The 2006 film entitled 300 was the brainchild of graphic novelist Frank Miller and director, Zackary “Zack” Snyder. The story charts the military exploits of a small Spartan army (the eponymous 300) during the campaign against Persian invasion, circa 480 BC.
The film is suitably emotive and clearly provides an allusion to invasive Muslim incursions into Europe during the the past few decades, which, in itself, is not unwelcome. However, and being Hollywood, there appears to be a thinly obscured and invidious message simmering just below the surface.
Apart from the enemy hordes, the principle antagonist is Xerxes I who, we are frequently enlightened, believes himself to be a god. During one exchange (of a number) between the aforementioned “god king” and Leonidas (the Spartan’s king), for example, Xerxes announces: “But I am a generous god. I can make you rich beyond all measure. I will make you warlord of all Greece. You will carry my battle standard to the heart of Europa. Your Athenian rivals will kneel at your feet if you will but kneel at mine.”
History records that Xerxes did in fact forcibly enter Athens and triumphantly despoiled the admirable Acropolis. We know this from an inscription left by Xerxes himself: “There was a place in which devils were formerly worshipped. There, by the help of Ahura Mazda, I demolished that lair of devils and I issued an edict, ‘You shall not worship devils.’ And in the very place in which devils had once been worshipped, I piously and with Righteousness worshipped Ahura Mazda.”
Those not familiar with Ahura Mazda may be interested to note that the dominant religion of Persia at the time of Xerxes I was Zoroastrianism, a ditheistic theology from which Christianity is a derivative. Zoroastrianism permits only the worship of one god (Ahura Mazda), much like the Christian God, while his antithesis, Angra Mainyu, is shunned and reviled, much like Satan. It would be blasphemous, therefore, for Xerxes to consider himself a god and, being an extremely devout individual (again, we know this because his conquests where in fact “Wars of Religion” – Zoroastrianism being an intolerant “jihadist” faith) would not have ventured to insult his celestial god in this manner.
Another noteworthy historical anomaly presented in 300 is the racial characteristic of Xerxes himself. Clearly this big-screen Xerxes is of mixed racial ancestry while his chronicled counterpart was an Aryan, as were the majority of Persian aristocrats of the era, and continued to be so until the Moslem (Arab) invasion of Persia (Iran) in the seventh century AD. Xerxes I was son of Darius and a descendent of Cyrus the Great, who overthrow the Median confederation and dutifully described his people as the Parsa, after their original Aryan tribal name Parsua.
Thermopylae was then, in fact, a war between Aryan people; on the one side the Hellenic Greeks resisting brutal occupation, and on the other, the Persians attempting to inflict their “one true religion” upon the world. It was not, as the film proposes, an hubristic personal conquest, nor was it instigated by non-Aryans. The reason these points are important are twofold:
1) The “quiet” European Muslim invasion of the present era has, quite patently, a crucial racial motif. This dovetails neatly with the ethnological falsehood perpetrated in 300, allowing the addled viewer to make the necessary cognitive connections.
2) The Jihad is not, as most modern dictionaries will inform the reader, unique to Muslims. Religious wars have dogged humanity for millennia – though we should really only be concerned with Aryan history – and since the birth of the sanctimonious “one true faith” evinced by Zoroaster several centuries before the conception of Christianity.
What Hollywood, which is controlled by Jews, has attempted is a unctuous piece of propaganda. And, by tinkering with antiquity, it has successfully stirred the waters in our time. That is not to say that the Islamic/Arab foray into the Occident is acceptable, because it is not, but what is really developing is the inscrutable efforts of Jewish supremacists to decouple the advance of Muslim supremacists; the Jews (primarily composed of non-Semitic Khazars) want this “racket” for themselves and they are shrewd enough to enlist the services of the Goyim in order to aid them as collateral fodder, just as they succeeded in doing during the second fratricidal European war; in Iraq, Afghanistan, et al.
This flexing of reality works equally as well in the modern political arena. Patriotic White people are granted just enough “nationalism,” be that flag-waving, rousing anthems, or otiose statements relating to the “safeguarding our cultural heritage” or “getting us out of Europe,” to induce them to support nominally nationalistic democratic groups. The fact that organisations such France’s Front National, the Dutch Party for Freedom, and Britain’s own United Kingdom Independence Party, flagrantly welcome racial assimilation and are supportive of Jewish and Zionist interests, is indicative of the effete state of contemporary nationalists, whose intercontinental hymn must by now be Bonny Tyler’s pining, “Holding Out for a Hero.”
The “useful idiots” phrase generally attributed to the delusional Vladimir Lenin (who married and surrounded himself by Jews) certainly finds a convenient home in today’s new variant nationalism. Additionally, the notion that nationalists can accept democracy per se is troubling when considering the supposed adherence to the truth that no one man is congenitally equal to another, irrespective of race, nor does he possess the unlimited aptitude to achieve “equality.” The emanation of these mimetic idiosyncrasies can be traced back to our malfunctioning Aryan Morality and our unique and atavistic ability (if not tendency) to suspend belief in the actual so as to investigate the fictitious, illogical, or audaciously unusual – such as the traditional cultures and customs of other races; irreconcilable curiosities with which we appear unnaturally preoccupied.
The stupefaction of nationalists is incredible enough, but when presented with the unsavoury fact that we, as a racial collective, are on the verge of extinction, it is breathtakingly unsettling. This situation is becoming increasingly problematic and requires either extensive corrective inculcation, or else they (nationalists) – and it (nationalism) – must be abandoned. Groups, such the English Defence League (EDL), were established for the sole purpose of exciting local enmity against Muslims, while disregarding the racial dynamic and exonerating Jews and Zionism.
The fact that homosexuals were cordially empowered within the EDL because “Muslims don’t like ’em” is symptomatic of our failure to grapple with the task at hand and our tribal capacity to retard our own rationality. The “intellectuals” of the Right who condescendingly snigger at the “yobbos” of the EDL et al, will, at some point, be compelled to question their own allegiances and superstitions (whether these manifest themselves as mild forms of cultural jingoism or the tortuous theoretical torrents of Alain de Benoist and Alexandr Dugin) before they are tossed into the monstrous Moloch just as Ukrainian nationalists were following their witless pact with the devil.