This White Boy Summer was blessed by a temporary return to the tradition of great movies with the release of Top Gun: Maverick. In an otherwise culturally drab era, Maverick is well named, as it is itself a maverick that bucks current trends. We find in this revival of the Top Gun franchise not another uninspired Hollywood cash grab, but a revival of our race’s traditionalism and Faustian spirit. Additionally, Maverick accidentally ends up revealing much about where the United States military is headed.
Whether the producers willed it or not, the movie was an unabashed ode to the values of speed, youth, violence, and aggression found within the original Futurist Manifesto while at the same time balancing these values against family, duty, teamwork, and compassion. There is something about the resolution of the paradox of these two sets of values, one harsh and the other sweet, into a cohesive synthesis that is uniquely European. Was tragedy not born from the tension between the Apollonian and Dionysian?
Yes, both the first and second movies have technical inaccuracies, but they are accurate in their inaccuracy. They accurately portray how American military culture was perceived during a past era, much as how 300 ends up accurately portraying how an ancient Greek might have perceived the Greco-Persian wars not in spite of but because of its historical inaccuracies. When compared to Herodotus’ accounts of exotic tribes and gold-digging ants, 300 isn’t all that wild. Likewise, dithering about hats on a flight line, ambiguous billets, and surface-to-air missile capabilities is like dithering about whether Parsifal and the Nibelungenlied accurately portray all the technical details of medieval knighthood instead of its cultural relevance.
Understanding the original Top Gun isn’t necessary to enjoy Maverick, but it is essential to fully appreciate it. The original Top Gun could very well have been a knightly saga. Replace the missiles with lances, and there is not much of a difference. It has the joy of comradery, along with the sorrow of a fallen comrade when Goose dies. The scene where Maverick is holding Goose’s corpse in the water after his botched ejection evokes the same pathos as Arno Breker’s bronze relief, Kameraden.
The first film also has arrogant heroes who come to respect each other. The idea of converting a rival into a friend is uniquely European, and knightly in particular, although this respect for a worthy opponent is also found among other higher races, such as the Japanese.
There is also the wooing of a damsel, Charlie, who is of high birth and possesses mysterious knowledge. While this knowledge is top-secret intel instead of arcane magic, and her status is derived from being the daughter of a General instead of a King, Charlie is still way out of even Maverick’s league, as Kriemhilde was to the brash newcomer Siegfried in the Nibelungenlied. Nonetheless, Maverick wins her through charisma and martial prowess, like a knight of old.
Watching the first Top Gun with my friends was an uplifting experience, but it was also bittersweet because it left us with a sense of the “remember what they took from you” meme, even though nobody wanted to say it at first. Top Gun, like so much from the 1980s and ‘90s that we took for granted at the time, seems like a summer daydream. Back when I was on active duty, the old guard would regale us with stories of past times when there was less bureaucracy and more adventure. Of course, there was no way things were ever even close to as good as they are portrayed in the original Top Gun, but it does approximate the way I and so many others perceived the Geist of a previous era.
The second film, Top Gun: Maverick, is a true successor. Hollyweird has been running on fumes for years, and it is telling that so many movies are sequels that fall short of the original by being woke, self-referential, and in many cases nothing but an uninspired cash grab made by Jewish producers who couldn’t care less about preserving the value of the franchises they are entrusted with.
The new Top Gun is the precise opposite. It was riveting despite lasting slightly over two hours, much as the Iliad and knightly romances are long but never tedious. While there is some diversity, it is no worse than what one would have expected during the late 2010s, and it never felt forced. All the lead roles are, surprisingly, still white men.
Maverick also effectively builds upon the first movie while avoiding the trap of being self-referential. The opening scenes are almost identical in both visuals and music, but this serves to accentuate a common theme throughout the second movie that the more things change, the more they remain the same.
Instead of volleyball, the pilots play “fighter football” at the beach, again emphasizing a natural continuity. In both movies, these scenes serve to emphasize the importance of team building, as friends are better war fighters than strangers.
The song “Great Balls of Fire” is used to create a perfect connection to the first movie that was touching, and in a way that is more than merely nostalgia or sentiment. It spoke to how it has usually been the same families who have served in the US military over the decades, being almost reminiscent of hereditary knighthood despite the fact that it is an all-volunteer force in a supposed democracy. The strongest indication that someone will sign up is if someone else in his family has also served.
Rooster, who is a young and talented pilot, initially had his application for fighter school rejected by Maverick, which naturally causes a lot of tension between the two. We learn that Maverick did this because Rooster is the son of Maverick’s former wingman, Goose, who perished in the first film. Before she died, Rooster’s mother had asked Maverick to prevent Goose from flying to protect her son. I don’t know if the producers consciously mirrored Rooster after Parsifal, whose mother went to great lengths to prevent him from becoming a knight because his father had died in battle and then herself perished from grief when Parsifal rode off on his adventures. Nonetheless, the parallel is striking.
There is also guidance and destiny from Iceman, Maverick’s former rival turned friend from the original movie. I will not spoil that aspect of the story, however, beyond saying that warriors never really grow old.
The film begins with Maverick facing off against a soulless Pentagon toady who wants to defund his skunkworks program for reasons relating to not hitting Mach ten well ahead of schedule. Maverick, demonstrating commitment to his troops and the Faustian spirit, takes off on short notice and doesn’t just hit Mach ten, but slightly exceeds it. This causes his plane to malfunction, and he survives ejection at that speed due to plot armor. (For comparison, one pilot survived a Mach 3.2 ejection in real life, in part because his cockpit disintegrated around him. This was considered miraculous.)
