Good evening. I’m about to go to bed. I have a few few minutes after finishing a painting though, and not much else to get on with so I went over to The Unz Review. It’s been months since I’ve been able to stomach any of the articles on there. I open it up and shut it in seconds each time.
I see Jared Taylor has a piece on a liberal genetics scientist from Harvard called David Reich. I won’t get into the article, as genetics-themed white nationalist articles bore me, and never ever approach with a broad enough knowledge to discern nature from nurture. I’m far more interested in physical/racial anthropology anyway. Jared’s quoted a paper showing (among many other things) gene patterns associated with bipolar and schizophrenia.
I felt so weary at that point, just “oh no, this shit again?”. Someone should tell him/the lot of them that they are no genes for mental illness. He could try anything by Jay Joseph (I have the three books on the twins studies debacle) or Madness and Genetic Determinism by Patrick D. Hahn. I read the comments, and was surprised that not one person noticed this or brought him up about it—as you know, it’s a big comments section. The comments were mainly meat eaters making veganism jibes, with their dietary dogma scientism. So David Reich uses idiot science, and Taylor just repeats him non-controversially. I don’t comment there, and I can’t be bothered to put it to them. You’d have to teach 99% from square one on the topic, and naturally, being American, they’d assume they knew better, and just bat you off.
That’s definitely the last time I browse there. I can’t browse anything but your website these days. I even find YouTube a struggle. Apart from WDH, the net’s just a shopping market for me, to pick up as many supplies as I can before time runs out.
Then there’s Patriotic Alternative (PA) advertising their latest conference, a key detail being their complimentary “delicious evening meal of various meats, including minted lamb, chicken and pork”.
I shudder having to share a planet with these people. They’re scum. Literal Hobbit-minds. I suppose I just can’t cope with morons. The worst is that they don’t/can’t/will never realise that they are morons. The entire international ‘movement’ sphere annoys me, far too much. I don’t care if they call themselves white advocates or the wombles (British children’s television puppet animal) in their wretched little normie socialite club. The labels and monikers and self-aggrandizements are transparent. They don’t speak for me in any fashion. I wish these PA/white nationalist would come round to my door for their activist vote campaigning so I could tell them as much face to face. I think I actually wish the net would fail and be shut down at times also, driving people into the real-world (and them silenced and in disarray, stripped of publicity opportunities).
I was thinking of what we discussed last night on animals. The worst thing for me is knowing it goes on live-time and 24/7, and as I’m sat up here typing, many millions are being slaughtered painfully. And then they brag about it, as if they were discussing Bitcoin, or lead, or a piece of coal; “meat”.
It’s odd, but I think I dislike the Right more than the left. I find neochristians/liberals/modern statists intolerable if they have any form of official authority, but the everyday people’s idealistic left just seem like people I can walk up to in a coffee shop—I miss going out to chat—and not immediately hear something retardedly smug and Neanderthal out of, considering I have no interest in talking on politics with people (that docile quality doesn’t so much apply to the American ones).
Conservatives are the type who sneered and bullied me at public school, and I know that demographic well. I’ve noticed over the years that friends-wise I only seem to get on with people who’ve had a harsh life. Nigel and Mick had that same ‘underground’, lines-on-the-face quality to them. Ideally, I’d only talk to National Socialists though.
Oh well, ha. Just idle yearning.
Best regards for the night,
Benjamin
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s 2¢:
It’s curious. I visit The Unz Review once a day—it’s the only site I visit every day—but I don’t stay more than a few seconds before leaving! The titles of the new articles alone are enough for me to realise that we are dealing with neo-normies, not with National Socialists who want to seize State power in a future revolution.
But the last time I visited the site I was struck by the photo Jared Taylor chose: a guy hugging an Australian Aborigine who looks like a perfect Neanderthal (they have an even lower IQ than sub-Saharan blacks). So, before I received Benjamin’s email, I had seen Taylor’s video in full.
