web analytics
Exterminationism Hate Human sacrifice Neanderthalism

Reply to Franklin Ryckaert

Hi Franklin,

I am pleased to see you commenting here once again. Although it seems an obvious contradiction what you tell me—:

So you are proud of your ‘exterminationism’, but at the same time you keep on complaining about the crimes of the Allies against Nazi Germany and about cruelty against children and animals. Is that not a contradiction?

—there really isn’t.

Have you read what I say in the fourth of my eleven books about pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and the clash of psychoclasses with the Europeans that destroyed it? If my books were already all translated into English, I would suggest you read them. In context, they explain the difference between ‘unnecessary suffering’ and ‘necessary suffering’, especially the last book (see, e.g., the translation of the final chapter of the fourth book here).

For example, from the point of view of the priest of ‘the four words’ (‘eliminate all unnecessary suffering’), the Carthaginians and their culture had to be exterminated so that those Semites would not be roasting their children alive (bibliographical references on the reality of infanticide can be found in another part of my book, translation: here). My exterminationist passion has to do precisely with compassion for those who suffer, especially animals and children at the mercy of human monsters, and the draconian measures that must be taken to save them from such unnecessary suffering.

But that to save them it is sometimes necessary to leave no gene upon gene of a race, no stone upon stone of their horrible civilisation (as happened in the Punic Wars—Carthago delenda est!), seems obvious to me. Otherwise, those Semites might even now be burning their children alive. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Mesoamerican civilisation, which lasted three thousand years, was fortunately destroyed by the Europeans. But even before the Mesoamerican civilisation, the Peruvian Indians committed atrocious human sacrifices, as I reported a year ago (here).

That destroying one of these cultures makes those who belong to a lower psychoclass (say, the Carthaginian Semites, the Amerindians) suffer at the time of the Conquest is not a matter of doubt. Nevertheless, those conquests represented necessary suffering to save their children, literally, from the torment of the flames. See for example what I wrote about the Maya in one of my eleven books (English translation: here).

It all has to do with the distinction between necessary suffering (the Spanish Conquest made some Amerindians suffer, although it saved others) and unnecessary suffering (e.g., it’s unnecessary to martyr cows at the slaughterhouses). It may seem paradoxical, but my exterminationist passion has to do with my compassion for those who unnecessarily suffer because of others.

In a nutshell, the overman’s hatred of what he calls ‘Neanderthals’ is directly proportional to his love for those who suffer.

8 replies on “Reply to Franklin Ryckaert”

There is no contradiction.
Extermination and Cruelty are separate concepts.

The Allies inflicted horrendous Cruelty on the Germans, but they failed to Exterminate them, even 80 years later. They even failed to Exterminate the Japs with atomic bombs.

If Nazi Germans were masters of this world, they would have successfully Exterminated entire races of subhumans while inflicting only a fraction of the Cruelty of the Allies.

Perhaps Franklin missed a couple of paragraphs from instalments 59 and 60 of the Savitri book we have been translating?:

In both actions—that of the Einsatzgruppen in Poland and Russia, and that against the Jews everywhere—the leaders of the Third Reich had men from conquered countries treated or allowed to be treated as the founders of the US had treated the Redskins, but with less tartuffery. They openly admitted that ‘the tragedy of greatness is to create new life by treading on corpses’: corpses of which it doesn’t matter how many if the ‘new life’ is closer to its divine prototype; if it is more faithful to the supreme values than the life that is disappearing. And they sincerely believed it was, or would be (and indeed it would have been, if Germany had won the war).

Moreover, they acted and made others act without hatred or sadism.

To the American prosecutor Walton, who questioned him during his trial after the disaster, the SS Gruppenführer Otto Ohlendorf, Commander-in-Chief of Einsatzgruppe D, declared that a man ‘who showed pleasure in these executions was fired’, which means that these executions were considered in high places, as well as in the ranks of the SS, as an unpleasant necessity…

It takes some time, preferably by reading my books, to grasp the idea of a marriage of the 4 words with the 14 words.

If by exterminationism serves our purpose to preserve the beauty of the Aryan woman, so be it.We can discuss about the morality of it after the sub human races have gone extinct.

Besides, didn’t conservative Swede talk about this in “The red giant”?

By helping the populations of sub humanity to reproduce beyond control, the Judeo Christians will cause ( and are causing right now) more suffering and deaths than anyone could have imagined.

It would have been much better to just exterminate those populations, as Darwin predicted, and then proceed to tame the land for blonde children to be born.

In fact, in the Gates of Vienna discussion thread where the Swede talked about all of this, he used the word ‘psychopath’ when I confessed to an exterminationist fantasy I once had as a child…

Naturally, that Swede, who stopped blogging a few years ago, hasn’t crossed the river I was talking about earlier this month.

Comments are closed.