by Benjamin Power
I feel very frustrated that comments on WDH have on the whole tailed off. Where did they all disappear to? Or were they timewasters in the first place? I didn’t think so. I dislike the quietness. It’s like they’ve all lost their spines. I don’t know if they’re demoralised, or simply ideologically opposed all of a sudden when National Socialism didn’t turn out what they wanted it to be/didn’t turn out to be ‘hardcore’ WN with swastikas. I imagine it’s the Christian question, but more so especially the trauma model and animal rights that gets them the most—most people are cruel; I’ve gathered that, and resent being forced to high moral standards.
I had an obvious thought as to the commenters, and commenters in general. I notice the most responses are always to the ‘what was done in the war/what could have been done instead in the war’ topic set. It’s because, I think, this topic is basically abstract, and doesn’t require personal change. One can mull over nerdy history perspectives all day long, massaging tiny new snippets of information in.
But to discuss ethics is more of a quality than a slew of mere information, and brings the person in question into the debate, not just the abstract at arms length, and thus is harder to massage into their already-rigid position, as, for once in their lives, coming from the dissident right in general as they are, they are encouraged to see ‘the mentally ill’ not as hate objects, but as victims of parental cruelty, and, more than that, are encouraged to realise that by eating meat they are causing unnecessary suffering, and are so evil in some sense.
That takes too much effort to change over compared with editing in a tiny new snippet of historical insight here and there, or piping up with more. I don’t personally know a huge deal about that point in history (though like to learn), and I don’t have an endless fascination with regurgitating facts one could find in a book if they wanted.
I think that’s the root of it, qualities versus facts-by-rote. It’s a hard situation to get around.
If I wanted endless Jew-bait, as I call it (a pun on click-bait), I’d just go to The Unz Review. Don’t get me wrong, I consider it a problem, but Jews don’t really play on my mind much these days, unlike Christianized whites. The more they look at Jews, the more excuse they have, and the less they see themselves. Only when they see themselves, and tackle themselves, can they mount any sensible attack on their enemies.
I hope you have some new blood soon. At one point there were over 40 people, right? I count loads of commenters, and I get frustrated when the ones I like drop away. They should understand, as you say, that yes, the Jewish Question is a given, and we’ve all done it to death (if not, the SS Pamphlets cover it pretty well) but the Christian Question encapsulates everything. If not for the latter, these ignorant mercantile commenters really are no different to Jews in my eyes. They worship and obey the principles of the same alien god.
Editor’s 2 ¢:
I think the Christian issue has really alienated the dissident right from this forum, and the fact that I barely mentions Jews.
The position of this site, following the four words, is: Be kind to abused animals and children, and tough on the exterminable Neanderthals who abuse them. Conversely, the WN position in general is based on Christian ethics: Love one another, and exterminationism is unthinkable anathema.
To the commenters:
I wonder, if Ben and I launched a podcast talking about all of this (a WDH transformed from written word to spoken word, inviting listeners to speak to the show), would you come back?
12 replies on “Quietness”
The serious problem is that for the moment we don’t have the funds for the podcast, which would have to be in a third-world country (you can see what happened to Tyrone and Chris in the UK for their racist podcast!).
I have some coins in a bank vault, but only if the hyperinflating dollar could put them to good use, that would be enough to self-finance the podcast equipment.
In the meantime, Ben and I have no choice but to wait for the long-awaited collapse and cross our fingers that those humble coins will increase 10x their current value…
If the dollar hyperinflates (and thus all Western fiat currencies), I will take WDH to the level it deserves. For example, since I can’t speak English fluently, I could hire someone to use AI translators, although for that, Ben would already need to understand some Spanish, while in the podcast he would speak in English, a language I perfectly understand, but I would respond in my native language.
No decent person would want animals to suffer, but it has to be said that vegans anthropomorphise animals to an absurd degree, very similar to the way children view them. Humans are divided from the rest of the animal kingdom by our capacity for metacognition. Because animals lack metacognition, they do not possess a highly articulate conception of the world. They are not animated by thought. As such, they have merely an instinctual aversion to danger. If this instinct is not activated, they do not experience any distress. Because they cannot think, animals have no concept of time and cannot ruminate on mortality. They have no foreknowledge of death, so if they are well cared for and their death (when it comes) is painless, there has not been a breach of moral code. It should be noted that the vegan doctrine can trace its origin to certain Christian sects, which may account for its utopian flavour and disregard for basic Darwinian facts.