Curious, I said above. And it’s that when Jared talked about schizophrenia as genetic my mind immediately flew to thoughts very similar to Benjamin’s. For example, when I spent years researching psychiatry in-depth, I even corresponded with Jay Joseph, mentioned by Benjamin (as well as having read some of his academic papers).
Why does the racial right ignore the scientific critique of biological psychiatry?
A dozen years ago I made an editorial mistake. Greg Johnson had already accepted a paper I wrote for publication in Counter-Currents, ‘Why Psychiatry is False Science’. Since I had noticed at the time that Johnson was publishing articles that Tanstaafl had previously published in Age of Treason, it seemed natural to publish my paper here. Johnson replied that having published it here first, he would no longer publish it in his webzine.
Had it been published there, racialists would at least have a sense that there is a formal critique of psychiatry. (For those interested in getting started on the subject, in addition to my article linked above, you might want to check out Robert Whitaker’s YouTube lectures on psychiatry.)
Regarding the second part of Benjamin’s email, I have already spoken at length on this site on the subject. We must always remember that the bourgeois conservative type was, for the Führer, an even worse kind of person than the radical leftist. However misguided he may be, the radical at least wants to change society, sometimes by force. The bourgeois conservative, on the other hand, prioritises his money and status in society. With these people we aren’t going to get anywhere, even when they come close to racialism.
Like Benjamin, I no longer tolerate visiting white nationalist sites because they have fallen to a kind of improved conservatism, not the only thing that can save us: an improved National Socialism (see my featured post, ‘The Wall’).
A word about what Benjamin says about animal abuse.
A young American neo-Nazi, who fell from grace a few years ago, once commented how he had gone to a friend’s farm raising rabbits and helped to kill them, that it had been ‘a primal experience’.
One of the reasons I have called today’s neonazis pretenders is precisely because of anecdotes like the above. Every connoisseur of Hitler knows that he wanted to abolish the slaughterhouses after winning the war and, in the meantime, he was a vegetarian. In other words, American neonazis have been behaving like typical white nationalists but using NS paraphernalia.
As I have said a lot of times, it is high time that a new generation emerges that leaves the pretenders’ movement behind and tries to understand real National Socialism, so my next post will quote once again from Savitri Devi’s book.
15 replies on “Dear César,”
My comment today on the previous post sheds some light on my POV.
We are “designed” to eat meat. We have sharp canines and eyes on the front of our faces, like every other predator in nature.
Yes, and “designed” surely with the brains that manifest our minds’ distinct phenomenology, and we have achieved a lot with those brains. We’re omnivores. As I stated somewhere recently, we haven’t evolved biologically in quite a while, if at all for about 30,000 years, if I recall William Pierce’s segment in “Who We Are” correctly.
Unlike those other predators, the carnivores and omnivores, with a differently manifesting consciousness, we can realise what we’re doing and choose. It seems rather fatalistic otherwise in a deterministic sense, or biological essentialism (or whatever they call it). I’m born with a loaded gun in my hand; do I automatically shoot the little girl of my own race? I hope that analogy works okay.
I’m not denying a complex biological teleology, as that seems prudent to me too, but it feels like a fallacy of relevance to invoke an illegitimate lack of choice. Are we really obligated to do it consciously? If so, by who or what? And who claims authority to work as their interpreter? A more thorough appeal to Nature would perhaps allow for a weighted symbiosis more than mere mimicry – we are aligned with them as life, but not identical. I’d have to think more on this. That’s my initial thoughts.
On a side note, I wish we’d stop using the word ‘meat’ personally for the pieces of dead animal corpse, and just be blunt without commodifying it into abstraction. It’s a devastatingly effective means of blindsiding the mind to pity. This is what I don’t understand about so-called online National Socialists (whom I assume most of the blog visitors, myself included, aspire towards). It’s all fine and good on the JQ and history speculation and ‘hard talk’ and all the rest and one feels the momentum returning, but bring up this facet of Hitler’s worldview and the agreement rate plummets 100% to a backdrop of rolling tumbleweeds.
If we take into account the category of ‘psychoclasses’ in psychohistory (cf. my Day of Wrath and the final chapter of ¿Me ayudarás?), it is more than clear that those who refuse to eat meat out of solidarity with our cousins belong to a higher psychogenic state than those who eat it. But who among the bilingual commenters is curious enough to read either of these two books?
Just to warn you, in case you’re wondering why I’m still up, I’m pulling an all-nighter, as I do some days every few weeks. It sometimes gives me time to think in peace and quiet until mid-morning siesta.
I re-read the segment of Day of Wrath with Ark’s discussion. I must say, I felt for him. I remember the strain trying to get an stub on Wikipedia on Autophagia changed, and I gave up in the end (incidentally, it’s been updated since, but is even more obnoxious and erroneous now, and there’s certainly one journal paper they’ve conspicuously failed to reference, from my bitter experience). If that’s the calibre of academics we can produce these days… their political neochristian arguments were appallingly poor. I could sense the moral outrage.
Infanticide’s my argument against knee-jerk acceptance of Tradition. The proponents of these pastoralist/hunter-gatherer type arguments seem unable or afraid to criticise the actions of vast swathes of distant ancestors rather in the same way that they don’t review their parents (or seem to want to let anybody else). It’s certainly not an all-or-nothing total binary, but they were in a very different psychoclass. Eating the dead in Finland… my personal belief is that animal husbandry *at all* rendered us lazy for millennia.
I think of the main Julian Jaynes book also. I think one can respect forebears and primogenitors without the necessity – given new raised state understandings – to put them on pedestals without evaluation.
If we stopped 100% eating their flesh and drew back from them, would they evolve in time not to devour each other also: that sort of geological/evolutionary timeframe wonder crops up in my mind now and again. We’ve certainly put our dominion in their evolutionary way without exterminationism. We’ve pushed them beyond any survival of the fittest adaptation they’ve been able to come up with, hence huge extinctions; a regular die off (and breeding them in captivity doesn’t always work too well much as food-stocks breeding isn’t a soulful solution). I can’t remember the exact date, but I’m sure I read somewhere that we’ll have, at current rate, emptied the ocean of fish by about the 2040s. Or, as another thought: could teeth at all (of this current physical nature) be an unrefined stage to something, pan-spectrum. I’ve got an Amazon book lined up in theoretical biology on speculative evolutionary trajectories. I’ll return to this point when it arrives. I’ve commented enough for the moment anyway. Cheers.
PS.
It occurred to me, haven’t gorillas got massive canines too? Fair enough, they might occasionally scavenge, and one could count insects maybe (not that I always do), but I think they’re basically almost almost herbivores for most of their lives. I know this strand doesn’t affect your argument, which I assume lumps humans into the ‘carnivore’-leaning omnivore category somehow by assumption (and is irrelevant to my previous argument) but it suggests to me that it’s not quite so clear cut. What did our primates develop colour vision for in those forward facing eyes?
Distinguishing ripe berries and fruits perhaps, and to weed out the poisonous ones. Is there any chance our ancestors evolved the forward vision to assist the picking dexterity process on top of chasing down prey? I know big canines in other species would help with defence, or for arena mating as a showpiece. The naturalistic fallacy always strikes me as akin to cherry picking. I’m not even sure, at cosmic teleology level, i.e. on the very long scale for the future, if they’re an advantage attribute or not. I suppose they’re only useful now if you’re still doing it, which, as I say, you don’t exactly have to.
I wonder if sympathy for animals is really just another aspect of residual Christian morality. Surely the Roman’s had no qualms against it nor any of our other European ancestors. Most vegetarians I know are neo-christian, virtue-signaling, woke and usually anemic.
I disagree because the Romans were simply inferior to Hitler and Göring in the sense that these Germans belonged to a higher psychoclass. For example, no vegan or non-vegan Nazi would have behaved like what they did to the innocent daughter of Sejanus in the time of Caligula (see my post here).
Those who use the Roman paradigm haven’t considered what I’ve written about psychohistory in Day of Wrath, or my criticism of Eduardo Velasco on the Spartans in The Fair Race.
On the other hand, you have posted like ‘Bannon’ in the past, right? In order not to be confused with the trolls I would suggest that you don’t use sockpuppets.
Just out of interest, what is it that directly encourages you not to have sympathy for them? I mean these arguments are all basic validations for terrible cruelty, by self-imposed metrics of importance. That’s what I don’t understand. The tenacious, rather quick to decide ‘me, me, me’ that can happily see this stuff go on and participate (the working of slaughterhouses; every form of hunting, blood sports, animal testing, all the rest…) and simply doesn’t give a shit (or not much at least). We’ve already made the infanticide and destructive parenting point from Lloyd DeMause’s History of Childhood, and a lot more on that topic. They had no qualms with that either. If they all filed off a cliff like Disney lemmings would you follow?
I made the comment before about feeling like I’m talking to armoured rocks with sneers painted on them. It seems there’s a divide here. What level of cruelty would it reach before you, just for example, would consider drawing the line, or would you never? It’s impossible to linguistically argue it away as not being cruel. I found the deadened abstraction involved curious, as if everyone on here is somehow autistic. Reserve cruelty for enemies, and even then only by the 4 words, if even necessary at all.
It’s a shame most vegetarians so far are progressives. I think it’s simply a bonus point in their otherwise misguided philosophies, which do after all, usually contain a grain of truth. I see no reason though for the issue to become politicised into the left-right paradigm in the first place. I should hope one doesn’t have to be a leftist to be caring. As with Cesar’s art point recently, do you look at all the unnecessary death and suffering (and it is extensive, gratuitous and very brutal, really, one has to see that), and just go ‘meh’? I don’t think it’s Christian morality, no. I think it’s certainly what I would express as soulfulness though, in a non-Christian sense, a racial cohesion in line with an emerged psychoclass.
Look, I’m quitting commenting here for a while. there’s no point. You don’t get it, and I don’t think you’re going to get it, and it bores me typing these. I repeat again for the last time, which is better, the perception that thinks, ‘hey, tasty broth’ etc., or the perception that acknowledges 500 million – at least – daily tortured animals that are forced into this non-human gulag? The means do not justify the ends. The Romans at least had a perception of what was distasteful. I’m sure they evaluated Carthage as unacceptable for Carthaginian cruelty. That might be a start in understanding. In general, it’s not to be understood, and is felt or is not. I’m wasting my words. It’s not that its unsuccessful for humans alone (although there may be more successful survival strategies, and that does need detailed exploring) it’s that it’s appallingly cruel, and is not, in the deepest sense, necessary for survival.
Sometimes, it seems like vegetarianism is a luxury. Also, in order to eliminate as much suffering as possible, wouldn’t the logical endpoint be anit-natalism?
Also the jews want us to stop eating meat. So in the current context, it might xome to be seen as an act of rebellion.
The 4 words don’t say “eliminate all possible suffering” but rather “eliminate all unnecessary suffering,” meaning that sometimes there is necessary suffering in life.
Who determines what is necessary and how do we draw the line? Seems pretty subjective.
The trouble is that the 4 words is a concept that comes from my books in my native language, which are not yet fully translated. Except to point out that on the welfare of animals the Nazis were the good guys, I cannot detail it here because it requires the space I required in my trilogy.
In theory, lab grown meat, or at least something synthesized for optimum nutrition a la the replicator in star trek would be ideal. Until then, nothing comes close in terms of nutrient density as meat. The only time I condone hunting is when it is to put food on the table. And yeah slaughterhouse are for the most part disgusting and barbaric.
Also, ironically, most of the money for wildlife conservation efforts comes from the hunting community