Or:
Philosophers, expats from Laputa
Having brought down kings and queens and aristocrats in the name of “equality,” it was logical [for white liberals] to declare war on Nature itself. —Hunter Wallace
Jewish power is directly proportional to the character of White people. —Hunter Wallace
In his latest article about Julius Evola, Greg Johnson said: “Along with René Guénon, Evola is one of the writers who has most influenced the metapolitical outlook and project of Counter-Currents…”
Well, Evola has been debunked here at least for my satisfaction. But remember my recent entry where I talked about what tipped my apothecary scale from Bicausalism Type-A to Type-B? “If even white nationalists,” I wrote, “have fallen into the suicidal hedonistic meme, there must be another factor besides the Jewish one.” I had in mind the rock music and the decadent sexual mores that quite a few of so-called white nationalists love, including Johnson.
What moved me to criticize philosophy in the previous threads is that visitors to nationalist sites are wasting their time over the boards instead of reading the ABC of the history of the white race, that is, the ideological fundamentals for racial preservation (see the books that I recommend in today’s page).
Regarding my highly critical view of accepted Western wisdom, so accepted that even “nationalists” share this delusion, John Martínez commented today:
Ever since you [Chechar] began to question the relevance of the discipline pompously self-entitled “philosophy” for the White cause (in addition to criticising religion by and large and Christianity in particular in this regard, as you had long been doing), a couple of commenters took the pains to split hairs and defend the honor of some philosophers and some religious views.
In one of the latest threads I personally mentioned one the main figures behind the views of some of the commenters, French Traditionalist metaphysician René Guénon [photo above].
Well, this is from the article on Wikipedia concerning the guy. This is for you and the readers of the West’s Darkest Hour to see how apropos, how appropriate the study of the works and lives of important thinkers like Guénon is for the cause of White Nationalism. I should add that by the time of the events mentioned in these passages, Guénon had already arabicized his name and become Abd al-Wahid Yahya:
In 1930, Guénon left Paris for Cairo, with the aim of gathering and translating written documents of islamic esoterism. This project was abruptly abandoned after a decision of his editor. Left alone in Cairo, Guénon declined all propositions by his friends that he return to France. Despite his declining financial condition, Guénon relentlessly corresponded with his counterparts from many countries around the world as well as continuing his own writing projects.
Although remaining in Egypt certainly exposed Guénon to the cultural ambience of Sufism and ancient esotericism for which he had already demonstrated a strong affinity, his refusal to return to Europe created undoubted hardship for him. As if in compensation for this hardship, Guénon was fortunate enough to meet Sheikh Salama Hassan ar-radi, founder of the Hamidiya Shadhiliya sufi order, which he soon joined. Guénon accompanied the Sheikh until the latter’s death in 1938. Around the same time, Guénon also met another Sufi, Sheikh Mohammad Ibrahim, whose daughter he married in 1934. This marriage resulted in four children, the last (Abdel Wahed) born in 1951. During his lengthy sojourn in Egypt, René Guénon carried on an austere and simple life, entirely dedicated to his writings and spiritual development. In 1949, he obtained Egyptian citizenship…
René Guénon died on January 7, 1951; it is reported that his final word was Allah (“God”).
By the way: did I mention that Brazilian Traditionalist philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, through whom I got in touch with the Traditionalist school of thinkers, is an ardent anti-racist pure White whose first wife was a Black woman who gave him a couple of Mestizo children?
Like you pointed out, Chechar, if the White race goes extinct (as Richard Lynn thinks will happen) and the torch of civilization passes on the North-Asians—the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese historians of the future will be baffled to see how, after some 2500 years of deeply penetrating speculation, the Western giants of thinking not only did not see what was coming, but took themselves an active part in the bringing about of the catastrophe.
Totally immersed in their religious and pseudo-wise fantasies, asses like Guénon (and Carvalho, for that matter) are too good to bother about such a trifling matter as the White race. What’s wrong with mongrelizing with Arabs and Blacks if we are all children of the same Semitic God? To speak like Hillary Clinton, What difference does it make?
These charlatans remind me of a chapter in Gulliver’s Travels, in which the narrator visits a country of sages, Laputa, where the regular folks live so absorbed in their own thoughts that their wives cuckold them right and left and they have to be constantly attended by pages, who now and them hit them on their faces with small cloth bags full of little pebbles in order to make them breathe again, since they keep forgetting to, so concentrated they are on their thinking.