Vegans desperately try to harmonise human nutritional requirements with animal welfare, but the two are incompatible. Humans have been omnivores since our days on the African savannah, and there is not a single hunter-gatherer tribe that doesn’t consume meat. It is the reason we developed such large brains. In an attempt to shame us for eating in accordance with our evolved diet, vegans habitually equate the consumption of meat with hedonism, determined to separate the pleasurable taste of meat from its nutritional value. I would wager that grass tastes good to a cow, precisely because it is *supposed* to eat grass. With regard to what humans are capable of subsisting on, we have seen the “battle of the research papers” take place time and time again. No conclusion is ever reached, and the same goes for the anecdotal back-and-forths. At the end of the day, you cannot force people to eat food they do not like. Vegans consistently ignore this inconvenient fact, because it is devastating for their cause.
I don’t place any blame on our naturally omnivorous diet. I place it on the industries that supply animal-derived produce. The main cause of animal suffering is human overpopulation, which is an entirely Third World phenomenon. The pressures on all industries are only going to get worse, and they are already strained beyond belief. If the global population were reduced by six billion, the relief on these industries would be indescribable.
But even without the recent overpopulation, animals in human captivity suffered horribly. It’s obvious they must be exterminated (the first Nazi measure when Hitler came to power was precisely to protect animals from human cruelty).
Yes, but that was at a time when we were not technologically advanced and when the concept of animal rights did not exist. It would be different today. Still, you know very well what I would say. An asteroid annihilating this planet is the only solution. Ideally, life would never have evolved in the first place.
No, because Thanatos cannot win as long as Eros exists. Only at the advanced age of the universe, when only black holes remain, will there be no more life (but there is still the possibility of a new Big Bang after the last black holes evaporate).
Is an asteroid hitting the planet easier that putting a gun to a person’s face and saying, here, your fruit and vegetables for the day?
If anything, it seems an all or nothing excuse again, from one not willing to quit a very easily quittable rote behaviour. I know humans (us for the argument) lack will, but minimising suffering seems better in the long run than removing that positive, simply for an all encompassing voided negative, where the toddlers in their high chairs can continue to bang their fists and demand ‘sweeties’, right down to the last second of their self-serving lives.
You have abstracted suffering. I’m trying to keep it to its limit. Better than nothing is just that, both ways.
‘Christianized anthropocentrism’ you say below. Yes: Savitri Devi hit the nail (the only person in Europe who fully understood uncle Adolf after 1945).
I think I second Cesar on this, as i imagine you expected I would. They are not well cared for, not even on the whole, no (or in any way, really), and their deaths are far from painless to observe.
I have come to the conclusion that it is simply a matter of human compassion, and cannot be argued for or against. The, as I would feel, compassionate arguments fall on deaf ears to the cruel, selfish, and indifferent, and in return their logical protestations seem futile in the face of such overt brutality, sadism, and suffering. I’d be quite happy to force people to eat what they didn’t like (and imagine they would come to like it genuinely, if only they used those much lauded superior abilities to try).
It seems a matter of laziness/convenience at times, and cultural consensus, looking at the man next to them, and seeing no problem. But the deaths remain far from painless, and their lives futile for their own sakes, and this really can be assimilated, can be *spotted*. I realise you’re quite depressed as a person, and also an autist, so I think I am going to have the same problem I do with you as with our acquaintance.
The main cause of animal suffering? Yes, the third worlders are crueller than Europeans to them, but factory farming, and fur farming and the like (and indeed all animal farming) throughout the West really is no better, and the cruelties are effectively alike at that level. Cruel is cruel. Just more ways for Westerners to feel good about themselves, passing the buck to the Neanderthal other in the mirror in front of them.
I would argue (as someone not so sentimental on this topic as some – I agree, liberal/leftist vegans do whites no favour) that they do indeed appear the more one studies them to manifest deeper emotional lives than at first suspected; more meaningful lives, perhaps more than could be said for many humans (and all subhumans) of this wretched dead age. They may not think (though it’s a scale and a great many do possess internal meaning/the qualia of intelligence), but intelligence isn’t thinking – it’s sense, sensation, feeling. Non-computational.
