Misguided sons of Bentham

I hadn’t listened to Mark Weber in years. I like him because, unlike many in the pro-white movement, like David Irving Weber is willing to change his opinion about what our enemies call the ‘holocaust’ if the historical evidence points in that direction.

In his recent interview with Greg Johnson and another guy, Weber said interesting things. But like his interlocutors, the ‘operating system’ of his mind, so to speak, remains neochristian.

I recently talked about Michael O’Meara and linked a couple of his articles. Although Michael never broke as openly with Christianity as we do on this site, he knew much better how the collective unconscious of the white race works than the authors of today. He knew that what we need is a myth that galvanises the Aryans to the point of producing a new religion. Unlike Savitri Devi, Michael failed to realise that this new myth, this new religion, had already been born in Germany and that Hitler had been its prophet. But at least Michael had a much better notion of what moves the collective imagination of races than today’s racialists.

The case of Weber and his interlocutors exemplifies this. After 1:41 Weber warned us not to view history as good guys versus bad guys. What a tremendous mistake, as we are about to see. At the end of the Johnson-led show, Weber pointed to two places where we can buy important books (here and here). But Weber’s failure is precisely not to see things in a mythical way, as the Jews do.

Although Jews have been repeating their myths for thousands of years, even white racists are reluctant to recover their history. If I use the metaphor of George R.R. Martin of ‘a man merged with a weirwood’ it is because this site, unlike the others, provides just the historical myth that the white man needs (summarised in The Fair Race). The great mistake of Weber and other racialist scholars is that they read Christian or neochristian historians. If there is something in which I distinguish myself from all of them, it is in my claim that we must rewrite the history of the white man to save him: hence the metaphor of the three-eyed crow, an old man fused with the tree of historical wisdom that, retrocognitively, could see the past.

The first attempt to rewrite history from the POV of the new myth occurred in Nazi Germany. I have already said, for example, that when I was living in Gran Canaria, a Spanish island next to Africa, I learned that Himmler’s scholars had travelled to the island to collect information on the aboriginal blonds who had lived in the Canary Islands before the arrival of the Spaniards.

On this side of the Atlantic, only William Pierce that I know of began to rewrite the history of the white man: a book that apparently does not appear in the two book sites linked above. It is true that Pierce’s book is merely a ‘story’, in the sense of a preliminary readable essay on the more erudite histories to be written about the race. But that’s how the rewriting begins: with a simple, inspiring and captivating story, not with huge volumes that few will read.

Who We Are is the myth that would emerge in a movement that leaves behind the failed methods that Michael O’Meara warned us about a decade ago. The only thing that will return the soul to the European-descended peoples will be a pro-white myth, something analogous to LOTR but that did happen in the real world. And that myth begins with stories (the current story of the West is good for Jews, not for Aryans: egalitarianism for all).

Is this so hard to see? Apparently yes. Like Jared Taylor, Weber appeals to the intellect, not to the numinous aspect of the human soul. I remember that some time ago Weber wrote texts and then read them on his radio podcasts. Even Carolyn Yeager, who had her own podcast, warned him that such practice could result in burnout. But neither Weber nor those who read Johnson’s webzine can see something so obvious.

What the Nazis did was to appeal to the numinous side of the Aryan race, with all those quasi-religious rituals that they did on the streets and, even more numinously, at Himmler’s castle in Nuremberg.

The mistake of virtually all the pundits of American racialism reminds me of an anecdote by Octavio Paz. In a meeting between American writers and a Russian in which Paz participated, he immediately realised that ‘the sons of Bentham’ were on completely different wavelengths, according to the phrase he later used, of that of the Russian: a fan of a Russian poet who appealed to numinosity whose name I don’t remember. Mixing Anglo-Saxon pragmatists with a spiritual Russian was like mixing water with oil.

Many of the pundits of white nationalism today resemble these sons of Bentham, ignoring what Michael tried to tell us: It is the poet who creates nations, not the scientist.