The White race will soon be mongrelized to the last individual, but hey, what were you saying about the “metaphysical unity of all religions”?
My comment:
What would-be nationalists (see again my definition of a real nationalist) should learn is that both their theologians and philosophers miserably failed the white race. At Counter-Currents they still want to talk about “philosophy,” Guénon and Evola, because these guys are Type-A Bicausalists, which means that they mostly blame Jews for our woes. If the tribe is mainly the culprit, they reason among themselves, our house is basically in order.
We Type-B Bicausalists on the other hand know that it’s us who brought self-extermination to our own home; Jews, a mere epiphenomenon of our sins (see Hunter Wallace’s epigraphs above).
John: although this is an entry I’ll speak as if it was a thread comment. See how in another recent thread here, commenter Armor said that “whites are not stupid” in the context of blaming Jews for race-replacement and implying that whites are innocent—a monocausal monologue all too frequent in nationalist sites with the exception of Wallace’s Occidental Dissent.
The ignorance of so-called nationalists about elemental psychology tempts me to start a new series about intuitive psychology (which must not be confused with academic psychology), only to show our visitors how flawed human philosophers are, starting perhaps with some Zweig excerpts about poor Nietzsche.
Thoughts?
45 replies on “Was René Guénon one of us?”
I can’t understand why you quote Bradley Griffin so much. Whatever truth he speaks is borne of his hatred for the “Yankee.” Where are they? I’m a Northerner and have yet to meet more than three wealthy WASPs. Granted some tribes punch above their weight, but Dixie worship clouds his judgement. Of what use is a failed slave-state based upon negro labor? Southern Nationalism is a bad joke…it makes the WN stuckment look good.
Are you aware of the so-called “neo-reaction” espoused by mischlings like “Mencius Moldbug” and full jews like Rachel Haywire? Much like Renan they base their positions on idealized rightist fantasies instead of hard biological facts. Race realism is just their excuse to include Chinese and Jews in the “right-wing” club, based upon IQ scores.
Fuck the right wing, bring the White wing! I’d rather be an Aryan leftist than a “traditional” Catholic! Thank you, Chechar, for being an intellectual White Nationalist/ Aryan Macronationalist. Gods know we need revolutionary voices!
I quote him because what he says about Yanks is true.
I am a huge fan of the Traditionalists. They are not pseudo-intellectuals, but erudite, insightful, and truly catholic thinkers.
That stated, they were not perfect. Lovecraft, amongst other Nordic powerhouses, committed an act which was less than exemplary. However, again, let’s not rush to hyperbolic words.
Yes, Guenon and the other Traditionalists who converted to Islam and took on Arabic names, deciding even to live in the Orient, have committed treachery and added insult to injury. Yet, don’t waylay them. They are virile thinkers of metaphysics and a worldview which shouldn’t be trashed so abruptly.
Do we have to agree with (or condone) Mozart’s Freemasonry, Beethoven’s pantheism, Lully’s pederasty, Dostoevsky’s gambling addiction, etc.? No. None of these ideologies nor deviances should detract from all that which is noble and cosmic in their creations.
In short, I don’t think we should throw the baby away with the bathwater.
IFA
The sins of Beethoven et al you mention are peccadilloes compared to The Sin Against the Holy Ghost, which for us cannot be forgiven.
I see your point. It’s a strong one. Yes, he sinned; gravely, at that. However, I can’t throw away their writings because they acted poorly. Guenon’s works are powerful testaments to a great mind.
IFA
But as I said in yesterday’s page, a true white nationalist “sees all history and the world of ideas through the prism of white racial preservation”. Seeing the world of ideas thru it, Martínez said: “…how, after some 2500 years of deeply penetrating speculation, the Western giants of thinking not only did not see what was coming, but took themselves an active part in the bringing about of the catastrophe”.
I would agree with Martínez that all defense of a miscegenator, all of it, is splitting hairs; and that in final analysis there’s no baby, only dirty water (“religious and pseudo-wise fantasies” by Laputians).
