web analytics
Asia Miscegenation Nordicism Racial studies Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Three-eyed raven, 5


Ethnosuicidal Spencer


The future 3-Eyed Raven
beside the Heart tree at Winterfell.

Generally white nationalists see me as a very rare fellow since, without being Aryan, I proclaim nordicism. They ignore that it is precisely because my ancestors lost their Aryan blood what motivates me to warn others not to lose it.
I’m not the weird one in promoting nordicism. They are the freaks. A reading of William Pierce’s book immediately uncovers the fact that over the millennia whites tried to preserve their race through a religion (as in India) or through a harsh political system based on iron laws (as in Sparta) or putting public notices so that the blacks did not pass from a certain geographic latitude (as in Egypt) or burning alive the Aryan that married a mudblood (as did the Visigoths in Spain before Christianity deceived them).
What is more, what is labelled ‘nordicism’ is, in fact, orthodoxy in racial studies from Gobineau and Chamberlain to Grant and Günther and the National Socialists. The latter, for example, took nordicism for granted to the extent that they prevented the Germans from marrying those Slavs whose bloodline was compromised (Richard Spencer did exactly the opposite in his personal life). Even today’s scholars share the nordicist premise (see, for example, Kevin MacDonald’s review of the book Raciology by Vladimir Avdeyev here or here).
Only in recent times, when in the mid-1990s the term white nationalism started to be used, its supporters wanted to make tabula rasa of the knowledge accumulated in the last centuries and tried to reinvent the wheel starting from scratch. Many of these people are so ignorant that they do not even want to read books: they just watch the news of what is happening in the world from the point of view of racist internet sites. Something as elementary as ordering Pierce’s book from Amazon Books and studying it is foreign to them in their superficial way of acting in the world.
Moreover, even the most educated white nationalists suffer from this problem. Like pedantic university students these nationalists quote charlatan Aleksandr Dugin, but at the same time they are incapable of recognizing elemental patterns in the history of the white race.
Yesterday evening, for example, I discovered an interview with Richard Spencer with a mongrel in which Spencer asserted that the ethnic state of his dreams could absorb mulattos and mestizos, as long as they believed in the Western cause!
Presumably Spencer would admit these mongrels, mestizos and mudbloods as ordinary citizens, who would have the right to marry whites. ‘Race is a big family’ Spencer said, in the sense that he is not ‘Puritan’ to the extent of rejecting black and Amerindian blood within the gene pool of the white state. Spencer added that the numbers of mongrels are very small although earlier in the interview the interviewer had released the data that interracial couples consist of 10 percent of the population.
In Who We Are Pierce wrote:

Before we deal with the next Indo-European peoples of the Classical Age—the Macedonians and the Romans—let us review briefly the history of our race to this point, and let us also look at the fate of some Indo-Europeans who, unlike those we have already studied, invaded Asia instead of Europe.

Pierce then explains how the ‘Indo-Europeans’, that is the Nordish peoples, conquered the Middle East but perished through racemixing precisely because they held the view that Spencer now holds. According to Pierce it happened to the Hittite Empire, the Persian Empire and in India. Unlike what Spencer and most white nationalists believe, ‘only total separation can preserve racial quality’.
My prediction is not only that white nationalists will continue with their ethnosuicidal ideology. They will continue to ignore the classics of racial studies whose names I cited above, even the American Madison Grant. In their pride they will continue to see themselves as superior to the nationalist socialists of the last century, when their inferiority is obvious.

22 replies on “Three-eyed raven, 5”

Good article. The inferiority of post-1945 White Nationalism is obvious to any critical thinker. Another good point which you made on Yeager’s website is that WN’s still gravitate around the old set of neo-Christian morals, whereas the National Socialists embodied the new (and yet very old) Aryan morality. WN/Alt-Right shies away from the full Truth as well as the necessary extreme morality (and consequent methods) needed for our race to survive into the future. It is therefore doomed to failure in its stated goal of saving the White race.

Here I am quoting Carolyn Yeager once more, but she labeled Greggy Johnson recently as a New Right Liberal. I think these WNs, Alt-Righters, and so on ARE all liberals, exactly like Johnson. Richard Spencer talks and dresses like he’s some kind of role “model,” not a leader. That is, he and his ilk have drunk the Joo juice and don’t want their new, lighter, kinder, gayer brand of pro-White nationalism to have any of the “taint” of “racism” either from the Old School of 19th century racialist thinking or any associations to with that “horrible” fellow Hitler over whom, to defend him, you have to study and read and debate while embroiling yourself in racial conflict with the Jew.
That’s Jewish Liberalism smeared all over the White movement, save for a very few number of individuals, these few having larger brain pans (I suspect) and more capacity to endure hardship, like reading history books, doing historical research, and talking truth to power though it is often uncomfortable.

