fire the imaginations of their fellow nationals. Second, for the most part, they come from the middle of the social spectrum and the top of the ability spectrum. Finally, because their movement is premised upon leadership, the movement is inevitably temporary. It does not survive the death of the leader.

And it is here that an appreciation of The Seven Samurai is important. Contrast the leadership of Wallace to the leadership of the sensei, part of a permanent caste with a permanent code of responsibility and self sacrifice. The sensei is not charismatic. He merely reinforces consensus norms with discipline and self sacrifice. It is a different vision of leadership with more lasting, cross generational results.

What we must do is build a leadership that persists over generations and is capable of recognizing what needs to be done depending on the demands of existing circumstances.

It is only at very rare times in history when outbursts of violence from charismatic leaders will be met with success. More typically, they are crushed under the tank treads of universalism, and become, like the nobles in the opening scene of Braveheart, object lessons to others in the rewards of meekness and obedience.

Sir William Wallace was partially successful only because Edward was tied up in wars in France. In the modern world, our own William Wallaces must become persistent evangelists for the cause, and await a time when the inner party beast is otherwise occupied before we can assert our own sovereignty. And even then, an infrastructure must be in place that ensures our control over our own destiny has become organic and second nature to our people - from top to bottom - and thus can be perpetuated beyond the life of the leader.

Our first priority is to equip ourselves, as a people, with the ability to encode the urgency of our own survival, and create permanent private associations which work tirelessly toward that survival in ways that will be apparent to us, and yet apparent only to a small minority of our enemies. We must avoid the mistakes of the U.S. Civil War and the Boer War, mistakes that were repeated in the 1930's by those who, by that time, should have known better.

I should note one particularly jarring scene in Braveheart.

In the middle of one battle, King Edward has Irish infantry charging at Wallace's Scottish forces. As they meet in the center of the field of battle, the Irish and Scots embrace each other, and the Irish turn around to face the English instead.

Historically, of course, the scene is utter fantasy. It never happened. And indeed the scene is only plausible to a movie audience living in the final quarter of the 20th century. Plausible because of what we Euro-Americans have learned about racial and ethnic politics, and of course, fervently to be wished by all white nationalists, who are only too painfully aware that all of the descendants of European Christendom must hang together or we shall surely hang separately.

This rather discordant scene amplifies the message of Braveheart to a level of significance far beyond the typical Eastwood shoot-em-up, for example, in which the symbol of European strength and resistance exists only as the lone individual adrift in a polyglot world, destined for absorption or displacement even as the lonely, unhappy, hero resists that absorption and displacement through a dazzling display of individual aggression. The last Mohican, if you will.

This fictional Irish mutiny elevates Braveheart to a plane high above any strict historical narrative of the particular national expression of William Wallace back in 1296, and makes it a unique expression of modern white nationalism. This scene recognizes that the universalizing empire of Britain (and its huge, mongrelizing Twentieth Century heir) is the enemy of every European people (including the English themselves, ultimately) and that only by joining forces can that universalizing empire (with its new inner party elite and their black and brown imports) be overthrown.

But as we all know, the retribalization of us Euros on purely racial lines is not anywhere near as smooth nor as easy as it appears in this fantasy battle scene in Braveheart. All of which begs the question how this scene made it into the movie in the first place.

It is possible that the scene could be viewed as a marketing ploy, to make the movie appeal to a wider audience based on historical ethnic identity. But then the scene must still be believable within the context of the movie itself to that ethnically aware audience to be effective, and it is hard to understand how a modern producer could take that risk without grasping the white nationalist core of what he is putting on film. How could he include it without faith that such a core would resonate among most viewers?

Finally, you often hear Wallace in the movie speak of fighting for "freedom." He uses that word frequently in his exhortations to the troops. Curiously, no one else in the movie ever mentions the word. And indeed, as you think about this "freedom" it is entirely unclear exactly what he means. His contemporaries all live on isolated farms and they are free to do whatever they please. They can drink, party, run around naked, and there are no English around to interfere with such individual activities. Indeed, it would seem that the only time "freedom," as moderns understand it, could be impinged would be those brief and infrequent times when some soldier with an alien crest on his uniform shows up and draws his sword, depriving the victim of property or life - much more immediate injuries than the mere control of behavior implied in the modern notion of individual "freedom."

Indeed, Gibson's Braveheart uses the word "freedom" as modern code for something else. As I pointed out in the Introduction to Sir Arthur Keith, the word "freedom" has come to have two meanings. Primarily, the word "freedom" has evolved in our modern world to mean what the inner party wishes it to mean, namely the ability to indulge in individual vices such as adultery, abortion, drug use and homosexual sodomy without interference by the government or one's religious neighbors. Secondarily, it might also mean the ability to move to and work where you please, all individual freedoms.

But it becomes obvious as you hear the movie version of William Wallace utter this word, that he intends nothing of the modern kind. Back in the 13th Century, the word "freedom" probably meant not being under an obligation of servitude nor payment to some overlord. And yet Wallace clearly is not talking about abolishing obligations of servitude or payment to Scottish nobles or a Scottish king.

Rather, it becomes clear that Wallace is using the term "freedom" in exactly the same way that a modern member of a dissident militia group uses the term. It is a code word meaning independence of the group and control over its evolutionary destiny. In the context, that is the only meaning the word can possibly have.

The fourth phase of the movie portrays his life following his defeat at Falkirk, his continuing guerrilla warfare against the English in the hills, a fictional dalliance with the queer prince's queen (played by the exquisite Sophie Marceau) sent to negotiate with Wallace, and his final betrayal and execution.