Latter day research increasingly comes to that conclusion from some quarters, and has not been refuted to my knowledge. At a basic level I consider the ethologist Marc Bekoff on the topic of animal soul, if Jeffrey Masson seems too soft for you. I don’t care the number of self-justifying research papers either, as at the end of the day this eating of this meat has not bred superior humans of us by any stretch… look around you at the deadened automaton masses. I don’t think losing that would devolve them any further, if such could be done.
Yes, we have our large brains now, but I don’t on the whole see them being used for anything vital to our survival. we could not have known then is the point. We can indeed know now. Outside of this blasted Christianized anthropocentrism, how much can we see them as lives and not as a food source or economic unit for ourselves? See them for them, and as best as can be done, respectful of their terms.
Yeah I blame the industries, but I blame the people that facilitate them more, by their very lack of better humanity, that lack of soul. I don’t blame non-vegans (perhaps vegetarians to be more generous to the weak public). I do hate them though, and I will continue to hate them. There are no decent people, it seems, there are just people, and I do not care for their emotionless, thoughtless paradigm of personal excuses. You are hurting something innocent, that knows hurt well by now, and you see no real intrinsic problem with this. Hence why I don’t really make much effort arguing these days. I cannot talk adequately to Neanderthals whilst still expecting men, and it’s foolish of me to try.
“Humans have been omnivores since our days on the African savannah, and there is not a single hunter-gatherer tribe that doesn’t consume meat.”
This was a quality comment. This subject is relevant to me. I suffered from a number of chronic ailments but especially atrial fibrilation. Out of desperation I tried the Carnivore diet (only animal products; mostly meat, pork, fish and eggs) and *every* health problem disappeared in just under a year. I have lost 30 pounds and am off all medications. Now, you could say this might have happened with either a vegan or vegetarian diet. I tried both and was miserable on them. Eating only meat, fish and eggs was transformative for my health.
I totally agree about outlawing animal cruelty. And Hitler was right; respecting animals is evidence of a superior soul (which Nordics are more capable of than any other race). But we are meat eating omnivores. If you study the history of nutrition you learn that the Germans were on the forefront of medical science (they were on the forefront of every science) and they were moving in the direction of what today is referred to as the ancestoral health movement (holistic health). They may have found cures for cancer by the end of the 20th century. But WW2 happened and the Anglo-American homicidal war against Germany. This elevated Anglo-American corporatism and its industrial food complex with all its processed foods; the real reason for the obesity epidemic and the health decline (that and vaccines).
There needs to be rights afforded to animals. But there also needs to be a recognition of the nutritional needs of humanity. Metabolic health depends in large part on animal products. Veganism is the food philosophy of the Neo-Christian left. But it derives from certain Christian sects like the Seventh Day Adventists. Its interesting that circumcision also derives from Christian sects implementing their Old Testament Christianity (and circumcision is rampant in America where it is not in Europe).
So, while I consider the modern plant based movement to be leftist malevolence, I don’t hold it against the Nazis (and Hitler) for being pro-plant based. They didn’t know what we know now (and they didn’t have the experience of the modern vegan movement which has produced a group of undernourished, sickly, mentally weak humans; certainly not strong proud Aryans). I think If the Germans had won WW2, they would have cracked the code of ideal human nutrition and implemented a diet that provided maxim nutrient quality from animal based foods derived from a benevolent food system.
In fact, studies indicate that the healthiest people are in remote villages on islands in Japan, towns in Italy and Costa Rica (the so-called ‘blue zones’). Some of them live up to 110 years old. Obviously, this is the parameter for determining what is healthiest for humans.
They mostly eat vegetables. And although they are not vegans, the amount of meat or fish they eat is very small in their diets. I remember a documentary about that island in Japan in which they ate red meat (pork), IIRC, once a month.
I rely more on these studies of the blue zones than on any others not based on millennia- or centuries-old evidence (since those people have had those diets ancestrally).
I didn’t think I’d respond again – I’m in a hurry tonight so apologies for any hasty thought; I’ll write in sequential streaming points – but I think I can fit one more response in.