Say what you will about traditional Catholics ; However, the traditional Catholics in Europe historically protected Europe from Islamic jihad. The “great white leader” Hitler is the one who invited the Muslims into Europe in the very first place : Hitler is the one who introduced Islamic jihad right into the very heart of Europe.
Germany — having gone Lutheran during the Protestant Reformation — wasn’t cognizant of the dangers of Islam to Europe. Traditional Catholics, even to this day, are very cognizant of the dangers of Islam to Europe and to the Occident. Unfortunately, the great bulk of the White Race rejects the very institution — the Very Faith — that traditionally and historically protected Europe from Islamic jihad — and the worse depredations of Talmudic Jewry as well.
It was the Protestants in Europe who opened up the Jewish ghettoes in Europe and “freed” the Jews. It was the Protestants who unleashed the Jews upon Europe, not the Catholics, and then it was Protestants — in this case, German White Nationalists — who invited Islamic jihadists right into the very heart of Europe. Hitler’s strategy played right into the hands of the most war-mongering Jews, by the way — the die-hard Jew Zionists who want a Jew-Zionist New World Order.
Absurd to think that, hadn’t it been assassinated, the Third Reich would have permitted massive Islamic immigration into Europe.
It’s true that traditional Catholics challenge jihad, but at the same time my experience with them has exposed these guys as fairly open to miscegenation in cases of non-whites converted to their (self-destructive) faith.
I respectfully disagree :
It was Protestants, working with Jews, who overthrew the old Catholic order of Europe. The old Catholic order of Europe kept the great bulk of Jews in their Jewish ghettoes, and the old Catholic order in Europe protected Europe from Islamic jihad. The old Catholic order kept the Muslims were they belong — in the Middle East and kept them there.
The Protestants, working with Jews, invited the Islamic jihadists into the very heart of Europe.
You disagree—with what?
@Maximino: Not that it matters, as your catholic propaganda is obviously untrue since Hitler never never invited Muslims into Europe (wartime cooperation on the battlefield means nothing of that sort, and it was irrelevant on scale as well), but large parts of Germany are still catholic – in fact they slightly outnumber protestants. And Hitler being a southern german from Austria was catholic himself. So it’s kind of funny that you use him to attack protestants and non-catholics.
Reblogged this on murderbymedia.
I have to say that despite the high quality of material presented on this site, and the intelligence of the author of this blog, I’m very disappointed at the attack on Tradition being launched here.
The attack on Guénon is totally baseless (he’s not my cup of tea either, but I would never call him out for being a fraud). This man was a genius and a great ally to WN … the fact that he left the West and embraced Islam means nothing relative to white interests or lack their of.
Do you know that many high ranking Nazis after the war joined Sufi groups in the Middle East because it was the only refuge for their passion and intense militancy? Guénon loved Western Civlization, first and foremost; his departure from the West was the result of his belief that the Western world had become under the dominion of the dark forces (the Jews).
NOTE: Guenon and Evola identified the enemy (IN EXTREME DETAIL: see counter-initiation) to the white race better than ANY other thinker or writer in the 20th century. It’s a shame that these defenders of the white race are being raked through the mud.
Guénon forsook his motherland, France, moved to a non White nation, Egypt and lived there until the end of his life. But he loved the West and the White race.
Guénon always compared the West to the East (or whatever he meant by “East”) in disadvantegeous terms for the former, but he loved the West and the White race.
Guénon converted to Islam, arabicized his full name and became an Egyptian citizen, but he loved the West and the White race.
Guénon married an Arab woman and sired a batch of half-breeds, but he loved the West and the White race.
Sure.
I rest my case.
I could not agree more. This whole idea of purging the WN movement of traditionalist elements strikes me as a bad strategic move. I also suspect that it Is primarily motivated by Chechars wish to distance himself from Greg Johnsons Counter Currents.
Sadly you ultimately risk ending up With nothing but Peirces and Kemps writings. Which is a very inadequate substitute.
When you start taking your ques from someone who thinks common sense observations Are sufficient for conversion to WN, Then you start suspecting that something has gone wrong along the way.
Using the same logic regarding the NS officers converting to Sufi islam, one would conclude that they Are “not one of us”.
How many of them moved to non White nations, married non White women and sired non White children?