The fifth and final phase of the movie is very short, and you have to watch the scene very carefully to catch its significance.

Following Wallace's execution, we see a fictional dramatization of the prelude to the battle of Bannockburn in 1314, a scene in which Robert the Bruce, then King of Scotland, is expected to pledge fealty to the English crown before an English army and is waffling as ever over what to do. Finally he makes up his mind and decides to fight, shouting to his assembled troops " you bled with Wallace, now bleed with me!"

It is a remarkable scene fraught with ambiguity and indecision. Note that Robert the Bruce does not say, "fight for freedom" nor "fight for Scotland", nor "fight for the freedom of Scotland". Rather, he asks the assembled Scots to fight for him and his crown, implying that the nation and his crown are one and the same thing. Thus, the independence to be won at Bannockburn is conditioned on the individual interest of this particular nobleman. The Scots fight and win, but Scotland and its people are not yet in the equation. Once again, we see a uniquely modern nationalist perspective.

Fascinating.

The historical Robert the Bruce began his military campaign almost immediately upon the death of Wallace in 1305, betraying King Edward in 1306 and then undertaking a long struggle similar to Wallace's before subduing the Scottish Earls and being recognized as king by the Pope in 1309. He then gradually drove the forces of the incompetent (but not homosexual, as far as we know) Edward II out of Scotland, culminating in the historical battle of Bannockburn, in which the English army surely understood well in advance exactly what they were to face.

In conclusion, I must confess that reviewing this movie is difficult. It is difficult because it hits way too close to home. Rather than a dry history of Scotland 700 years ago, it seems to deal with very real issues of today with the historical backdrop a mere symbolic representation of today's reality.

It is also difficult because it is hard to believe that such a movie could ever be produced and displayed in public in modern America.

What you see on the screen is so completely unexpected that you recoil - at the theater you look around at the rest of the audience nervously to see if anyone else is watching you to see if you "get it."

You are not a fraction of the way through this two reeler of an epic and you are wondering how on earth such a politically incorrect movie could ever have been financed by Hollywood.

Of course, the short answer is that Hollywood had absolutely nothing to do with this film.

It was bankrolled by its Star and director, Mel Gibson, with an assist from Alan Ladd, Jr. and one Bruce Davey. Other than the film editor, not an inner party member anywhere around this film. Gibson was born in upstate New York and raised in Australia. So while it is obvious that Gibson feels an emotional connection to the story of Sir. William Wallace, such empathy for the original is quite obviously driven by experiences seven centuries removed and half way around the World from the original. Perhaps it is a connection born of these experiences shared by us in the audience that makes this such a powerful movie.

The very existence of this movie begs all sorts of profound questions. I was reminded of the major philosophical question explored by the Victorian Poets, whether an artistic representation is conscious craft or unconscious inspiration. When one hears Gibson speak on the television talk shows there is no hint that he could be so crafty and devious as to create an explicit white nationalist masterpiece and slip it past the social censor so effortlessly. Could the message to us be an accident? Is history inherently and inevitably nationalist when presented straight up, with only the distorting lens of the inner party to conceal its meaning?

And as I debate with myself whether those explicit WN scenes are the accidental product of the Muse, or whether they are included as a result of conscious craft, I must lean in the direction of conscious craft. There are simply too many wonderfully instructive WN inclusions for all of them to have been an accident.

(If you have any doubts, by all means go see "The Patriot" just released. The critics uniformly hate it, and for good reason. It shows the classic Western peasant's revolt in full bloom, with only one token bow to the demands of multi-culturalism, offset by the deft touch of casting Jason Isaacs, a visible member of the inner party, as the murderous British Col. Tavington, the very poster boy of a Bolshevik church-burning terrorist in action. It is a blatant pro-militia movie, one which the critics would just as soon you not see.)

But the real wonder is the fact that Braveheart was released to critical acclaim, rather than massive protest. Indeed, there is a powerful message in its generally positive critical reception.

The average culture critic in American has no idea what white nationalism is, and absolutely no capacity to recognize it when he sees it.

For us that is wildly optimistic news, for it intimates that our movement can, if we are smart, propagate itself without much resistance.

In truth, the movie is a masterpiece of modern coding.

It is a magnificent flower poking its head up through the layers of concrete in which our dying civilization has been encased by the inner party and its culture of critique.

And finally, the movie is difficult to review because it leaves you with a rather pessimistic sense of realism. Western nationalism is dramatically different from Japanese nationalism. Theirs comes from the top down, with the aristocratic samurai sacrificing themselves for the benefit of their nation. In the West, nationalism simmers up from the bottom, from the ordinary folk in the form of peasant revolts, for which we always pay a terrible price - harassed and betrayed at every turn by a Western elite that sees themselves as a race of nationless global supermen rather than the flabby and defenseless daydreamers they really are. It is, of course, a fatal illusion. The real world around them is filled with hostile races seeking to displace and enslave them and their children, even as they idealize a world full of win-win transactions and peace through World commerce and global mobility of capital.

The Movie Braveheart leaves you with a distinct sense that our struggle has been ongoing for over 700 years now, and that it will continue on for quite some time to come.

There is no letup and no relief in sight.

And depending upon your disposition that is either good news or bad.

It is our very own reality.


conscious evolution

Articles  News  Science  Philosophy  Politics  Eugenics  Heaven  Links  Prometheism  Transtopia  Neoeugenics  News Blog 

>> Site Map <<



Eugenics Papers | Martinez Perspective | Transtopia Site (New) | Prometheism | Euvolution | Pierre Teilhard De Chardin