Originally I intended to call our podcasts “White nationalist critic” but since I can’t speak fluent English my main differences with nationalists are not so explicit in the 5 episodes.
The main disagreement is what I call “bicausalism B”. A correspondent from the UK sent me this mail today:

I like how you see our problems as a series of supersets that encompass one another – Venn-diagram style! The ultimate superset in your analysis is we Ayans ourselves, and I agree with you. The Aryan problem is a superset of the Christian problem is a superset of the Jewish problem.
The Jewish problem is a subset of the Christian problem is a subset of the Aryan problem.

I am contemplating the idea of reposting tomorrow an extremely tough article I originally posted in 2014. It explains pretty well how do I differ with Carolyn and Hadding regarding the ‘holocaust’, and if she accepts our invitation for our next podcast maybe she should read it.

Exactly how non-Aryan are you, C.T.? It’s difficult to grasp the exact meaning of this nomenclature, although you are perhaps much better studied in this area than I. It’s tough to sort out the ideology from the science. I am “mixed” Italian-Czech. Some say this mix is non-Aryan, but I’m hard pressed to call myself anything other than White for want of any other ethnic identifier.


“I am contemplating the idea of reposting tomorrow an extremely tough article I originally posted in 2014. It explains pretty well how do I differ with Carolyn and Hadding regarding the ‘holocaust’, and if she accepts our invitation for our next podcast maybe she should read it.”

Well, contemplate all you want, but don’t do it, not in the manner you’re proposing. You don’t invite someone to participate in a conversation only then to confront her with your “different” viewpoint about the holohoax. Instead, you present your different view first, and then you ask her if she will still accept your invitation despite the differences.
I’m already sorry to hear your contemplations. I thought you wanted an advocate for the “ethnosuicide nationalism” topic particularly as it concerns Greg Johnson, which is why I suggested you contact Carolyn and for no other reason or purpose. That was what you clearly proposed to me. I did not imagine your vision for the next radio program was to have a platform so that you might express your disagreements with CY & HS. You can do that on your own, without inviting anyone.
I thought you were of like mind with Carolyn and Hadding concerning their view of how the holocaust myth needs to be destroyed, and because of that assumption, I suggested you try to get Carolyn on your radio program instead of me. These two people are my mentors, and I want you to respect them as I do. If you cannot or do not, just be truthful and say so, and all pretense at making an authentic connection with other kindred spirits in the National Socialist perspective can end without too much difficulty or trauma. Capish?

Uhhh! You totally misunderstood me. It’s not my plan to confront anyone. The “tough article” is not what you imagine: it’s a critique of Christian morals (e.g., Greggy and Franklin’s views on the holocaust).
Since I don’t want to spoil the readership about which is the article in question, email me and I’ll send you the link. As I said, I already posted it in this site in 2014 and it does not mention your mentors.

I understand better now, but your words now address a completely different subject — again. I will email you. I don’t think Carolyn has a hard line anymore when it comes to Christian beliefs and I don’t think Hadding Scott ever had one, so I don’t forsee any problem if you were to bring this idea up organically in your radio program with her as a guest. You have a refreshing and rigorous viewpoint on the Christian meme being destructive to the Aryan so I am having a hard time right now envisioning Carolyn getting her knickers in a twist about the topic.

Are you referring to your article in 2014 called “The Daily Stormer”? I’m not sure. I was about to email you when I noticed an error I made in your email address and was about to correct it in order to send the email to you — when you posted the comment I quoted above.
You have so much to say and so many articles to read. I’m trying to find the ones you find salient. Let me know.

No, it’s another.
If you are impatient enough to know tonight which article I have in mind to re-post it tomorrow, email me.

I have the patience to wait till tomorrow. Something about your insistence, however, communicates itself to me, like I feel somehow you urgently want me to know about this article so that I might share it with Carolyn Yeager — or something. I supposed I just want to get to the heart of your proposal and its urgency, and if it’s still gestating and inarticulate at this stage, or if you are not being insistent, yes, I can wait till tomorrow certainly.

Actually, what moved me to reread that 2014 long article of mine was precisely—that you clicked on it twice this day after 4:00 pm (according to my stats page)! If you figure out which article it is, keep the secret on this thread until tomorrow 🙂

I will. You see, I have three tabs open with a different essay by you under each one — but I’ve not been able to read any of them because of all the commenting I’ve been doing with you today — plus I spent an hour reading more of you from “Days of Wrath.” :).
I look forward to tomorrow.

Comments are closed.