How could one have a benevolent food system and outlaw animal cruelty, and still insist on caging them up, or at least containing them artificially and then killing these enslaved nutrition units? Raising them to kill them, a strange nihilism for them to undergo.
I mean, you could deliberately breed animals that feel less pain or as close to no pain as could be done (as they’re attempting currently) but you’re still basically enslaving them and stripping them of their own self-determination. Unless you’re suggesting to breed out their minds also. It all seems somewhat desperate.
Invariably cruel in the process also. There’s a simpler solution. I don’t think it was an error on the National Socialists’ parts that they didn’t know any better – it was an ethical novelty, a high ground we have since regressed from. For every healthy meat eater, I see a fat, slovenly mental invalid or simpleton, and I wonder if there are other reasons for leftist physical appearance, that trademark phenotype (as so many look like that and do consume meat).
I’m sorry it made you so miserable. It doesn’t make me miserable or depressive, and I’ve kept to a very strict non-animal products regime for about 4 years. So, to some degree we may both be outliers.
Though forced neuroleptics blight me now, before then I felt nothing but fully healthy (and indeed tested as such medically, with superior results, a surprise even to myself), a clarity (or purity, free of corpses) one senses in their lungs more than their stomach. It did nothing negative to affect my modest strength training and it did not muddy my mind or reduce my intellect.
Can we do anything but exploit them? Yes, we did then, and we do now, but if I can type here, as a product of evolution, and say I have a choice, and work on that choice daily in performing it, am I unnatural in that very human decision-making, or am I in fact merely innovative, if idealistic, qualities that did our ancestors well?
I’m not Nordic, no. I do the best a proud non-Nordic Aryan can do I think. Hitler wasn’t trying in that particular venture to crack the code of optimal human nutrition – as Cesar has already pointed out encapsulated in Savitri Devi’s Impeachment of Man – but to alleviate their suffering, and bring an animal liberation.
Leftism and neochristianity are one thing, but I see no reason that a National Socialism for the 21st century in coincidental parallel to (and not inspired by) neochristian/Christian sect ideals cannot continue this aim. Separate veganism from strawmanning its adherents into the leftist bracket. I would say, if anything, I was more of a fascist.
Animals have their lives regardless of the ‘rights’ we presumptively award them, as if again, it was somehow our place to do so on paper; this feral, entitled anthropocentrism. They had that ‘right’ regardless of the poor deal we rehash repeatedly and rote sell them while we tell ourselves its ‘for their best interests’.
The main difficulty I see is that I’m talking about something that has never been tried, never at the scale required. Part of me thinks the distress caused by it would be psychological, not nutritional, and that passing in time (or adjusted to easily, if there is real pain at all). Better than transient needy distress than the 27 million I mentioned before, the brutal, incomplete tally of deaths per day in your own country. This knee-jerk motherly drive to provide our folk with good nutrition comes with that feminine amorality, that casual glossing over of the tangible reality that there is *no way* to achieve this without more grotesque suffering, as opposed to a paradigm-shifting innovation that promises a lot of moaning and gnashing of teeth, but the saved lives of every domesticated animal on the planet, those with simpler, more natural needs, and a greater capacity for love, which inexplicably, we are still awarded by them.
I don’t buy the naturalistic fallacy used in this convenient pseudo-Darwinian sense. I’ve covered the other points I wanted to make. If I may add, perhaps the vegetables, fruits, grains and seeds you were consuming we not of a suitable quality, or selection, or variation.
We had this discussion before some months back I remember when I retired from answering in weary acceptance that nothing I wanted to add after that would have – or ever could have – made a difference. As far as I remember, I had wanted to get into further discussion on changing the food supply at primary level, or encouraging the migrating from areas your country has already destroyed via agribusinesses – their own sightless fault (or sucking up and realising everyone is shipped and handled by immigrants, food or otherwise).
But I’ll leave this for now. It’s cruelty at the heart of this. I’m still waiting for more to be broached on that, not just food facts, from an outlier to what may so far be an outlier. Feel free to respond. I’m too busy to type any more tonight though, and may, unavoidably, be gone for quite some time.
In the comments section, Tyrone once told me that the reason Jared Taylor received so many comments and I received none was because he is a man of his time, while I am a man against my time.