Sure. Objections to philosophy per see must be seen as a front to obfuscate ulterior motives, right? There must be a deep philosophical motivation underlying Chechar’s objections to philosophy as such, right? In other words, he’s a would-be philosopher in denial of philosophy. I see.
With all due respect, I think that if you were a gay activist, you would be one of those who maintain that he who objects to homosexuality is himself a homosexual in denial.
Good grief.
Thanks, John. These people don’t even know that my spiritual odyssey to distance myself from philosophy and all sort of analogous intellectual endeavors started decades ago (I am 54), and that I have a long time—long, long before I discovered WN—harboring very serious doubts about any scholarly field connected even remotely to a religion of any sort. I have been an über-skeptic of everything so-called “spiritual” (which I now call dissociation) at least since 1995. I wish I could find the time to translate my autobiography to English and convey the spirit of such agonic odyssey that demonstrates why I metamorphosed my mind so abruptly, from my teenage love for St Francis to my recent admiration for exterminationist Himmler.
Are you kidding me? See my reply to IFA above.
Jannik:
Your comment is a complete non-sequitur to what John and I are saying. You seem to harbor the thought that whites must pick at the available straws of accepted wisdom insofar as the right path (true WN) has only been started to be glimpsed by a couple of authors. That position is similar to those who clang to the Aristotelian scholasticism in the times of Francis Bacon (Aristotle should have been abandoned even before, since the times of Roger Bacon).
(sorry my last comment was immaturely cut of)
“You seem to harbor the thought that whites must pick at the available straws of accepted wisdom insofar as the right path (true WN) has only been started to be glimpsed by a couple of authors.”
Well the reason I dont favor starting from complete scratch, as a methodological principle, is that you risk making mistakes that the traditional thinkers already have made previously. And besides, there would be a tendency to revive some of the same concepts in modified form, if one was to start all over again.
Granted, I dont think enough has been written on nationalism or racialism in the western philosophical tradition. But this does not imply that nothing of interest or importance has been written on the subject. Both the german idealist and enlightenment philosophers wrote on the subject, and that was at a time when encounters with the new world were intensifying.
So naturally, when you complain that the 2500 year old tradition of philosophy has not adequately considered the question of race or nationalism, this is a very anachronistic analysis. The historical circumstances were very different in the middleages or in antiquity.
And no, Aristotle should not have been rejected completely at the time of Roger Bacon. Several academic subjects would probably not have been established until much later, had this been done. One should also keep in mind, that even Galileo and Newton took their starting points in aristotelian (meta)physics. Galileo was primarily revolting against the spirit of the scholastics, not that of Aristotle.
“These people don’t even know that my spiritual odyssey to distance myself from philosophy and all sort of analogous intellectual endeavors started decades ago”
Yes but still you converted to the philosophy (or political ideology, or secular religion if you will), of white nationalism. And you still took the time to read through and dismiss all sorts of different philosophers on your road to becoming a WN. And what were you actually doing all this time?
And now you want your WN readers to basically completely reject the whole western tradition of philosophy, and use Kemp and Pierce as (very lacking) substitutes. No need to delve into these writers themselves, small snippets of their work laid out on your blog should be enough to debunk the whole enterprise.
Well I am sorry, but that wont happen in my case at least. Thats simply to dogmatic and also far to shallow for me.
And I am not even one of those people who prefer to endlessly speculate on the transcendent.
I still think philosophy is important for developing political ideology, and my starting point will be the western tradition, as the alternative is simply of just to poor quality or not comprehensive enough.
If I want to read world and european history, then I start with the mainstream litterature and then move on to more specialized fields, before I move on to more controversial stuff like Kemp. And to be frank, I think a lot of his claims are contestable, so I would prefer that his work was put through academic scrutiny by professional historians.
Whatever is the case, my sceptical radar is on high alert whenever someone claims that fiction litterature is an adequate substitute for political philosophy. Or that plain old “common sense” should be enough to convert to WN. If this is the case, then why arent droves of people converting to WN? It rather seems that “common sense” is not that common after all.
When anyone makes such bold claims with very little to back it up, I immediatly become extremely suspicious, and suspect that nothing but deception is at work.
And more generally speaking, why is it an indisputable axiom, that any thinker or intellectual needs to be a squeaky clean practicing white nationalist, in order for his academic works to be taken seriously? Admitted, the person is not exactly a rolemodel, but his works should stand on their merit.
Jannik, are you a WN?
Whoever you are, it is extremely unfair to compare a baby with a hundred-year old man that is dying with three or four doctorates in his pocket but that got it all wrong.
WN is a “baby” that unlike the old man, got it right. Take Pierce’s book as a prolegomena for a future hermeneutical history and philosophy of history, etc.
The baby is the one who sees that the emperor with no clothes. Only the sophisticate adults have been socialized to believe he has highly subtle clothes.
Wrong. I started by reading Gibbon and… oh surprise! The racial question is missing in his analysis of the decline of Rome. He visited Voltaire. Gibbon was a legit son of the Enlightenment: he believed that Christianity was the culprit because he ignored recent studies (mentioned in Kemp’s) that show that by the time Rome fell the empire had already miscegenated. In other words, Christianity was a secondary infection, not the primary one of the decline. Gibbon got it wrong.
Pierce’s and Kemp’s histories are no fiction, just “baby” prolegomenas to the way history and philosophy of history will be written if the race escapes extinction.
Well he actually has alluded to This fact himself. Since he considers himself a radical WN, Which is not fully compatible With the traditionalist stance promoted on CC. And I frankly thought that This was at least Some what obvious from the postings.
Regarding philosophy in general, as Chechar has stated himself in the conversations I have had With him, his problem is mainly with abstract system builders who employ abstract Or obfuscating jargon. As he for instance, considers Francis Bacon to be “one of us “.
So tvinge are
Guénon was a “miscegenator” … if you want to find fault with that, so do I.
The rest of the criticism on this page is based on people who don’t have a firm grasp of the man’s work at all (wiki doesn’t count). It’s not fair to attack someone without understand the depth of their basic anthropological and mythological POV.
Again, I, like Jonathan Bowden, do not follow or agree with Guénon, but I respect this man’s work.
He moved to Egypt to be closer to the Aryan tradition, created by whites (Egypt was the original home to the Aryan race and its sublime spirituality). He favored the East, because he thought the West had been destroyed by subversion of those who will not be mentioned. He traced back the origins of the movement of white peoples, providing an excellent critique of where Western modernity had deviated from its original Hyperborean form.
If you don’t understand Guénon, you don’t understand meta-history and the true identity and prehistorical conflict between Jews and Aryans. He explains this topic in uncommon detail.
I’ll leave you with the Law of Infinite Cornucopia (link) and rest my case:
You enjoy the idea of somehow linking so called “traditionalist philosophers” to the White Nationalist movement and no matter how absurd such an association, you’ll stand by it. Well, that’s fine with me, go ahead and good luck.
You think that Tradition is New Age nonsense and that the metaphysics they present is dry, sterile school house escapism.
Because you refuse to understand what Tradition is (much like someone who critiques a style of art without ever studying it) you have no right to attack it.
It’s humorous, because Tradition is what informs the totality of our mythological consciousness … but I cannot argue with someone who doesn’t want to even read what he is critiquing.
Many years ago I was almost insulted by a close communist friend who vehemently and angrily told me that “those who have not read Marx are assholes”.
I replied simply by pointing out that I have no obligation to read Aquinas’ opus to reject the historicity of the Easter narratives (see my critique on the New Testament in my recent entry on Evola and Buddha).
It is just that simple. My exegetical criticism always remains unanswered by my Catholic family but they don’t demand my reading of their church’s top theologian. Conversely, the Marxist friend irrationally demanded that I must read Das Kapital in order to being allowed some skepticism about Marxism.
Exactly the same logic works with “asses like Guénon and Carvalho”. Any white that commits the Sin against the Holy Ghost is forever lost from my consideration.
@Chechar
I think you have a obligation to read Traditionalists if you want to use the word ‘Aryan’ or embrace the symbol of the swastika. That word and that symbol is a derivative of OUR tradition.
Haushofer, Himmler, Hess, and Rosenberg were obsessed with most of the esoteric topics that the Western traditionalists discuss at length. The entire Nazi movement was based on extensive studies, of what, for lack of a better term, is called Tradition.
If you want to dismiss Evola and Guénon as clowns, include the rest of the Nazi party in your critique.
Neither Haushofer nor Himmler or Hess and Rosenberg committed the sin against the holy ghost, the sin that cannot be forgiven in our movement.
Like Martínez I want to rest my case, not because I am running short of arguments but because I must work for the next entry.
Boiling down the discussion to a mere bare bone, the fact is that this Frenchman was everything but a white nationalist (the quintessence of WNism can be seen in the historical books by Pierce and Kemp I’ve been advertising).
I don’t deal with race traitors like this French asshole.
The miscegenation issue is the only strike you have against him; I’m not a lover of this man, but I appreciate his work.
You cannot deny the esoteric origins of the Nazi party and the involvement of pretty much all of its pertinent members. Yet, this is the same ground on which you attack Evola and Guenon? That’s not consistent.
WN in Nazi Germany was saturated in the occult. That’s the historical truth.
I am tired of your non sequiturs. I’ve never ever attacked NS esoterism, etc.
Off topic: Presently Counter-Currents cannot be seen in Mexico. Is it also offline in your countries, guys?
It is offline in Brazil too.
Offline in America as well.
Until someone offers a legit reason for why Traditionalism is for loons, but all of the major Nazi party members were heavily involved in the occult, there is NO reason to equate WN with Nazi Germany.
White nationalists, divorce yourself from Nazi Germany, if you don’t like the occult or Tradition.
Ibid – a non sequitur.
“Totally immersed in their religious and pseudo-wise fantasies, asses like Guénon …. These charlatans … ”
You cannot have your cake and eat it. Those ‘religious and pseudo-wise fantasies’ were also believed by the Nazi party.
That’s not a a non sequitur, but I won’t push the point any further.
In the case of the Nazis that was done in the pursuit of Aryan and Western culture preservation; in the case of this Orientalist guy that was not the goal. If I have to become familiar with such esoterism I directly read Himmler’s speeches, not even Savitri Devi.
@Chechar
“Jannik, are you a WN?”
Well I roughly agree with points 1-3 in your previous post. That at least Europa and N. America should be exclusively for whites. And I dont condone miscegenation. But perhaps I am still stuck with traditionalism and german idealism, as I still think they are insightful.
If the written literature of a racemixer is well argued and convincing, then I most definitely wouldnt dismiss it beforehand. And I certainly dont understand why this tenant is so self evident?
“Whoever you are, it is extremely unfair to compare a baby with a hundred-year old man that is dying with three or four doctorates in his pocket but that got it all wrong.”
Thats fair enough. But I dont think the old man got it all wrong, not even mostly wrong. And even if I think he got it mostly wrong, I would most likely use the stuff he got right anyway.
Who am I? I am a danish/spanish guy(sorry dont speak spanish:)), living in Denmark, 36 years old. Who has been folllowing the WN scene on the internet for about 6-7 years. I am currently doing a MA degree in economics and social history, but studied philosophy in my younger days.
“WN is a “baby” that unlike the old man, got it right. Take Pierce’s book as a prolegomena for a future hermeneutical history and philosophy of history, etc.”
Well yes and no. It depends on the work being done, and in what way it will develop in the future. Does the “baby” turn out to be a degenerate, or will it blossom and mature. Its to early to tell at the moment, but Peirces work in itself is very inadequate. I dont believe that “cosmotheism” is an adequate substitute for christianity or atheism. This is just a first objection to his prolegomena for WN.
But I must admit that I do enjoy many of the radiopodcasts that i heard back in the day.
“The baby is the one who sees that the emperor with no clothes. Only the sophisticate adults have been socialized to believe he has highly subtle clothes.”
I think this is a much to simple analysis. And I dont deny that there is sophistry in the philosophy department. But for someone trained in analytical philosophy and brought up with scientism, further enhanced with the several years I spent in the economics and political science departments, WN no doubt came at a hard price. The barriers erected were not based on flowery metaphysics but crass materialism and a “hard science” outlook on life. And that is despite the fact that I have known of racial differences in intelligence for the last 10-12 years.
So I suppose that my trajectory has been quite different from yours.
And I was only stuck in the counter-jihad movement for a year or 2 in a sort of transitional state.
“Wrong. I started by reading Gibbon and… oh surprise! The racial question is missing in his analysis of the decline of Rome. He visited Voltaire. Gibbon was a legit son of the Enlightenment: he believed that Christianity was the culprit because he ignored recent studies (mentioned in Kemp’s) that show that by the time Rome fell the empire had already miscegenated. In other words, Christianity was a secondary infection, not the primary one of the decline. Gibbon got it wrong.”
Well perhaps he did. But he wrote his work at a time when historical source criticism was not even developed as a professional discipline.
But if you want to really put your claims on history to the test, then one should use the recent data and methodologies developed in human genetics, and archeogenetics.
This should be the true litmus tests of Kemps hypotheses.
Look, I have mostly enjoyed your blog for the last couple of years or so, but I have a really hard time following you on this last turn you recently made.
Kemp did deal with human genetics in his 2011 book, and Pierce’s “cosmotheism” was a silly distraction (in America almost everything is about religion even for non-religionists).
Unlike Martínez and me, neither you nor Mr Deutsch live in Latin America: the place where a half millennium of miscegenating, white-destroying experiment occurred. That’s why none of you can understand the meaning of “the sin that should never been forgiven”. As Martínez said in the other thread, once this sin starts it just cannot be stopped (see his arguments there; I am really tired to dig it or discuss it here).
The ideologues who committed this sin are my enemies.
Ok, havent read his 2011 work. This is an improvement, but his work still needs to be criticized by proffesional historians. Now I am well aware that professional peer reviewed journals will dismiss his works and lump it together with afrocentrism and the likes.
So its probably something that we will have to wait for in the future, or partly take him on faith, if you dont have the time to go through all his sources.
And this is not an excuse I am making up for dismissing his work, but it really could use a critical view from someone who is not outright hostile to the european perspective.
Perhaps my perspective as a european is different from white americans. But I am still able to separate the works from the despicable actions that a person performs. And this goes for Guenon or the sufi nazies or other people in the movement.
Besides, I dont think it is that despicable an action in Guenons case, since the racemixing mainly went on outside of Europe, and therefore did not effect the demographic carrying capacity of white women in Europe. Racemixing on white turf is far more damaging to white interests, and especially if it is the females breeding with non-whites. This still doesnt excuse Guenons actions though.
From my vantage point, all I can see is rampant racemixing going on in all larger west european cities. Especially in France, Britain and the Netherlands. But it is also getting worse in a place like Copenhagen. 20 years ago, negroes would have been a rare sight.
Now I regularly spot negroes and mulatto offspring in many parts of town.
So we sadly are starting to experience the same sorts of problems as the Americas has experienced.
If there are not hundreds of Breiviks targeting mixed couples at this very moment, it’s precisely because theology, philosophy and Guenon-like “traditionalism” failed us miserably. A single novel like Pierce’s Hunter, which starts targeting such blasphemous couples, is worthier than the whole of that philosophical / theological/ “traditionalist” bunk put together. The sole fact that you have not read Hunter, but spend your time with conventional writers, proves our point.
Whites in Denmark are Eloi targeted for mongrelization (i.e., destruction) precisely because of their old-time blind guides, which continue to be their guides up to the present time. I don’t consider you a WN (I mean: I don’t even consider Johnson a true WN).
Chechar: “the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese historians of the future will be baffled”
There's no need to be an historian living in the future. It is even more dramatic if you see the disaster unfolding in slow motion before your eyes. I wonder what the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese media are saying now about our quick destruction. I bet they don't care.
Jannik: “I also suspect that it Is primarily motivated by Chechars wish to distance himself from Greg Johnsons Counter Currents.”
It isn’t just Greg Johnson’s blog. Nationalists in European countries are also wasting their time with Evola and Guénon. For example, next Saturday, the French nationalist group “Terre et Peuple” will have a conference about Evola in the city of Lyon, with Pierre Vial, Pierre Krebs, and others.
Evola and Guénon probably had interesting things to say. But I think that Kevin MacDonald’s work is more to the point, given today’s crisis. Counter Currents thinks we can have both. Half of their articles are very much to the point, while other articles look to me like intellectual digressions.
I think Evola has been seen as a great intellectual partly thanks to his distinguished monocle, and also because he was not obsessed with race. Being obsessed with the idea of saving the White race sounds a little vulgar, even if it isn’t as bad as harping on the Jewish question.
Personally, I prefer Hitler’s hard-nosed anti-replacism to Evola’s philosophical musings. The race crisis was not as disastrous in the 1930s as it is today. It was still possible to elude the subject and talk about something more intellectual, like the importance of tradition and so on. But today, the race-replacement problem dwarfs any other one.
When I read an essay or speech made by William Pierce, I get plenty of information and food for thought. It is very clear and easy to assimilate. If I read an excerpt of a book by Evola, I don’t know what to make of it. So, I don’t think fellow White Nationalists should be encouraged to read Evola.
About tradition, I would rather read Jim Kalb’s blog than Evola’s books.
@Armor
It sounds like an interesting conference. But it really is only relevant for a small subset of the right movement who take an interest in the intellectual foundations. The common footsoldier probably needs something far more base and simple.
Like som basic tenants to adhere to.This is my personal conclusion, after I hung out with potential football hooligans some years ago. Many of them are actually very sympathic to the nationalist cause.
“Evola and Guénon probably had interesting things to say. But I think that Kevin MacDonald’s work is more to the point, given today’s crisis. Counter Currents thinks we can have both. Half of their articles are very much to the point, while other articles look to me like intellectual digressions.”
I think you are correct. But even Kevin Macs. trilogy will be a big mouthful for a large fraction of potential converts. It is still quite a scholarly work, which requires alot of background information to digest properly. But it is offcourse still more accessible than traditionalist philosophy.
CC appears esoteric in my view. It also has a tendency to stick out in many different directions, with a very diverse range of authors. And it can be quite hard to spot a common thread in the articles.
So CC is meant for a very narrow audience. I personally dont believe Greg Johnsons “meta-political” strategy will work, but thats another issue.
“The race crisis was not as disastrous in the 1930s as it is today. It was still possible to elude the subject and talk about something more intellectual, like the importance of tradition and so on. But today, the race-replacement problem dwarfs any other one.”
Yes, but this is also the reason why Evola and Guenon should not be scorned heavily. The problems of that time were simply different. Hordes of blacks and muslims werent invading Europe at an accelerating rate.
They are really authors meant for the long haul, not authors with solutions to pressing political problems. And that is what is needed right here and now.
“When I read an essay or speech made by William Pierce, I get plenty of information and food for thought. It is very clear and easy to assimilate. If I read an excerpt of a book by Evola, I don’t know what to make of it. So, I don’t think fellow White Nationalists should be encouraged to read Evola.”
I think you are partly right. It all depends on what type of person you are dealing with. Evola is most definitely not for everyone, but for the more rare intellectually inclined type. While Peirce most certainly can appeal to a wider audience.
@Chechar
Breiviks strategy is counter productive. And his murder spree really hasnt garnered much support anywhere. Some years ago a swedish guy tried a similar strategy, on a smaller scale, and with limited results. He specifically went after immigrants, but this had no positive long term effect either. Only ostracism and a life long jail sentence will be the result of this strategy of victimizing immigrants or racemixers.
I read a summary of the Turner diaries some years back, but dont really think it is viable as a political strategy
People only very rarely will support acts of terrorism, so I believe its a very ineffectual way of creating political change. If you want political change with violent means, you start with building a movement. A movement made up of leaders ready to take action, and lots of street fighters ready to take action in riots, demonstrations and outright fights. And possibly a fraction ready to take political control after a violent overthrow.
In many ways I think the leftwing radicals, and a right wing group like Golden Dawn understand what is required. And getting the common people on your side might also be a prerequisite in the long run.
It is not traditionalism that has failed as such, it is liberalism and marxism that has won, due to NS germany losing the second world war.
What I personally read in the long run is really immaterial, whether it be Peirces fiction or traditionalist philosophy. Intellectually inclined people like me or you dont really instigate political change, especially since all our activities are channeled into the internet.
What matters is meeting up with real people eventually and organizing. All else is just supplementary, but not really essential. This is the hard truth, this blog, CC, alternative right, etc. will combined only make a very little political difference in the long run. Since it only targets a very small demographic.
You misunderstand. And I am really tired of interacting with you.
The point was that IF whites had been reading such literature for decades since WW2 instead of the imbecilities published at CC (and the imbecilities in today’s France as pointed by Armor), the Breiviks of today would have made a difference.
(Hellstorm for instance should have been written in the late 1940s, etc.)
COMMENTS CLOSED IN THIS THREAD.