Sci fi movies like star wars involve the creation of heroes fighting a dramatic war against some evil foe.
I’ve already expressed my sympathies with the auks of middle earth – who are supposed to be an evil underclass living in some dark continent who can be killed mercilessly by the “white” men of middle earth such as the “white” did to Aborigenies in Australia, Africa, S.America. Of course, the “whites” live in green gardens with houses stacked with goods – much like the tobacco/slave traders used to. And the “auks” toil and sweat in the hell holes of manufacturing industry – which is clearly where the whites get all their finery from as I never saw a Hobbit doing a days work in any film.
And I’ve said that much of the reason academic hate industry, engineering and therefore climate sceptics, is because they are still tied up in the “clerical culture” that created the Universities and Academia we see today, and that this culture sees themselves as being the “elite” … whilst everyone else are the “Auks” who have to be kept in their place and not “defile” the “elvinish” realms of academia.
But, I’ve now been searching for what real soldiers say to each other in battle and particularly at how humour was used to steady the nerves of troops …
Except, what I see on videos of real soldiers which is full of the language of real people: “fucks”, “bastards” and “shits” and I assume filled by sexual humour (if the accounts of some soldiers are to be believed) … but it’s too crude for Youtube and can I find anything like this “recorded by any academic”? No!
Here’s what one officer speaking to real troops sounds like:
It’s as if the academics were living in a totally different universe and had never been to war (which is obviously true about most). But one quote did stand out:
Among rural people, the presence of women incites indecent jokes, as can be seen with the entry of the barmaid. But in refined society, the presence of a woman inhibits indecent talk which men reserve for the occasion when they are alone by themselves. In such society, where there is a wide social gap all references to the sexual act would be inhibited, and because this, would be amusing if made.
By “rural” they mean people who “don’t speak like us at public school” – who don’t speak “like we’ve got a silver spoon shoved up our arse”.
But another instance proves academics just lie to us:
At Waterloo, Pierre Cambronne commanded Napoleon’s Imperial Guard. When all was lost, a British officer asked him to lay down his arms. Generations of schoolboys have been taught that he replied, “The Guard dies, but never surrenders.” Actually he said “Merde!” (Shit). The French know this. Their euphemism for “merde” is “the word of Cambronne”.
So here we have a clear case of an original being totally completely fabricated by academia and then liberally (silver) spoon fed to ignorant naive schoolkids (sounds much like global warming hysteria – the same people, the same mentality of lying).
Of course – it helps to understand just how pervasive this “norman” v. “British native” battle has become if know that most of the so called “swear” words (words banned in so called “polite” company) tend to be Anglo-Saxon in origin, and that if you want to make something sound “academic” all you need do is to replace the words stemming from an Old-English root to one based on a Norman root (or better still Greek or Latin). You can say exactly the same thing: “Man-made” or”Anthropogenic” … but “Man” is good old English and is akin to swearing whereas “Anthro” means exactly the same “man” but comes from Greek. Like all the “man” haters who claim it is sexist, they are quite happy to use the same meaning in another language, and that is because you sound “academic”, aka “polite” aka “PC” and by using any words that are not native British, you pretend to know something (you don’t). That’s why phrases like “Anthropogenic” are so popular in academia.
What has actually happened, is that quite proper words and phrases in Old English have been rebadged and rebranded as crude swearing by teachers & academics brought up in a Norman-French culture that hates the Native Britons, their language, their culture and the people.
Ok, perhaps I’m just feeling pissed off. First, because academics write a lot of waffle – and I’m sick to death reading accounts that look down their noses at everyone else – which replace the noble words of real people with PC crap. But also it;’s because everything I’m reading is the words of Eton or “St.Pauls” public schoolboys writing home to their ma and pa … at the end of the quote it usually says “and he was killed 8 weeks later”.
You’ve got to have some sympathy even if they are upper class twits who volunteered to lead their troops into battle wearing special uniforms that marked them out as the ones whom everyone aimed their guns at (possibly not all from the front).
But of course – this “public school” versus the “tommys” is the remnants of a ethnic divide that came about at the Norman invasion (although the origins are even older, perhaps as much as a thousand years earlier).
Yes, William the Bastard was a very nasty thug – who only has any kind of reputation because a 1000 years of sychophantic texts from historians brought up in the Norman-French culture of academia need to maintain him as a hero rather than the ruthless thug he was.
And to them he really was the hero – one who gave them and their ancestors control over the rest of us …. who allowed them to steal wealth beyond their wildest dreams – who gave the invaders and all their descendants their privileged “public-school boy” culture and all their benefits including for example the “Royal Society” … who still embody many of the Norman-French ideas (such as their language and words being superior in “science” than those horrible native Britons and their “vulgar” engineering and industry).
Then I was reading how the “upper class” officers in WWI, had to stop wearing officer uniforms because the obliging Germans would pick out these “upper class” twits who William the Bastard put in charge and kill them first.
Just as all the Norman-French rich CHAVS (CHeltenham boys college AVerage) these days are toning down their language to make themselves sound like natives (it’s hard to be elected – even with all the money behind you – if you sound like a CHAV), so in WWI, they had to dress like the British natives.
And I was thinking in the midst of this: “who are the Tommy’s (Native British) real enemy …. the Germans or the silver-spoon up their arse Norman-French officers and Oxbridge academics” …
… when it occurred to me, that I would love to see a movie based on the same dilemma … and how easy it would be ….
We star with a standard star trek video … and then it suddenly cuts to a standard star wars video. Each has all the usual characters, all the normal themes that they are heroes …. but this time we have them meeting each other and … we see in each camp that to them they are thrashing the hell out of some evil empire attempting to destroy them … but we as outsiders see two groups of favourite characters, both of whom are always portrayed as heroes and always in the right …. but trying to kill each other.
It would literally be a horror film – and to be honest, whist the present generation are quite capable of eating their dinner whilst watching scenes of people’s legs being blown off and blood gushing realistically over the floor … what they cannot cope with is moral ambiguity.
When do we ever see a film, where there is not a very clear and unambiguous hero. Indeed, whilst I propose the idea, I’m not convinced I would like the film … and it might be necessary to create two films – one ending in a victory for Star wars and another for Star Trek.
For more examples of “battle speeches” see: