I was going to post another Might is Right instalment today but I got to thinking about my recent exchanges with Benjamin in various threads, and I feel I should say a few things.
I sometimes check the number of comments on old threads, back when WDH was hosted for free by WordPress, and I’m surprised that there were threads with dozens of comments. Since I started criticising American white nationalism, calling it deficient compared to German National Socialism, and shifting my paradigm from regarding the Christian problem as infinitely more serious than the Jewish problem, the visitor traffic has collapsed.
This is compounded by the fact that, as an immense admirer of Hitler myself, the German Chancellor’s sensitivity to art and animal welfare is something that simply doesn’t exist on the American racial right.
The immense dilemma I find myself in is that this sort of thing cannot be explained by pure reason, say, by solid race realist articles like the ones Jared Taylor has been publishing for decades. It has more to do with what we might call emergent psychogenics, which I have already discussed in Day of Wrath (a book that is nothing more than a translation of some chapters of my trilogy).
Psychogenic emergency is either felt or not. Or rather: either one belongs to a higher psychoclass, or one doesn’t belong to it. As I said, it is not something that can be demonstrated by pure reason. On seeing a work of art, such as the Lorraine canvas I saw on my last trip to London, the museum visitor either feels the emergent aesthetics compared to the architectural Neanderthalism of the largest city in Europe, or he feels nothing at all. Those 18th-century Englishmen like Henry Hoare who were aesthetically emergent even designed their gardens in imitation of the Italian painter’s architecture. Either you feel art or you don’t.
Incidentally, the bridge in Stourhead’s garden whose image I posted in June in this article was also used by Kubrick in one of the scenes in Barry Lyndon: a film whose images were inspired by canvases of the period like very few films I have seen. (Perhaps the sole exception is 1956’s Lust for Life in which the director used the actual sites in Holland, Belgium and the French countryside where Vincent van Gogh lived.)
The fourteen words have to do with aesthetics, in that the white race is the only truly beautiful race from the point of view of the Gods of Olympus. The other issue is ethics, the four words, Eliminad todo sufrimiento innecesario. Like great art, you either feel the four words or you don’t. Either you are a Neanderthal (Benjamin sent me an email today describing experiments on rabbits that I don’t even want to describe) or you are an overman like Hitler, and Göring who forbade tormenting those animals.
The sad truth is that most American racialists have not reached the psychogenic level of the Führer in terms of ethics and aesthetics, and that those emergent qualities cannot be induced by arguments, criticisms or diatribes like the ones I have used in this blog. Either you start psychogenically emerging as a child or an adolescent (cf. Kubizek’s memoirs of Hitler when they were both teenagers) or you won’t.
5 replies on “‘Emergency’”
I must say that although I loved the visuals of Barry Lyndon, I think Kubrick’s choice of Schubert’s 19th-century music was a mistake (the Lyndon drama is supposed to take place in the 18th century). The best scenes are those in which we don’t hear music composed in later times.
Dear César,
I couldn’t quite shift it off my mind. Back to my ‘re-education camps’ mentality. That probably wasn’t quite what I meant. I don’t think the WN lot should shun infighting. All to the contrary, I feel they should have kept at it, and kept at it more, as a honing process, turning on themselves without quarter until a real proto-aristocratic hierarchy was established, and cemented by reputation, not mob people pleasing. It’s probably controversial, and may be ill thought out, but I figured something along the line of duels for this. Debate or at least sharing of key points, but then, swiftly, honour combat, until victors emerged. Obviously one would have to be rather underground about this indeed (I have no idea personally). I wish they could have torn at each other and not the leftists though and their media Jews, and whittled each other down, and a select cadre flushed out finally, all the stronger, the only way I could think to bring on a genuine unity. My ideas on this topic are never very successful.
Thank you for the film recommendation. I hadn’t heard of Barry Lyndon. I was talking to my girlfriend two nights ago about period cinema. She’d been watching Downton Abby, and we were lamenting the loss of Jane Austen style programmes. I’d break my habit, and probably could stomach that film. There was so much to take in visually in the trailer alone, my eyes flitting everywhere. I cried for a second over one treat. That little pleasant second and a half of innocuous tears when you see something nice. I couldn’t think clearly who I’d set to it instead of Schubert. Intuitively I considered Johann Hummel, thinking of the rondo of his piano concerto no. 2 in A Minor, but I don’t know him well enough. That sinister (or sumptuous) elegance although there’s a playful, sparkling quality also, but perhaps too light.
Taking into account what I said this very month in ‘My gauntlet’, what would happen if at the time of the Q/A section at an AmRen conference (I don’t know if Greg Johnson also continues to do events) I challenged the key-note addresser with that issue of crossbreeding in Latin America (where I blame Xtianity)? That would start for the first time the duel between WN and the improved NS.
And if they don’t like me starting with 1.e4, I could tell them that I give them white and that they start the game with any criticism of NS. What would happen if I answered them eloquently, now with the ‘black pieces’?
The problem I see with them is that they don’t want to argue with me. Or am I wrong…?
I notice something like that. I mean, there are brief one-liners here and there, but in general the argument style is to defuse or exclude or dismiss on superficial appeals to authority and hearsay, or passive-aggressive.
I hate the silence. I don’t know where I stand with the silence. It’s a very good idea of yours. Somehow a win-win. It flusters them, thus showing them flustered (as any politician becomes flustered when audience members make enquiries) and it presents open infighting to a larger hostile world (perhaps cutting a bit of slack, or at least curiosity).
It’s good to divorce proper NS as quickly as possible from white nationalism. The two have been abusive cohabitants too long. I think the vast feckless actions of one give the other a bad name even, and I still think there’s a mite of sense in drawing off leftists (too idealistic to convert by pressure, but they do seem to genuinely be able to change their minds easier of their own accord).
My personal to me pet scheme was more like some type of concrete dungeon gladiatorial pit in the middle of nowhere analogy, a very hands on frustration (albeit not to excess, obviously – etiquette upheld), but I’d defer to your far more reasonable starting point.
Passive aggressive, sarky people never want to argue properly. I think this is the culmination of about a year’s worth of email thought on the matter, growing steadily more peeved and disillusioned. I gather they either don’t listen to a word from the get go, or filter feed in huge scoops and spit out what doesn’t match those hallowed preconceptions. I’ll do my very best not to give any more rather accumulative 2 cents though.
I wonder what anyone else thinks myself. I say you’d replied and I wasn’t sure who the question was aimed at. I asked some questions myself on here yesterday to the site at large, and I hope they aren’t rendered rhetorical. It’s famous last words for someone who types as much as me, but really, without more input from more than A or B, I’m just wearying my eyes and wearing my fingertips off. I could well be completely wrong so it’s good to get more feedback.
I briefly flirted with Propertarianism back when I first discovered white nationalism, before deciding it didn’t suit me on either count, and I gather the ‘scene’ (I think that term’s more realistic than ‘movement’ somehow) tore him up as damage control pretty quickly. The content was off, but there seemed a certain revolutionary spirit to it. If one could only break their infernal gatekeeping damage control hysteria, and their fear of being unseated (or unfunded).
I split your single paragraph into several so that visitors can read them more easily. I hope you don’t mind (all the paragraphs above in one block don’t look very good on a blog; maybe in a printed book).