On the ground, Maverick is berated and told that “the future is coming, and you’re not in it,” and that “your kind is headed for extinction.” I doubt the producers intended it, but this scene echoed the Great Replacement perfectly, along with the defiance of those who are still worthy of calling themselves white when Maverick shoots back, “Maybe so, sir, but not today.”
It turns out that despite all of the mechanization of war, there is still a need for human champions. Maverick is tasked with training a gaggle of young, arrogant fighter pilots so that they can accomplish what appears to be a suicide mission. They are not all that different from his own Top Gun class. This mission is being planned because a mountainous country that is totally not Iran is enriching uranium, which is a threat to (((our allies in the region))).
Industralization has snuffed out the human element in much of modern war, but when the human element survives, technology actually enhances it. This is because when it is needed, it is all the more critical, determining victory or defeat. We see this in the legendary skills of Maverick and his protégés who defy surface-to-air missiles and fifth-generation fighters while piloting outdated aircraft. In real life, the perennial necessity of the human element is seen in drone operators, among other critical military roles.
The original mission requirements seem impossible and so they are lowered, with the fighters given more time to reach their target. This is dangerous because it gives the enemy more time to respond. Maverick knows that this will turn the mission from a possible suicide mission into a probable one, and so he personally jumps into an aircraft and demonstrates that the faster time limit can be achieved. His class is stunned, and he earns their respect through leadership by example. Moreover, it shows the necessity of calculated risk-taking: The speed needed to reach the target in two minutes instead of four is risky, but not as dangerous as giving the enemy more time to react.
I won’t spoil the ending, but it is a crescendo of heroism that is implicitly white. More importantly, inaccuracies and technical details aside, it still manages to be entirely believable heroism.
Both Top Gun films are a testament to the European spirit. They are more than mere movies, but myth. They perfectly capture the Geist of the 1980s and ‘90s and the implicitly white essence that made America great, once upon a time.
They also prove that the degeneracy and wokeness of the current year is entirely astroturfed. Hollywood can make good movies, but chooses not to, but when they do make a good one, it is a blockbuster success. If ticket sales had been in a slump purely due to economic reasons and hypochondria, Top Gun would not have been a blow-out. This shows that the Jews are so desperate and hateful that they are leaving large sums of money on the table in order to advance their anti-white agenda.
Furthermore, Top Gun accidentally illustrates exactly where the modern American military is heading: namely, complete collapse. Of course, ZOG is incapable of learning from any of the lessons in the film.
For instance, a common theme in both films is team building. This is inherently more difficult with greater diversity due to human nature.
Then there is the issue of recruitment. Like Rooster, most people who join the armed forces come from military families. Those same families have witnessed first-hand a gradual decline of the military which has now become a freefall. I do not know of a single veteran who would recommend someone join now, as the political and other issues are more than enough on their own to make it a terrible idea.
This naturally causes a lack of continuity. Maverick was able to whip his pilots into shape because of his experience and leadership by example. Given that fewer and fewer were serving their full 20 years even before the Brandon regime, a continuity of very specialized skills is being lost, especially in those critical career fields that require specialized expertise. Also, nobody expects leadership by example or calculated risk-taking to be forthcoming from petty bureaucrats who are more focused on their careers than the mission.
It was also telling how the fictional “rogue state” in the film was a threat not to America, but to our allies in an unspecified region that is totally not the Middle East. When you take a step back, you can’t help but realize that, just like in real life, our country’s best in Top Gun are risking their lives for a foreign people instead of their own.
The proliferation of soulless Pentagon creatures is another annoyance that the film highlights. These types are inherently unlovable, and unlike Maverick, can never inspire men to make sacrifices or go beyond their existing limits. It is unlikely that America has a single general today who is worthy of the rank; they are all administrators and politicians. All they have ever been good at is creating frivolous annual training requirements.
When the first Top Gun was released, Navy recruitment jumped by 500%. Despite Top Gun: Maverick being a resounding success at the box office, it was a flop at the recruiter’s office. Every branch of the US military is struggling to meet its 2022 recruitment goals, even with lucrative enlistment bonuses.
If anything, Top Gun ironically probably did more to hurt ZOG’s recruitment than aid it. Everyone knows that the fictional country portrayed in Top Gun: Maverick is nothing like the reality. While the original film was also admittedly unrealistic recruitment propaganda, it at least had some connection to reality, featuring a real adversary (the Soviet Union). The new film only serves to emphasize how far our country has fallen.
There is a noticeable abundance of white men in Top Gun — along with an absence of masks. The camaraderie and adventure are the precise opposite of the modern war machine’s bureaucracy and industrialization. There is no obese transgender Jew presuming to call itself an Admiral any more than there is frivolous patty cake that wastes everyone’s time. The America and its military portrayed in the films is still the land of the free and the home of the brave.
For me, Top Gun: Maverick takes place in an alternate historical timeline. Its cultural aspects are several times more unbelievable than a successful ejection at Mach ten. My suspension of disbelief can encompass technical details, but not the onslaught of cultural Marxism. If recruitment statistics are any indication, I am not alone in this. The Top Gun films might as well have been about the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Rhodesia. They only serve as a testament to a fallen Republic, and an age now undreamt of.
Thankfully, there are still plenty of Top Goys out there — just not in uniform anymore. This is perfectly fine, because the fate of the government and that of our nation are not the same. If anything, they are diametrically opposed. Instead of piloting machines of death on behalf of the globalists, our Faustian spirit will serve to pilot the birth of a new nation for ourselves and our posterity when the time is right.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.