Yesterday I mentioned Kevin MacDonald’s article in which he was trying to understand a series of tweets from white Americans celebrating that they will become a minority in their country. The phenomenon of white ethnosuicide is too large for the professor, who, like the vast majority of white nationalists, believes that the JQ is the primary factor of Aryan decline.
As we know, I don’t think the JQ is the primary factor. Having lived for more than half a century in the largest metropolis in Latin America, I can’t believe in the JQ every time I go out on the street, as the horrendous miscegenation was perpetrated by the Spanish when the Inquisition, which existed in the centre of the city, protected society from crypto-Jews. It’s obvious that what happened in the Americas was ethnosuicide, caused by a Catholic (i.e., universalist) worldview about the races.
Since MacDonald’s hypothesis is insufficient for me, I have tried to understand the phenomenon from a more comprehensive paradigm than that of the white nationalists: a paradigm that explains all the historical data and doesn’t only focus on recent history, as does MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique.
I woke up today remembering a passage from my Day of Wrath, which mentions a Frenchman, and another passage from a seminal essay on this site, by a conservative Swede. The latter said:
Secular Christianity has thrown out God and Christ, but keeps the Christian ethics (inversion of values etc.). And the Christian ethics actually gets heightened and unfettered in Secular Christianity (I have written much about that in my blog). With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to fulfil Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.
Italics are mine. The italicised words evoke those whites who want to become minorities; and the whole quotation evokes what we have recently translated from Savitri’s book. Westerners are so plugged into the matrix of Christian ethics—atheists included—that they are unable to see that putting man at the centre of the universe has been a historical outrage, from all angles. Hence the wisdom of the title of the last Savitri book that was published, Impeachment of Man. Keeping in mind what Savitri says about putting the so-called Homo sapiens as the centre of Nature, let’s continue with the Swede:
Thus the Western Christian civilisation caused the population explosion in the Third World. It is entirely caused by the Western Christian civilisation, since these Third World countries were completely unable to do this themselves. Christian ethics commands that every single human life should be saved if possible. Before, more than half of the children in Third World countries died. Now virtually all survive, and we have the population explosion.
Yesterday a commenter said that he had read the sidebar books but not my Day of Wrath. I get the impression that few have read it. But psychohistory is vital to understanding Aryan ethno-suicide. In a passage from Day of Wrath we read:
I mention all of this to throw light on the long Colin Ross quotation way above. The self-harmer women of Dallas pierced themselves because they believed in their wickedness and they needed an escape valve to discharge some of the pressure from the volcano of rage against their parents they carried inside.
At the expense of their mental health and due to the locus of control shift, the evil of their parents had been transfused to their mentality since their childhood, making the perpetrator good and safe to attach to. Let us remember that this shift helps to solve the basic dilemma of the human race: the affective attachment to our parents due to our long dependency. Ross does not comment on the ancient Mexicans, but according to Lloyd deMause this sort of self-injuring alleviated the Amerindians from the anxiety of the internalised image of a parent, now sublimated, that would castigate them because of a prosperity perceived as sinful (we will see where this gets us when analysing the West of the 21st century).
The passage is helpful although, in the case of ethnosuicidal Aryans, I don’t mean that they have necessarily been abused as children. However, although the trauma model of mental disorders aims to decipher the mental illness of a disturbed individual, we could analogise this phenomenon to a whole demented age; let’s say, how the Romans committed cultural suicide by embracing Christianity, the ‘Aryan apocalypse’ as can be seen on this site’s masthead.
Currently that apocalypse is repeated, but this time it is focused against the white race. Just as it is possible to interpret the disorder of a subject based on his abusive childhood, it is possible to interpret the neurosis, and even psychosis of an entire race, based on its buried history. Yesterday, when I was leafing through the Life magazines of the 1950s and 60s once more, I came across an article about academic historians, including scholars on the history of Christianity. They didn’t mention the catastrophe that occurred in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries of our era (I was going to dedicate today to Christianity’s Criminal History #141 but changed my mind). In Day of Wrath I quote the French:
In other words, self-harming and harming others are two sides of the same coin. We displace our contained rage on others and ourselves because of the absolute dissociation of the resulting emotions from the treatment we received in the past. If the pre-Columbian people displaced more than us it was simply due to a more primitive form of childrearing than ours. For Claude-François Baudez of the National Centre of Scientific Research in Paris, the Mesoamerican ‘sacrifice of others only replaced self-sacrifice on the condition that the alter is equivalent to the ego’. Human sacrifice was, ultimately, the sacrifice of the ego ‘as it is shown in the first place by the primaeval myths that precede self-sacrifice’.
Of course, it would require a more academic treatment of these issues to try to decipher the apparent mystery of Aryan suicide. But with the above quotes we can see that psychohistory can provide us with some clues.
The mind of blacks and mestizos is easy to understand: they are simply moved by an inferiority complex versus the Aryan. Jews are more complex, although MacDonald’s trilogy deciphers their psychology.
But the psychology of contemporary whites is extremely bizarre because in the 4th century they suffered from a neurosis that in our times has reached the level of florid psychosis: a psychosis that must be deciphered if we are to save them.
Ultimately, psychohistory can decipher both, a specific case of a psychotic person and the whole history of the Christian Era.
4 replies on “The French and the Swede”
Are you implying that Rome was our abusive whore of a daddy? Then wouldn’t a blank-slate futurist revolutionism be more of an answer than a perpetual infatuation with antiquity?
Truth be told, I don’t understand Savitri Devi’s claim against a humanistic, man-centric outlook. I’d go on to say “it wasn’t real humanism”. What is man-centric about cucking yourself to a foreign god and a foreign vermin?
SD wants to save tigers because they’re excellent, while Nature herself doesn’t (and neither do you, for that matter). Earth itself doesn’t give a care in the world about beauty or life, only about power, about survival. Man-centredness follows, although with “man” in the sense of “race”, obviously. The triumphant race that will inherit the planet by loving itself, its growth, its power, by loving the weakness of the foreigners, their pain and their demise.
Have you misunderstood?
Rome betrayed itself since Constantine. Have you read the masthead of this site?
Savitri meant that so-called ‘Man’ (i.e., all races of men) was only the centre of our Weltanschauung after Christianity: something analogous to the geocentric point of view. Our POV is heliocentric.
Where’s the misunderstanding? Rome is the father of the Occidental civilisation (look at the script), and Rome sold us to Jewish slavers. In this regard, a parental analogy makes sense, alongside a filial rebellion.
I find it hard to believe the ancients who burned forests without a care in the world and killed elephants for sport did not put Man in the centre. “Man is the measure of all things” – Protagoras. I fail to understand what is to be gained from this collective self-abnegation. Yes, man is a cog in the machine of Nature and must obey objective laws, but we are that cog, and we must be all-important to ourselves. The rest is cuckoldry.
This suggest that you haven’t read the masthead of this site.
Savitri is not saying that the Aryan isn’t godlike (this pretty much sounds like a misunderstanding) but that all races surely aren’t godlike: ‘Man’, the Xtian and modern worldview.