of their time
I continue to dry the books of my library; some are still wet while others are just damp…
A good way to explain Savitri Devi’s concept of “men of their time” vis-à-vis a “man against his time” is to listen to the latest Counter-Currents podcast on the consequences of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
A man against his time is a potential revolutionary who is just waiting for conditions to arise (e.g., collapse of the dollar and energy devolution to peak) to act in the real world. In contrast, men of their time go no further than supporting the recent decisions by Donald Trump and his vicepresident to designate Antifa as terrorists.
One of the podcast panellists even identified himself as a Christian. After an hour of the podcast, a listener asked how to crush the left. Compare Greg’s answer which, as I said, doesn’t go beyond the ideological horizon provided by Trump, with my admiration for the Dachau Concentration Camp, which I so admire that I visited this year.
As my mother tongue is not English, I didn’t understand what one of the panellists said about The Turner Diaries at approximately 1:19, but I think it was a negative comment. Greg Johnson then talked about corporations. Compare this with what a National Socialist would say about these organisations: this type of capitalism must be destroyed (see for example Brendan Simms’ book on Hitler).
At 1:40, one of the panellists refused to use slurs about the nigger who stabbed the Ukrainian girl on the underground. Once again, compare that Christian/neochristian stance with the infinite hatred felt by the priest of the sacred words: a man against his time.
4 replies on “Men”
You were right, one of the panellists does comment dismissively on The Turner Diaries. What he says is:
I thought that was about as much as one could expect of the Counter-currents lot. Again not really getting into why it’s ‘stupid’, just taken in agreement as fact. I had to laugh when he made the Sarajevo comment. They really are speaking in hysterical hyperbole about the death of this sole conservative talking head. I’m surprised they haven’t pushed to make him a saint, as with George Floyd.
I also noticed the lines, in what I felt might have been mild projection anxiety:
All he would be doing by getting leftists sacked is making them more radical and revolutionary, surely. After all, someone with nothing to lose, and a destroyed life, takes extreme measures more readily.
Finally, I noticed these lines, and was confused, nothing the neochristianity to his ‘must keep within reasonable means’ point, and his various speech emphases just to make this clear, and wondering just what a metaphorical interrogation would be:
It’s all a moot point as they are, it seems, currently doing jack shit, and intent on doing jack shit for the undefined future, content to let Trump ‘handle it all’. Why do conservatives even exist, bar to parrot back what the president’s done, throw out a few tactical platitudes, and then go back to the side-lines, claiming imminent victory for what they have not achieved – and do not have the power to achieve – themselves? And to make themselves rich on these asinine websites of course, courtesy of a legion of gullible fans in their Saturday morning armchairs.
If I weren’t busy drying my books, I could write a new article about why child abuse is directly related to topics like Charlie Kirk’s assassin, with these words from a YouTube podcast on Trump banning Antifa: “Leftist politics is predominantly motivated by hatred of your parents” (the panelist was talking about conservative families).
I listened to a little bit of it. I see also that Sargon strawmanned fascism as being “just a reaction to communism”, instead of an ideology in its own right, by which I assume he meant NS also.
Yes, I could believe that definition of leftist politics. But it makes me more sympathetic towards the left for that reason, even if they are deeply misguided, the same way one can have some sympathy for trannies on account of the horrific undisclosed abuse that sets them on that bizarre course. I take it conservatives, as with most people, are held in thrall to the ultimate taboo – not breaking the (Catholic) fourth commandment, no matter how valid the reasons. I’ve speculated before that conservatives are as they are – are that unempathetic – because they as a group have led unblemished lives; normal lives, luxurious lives even, where nothing has ever gone drastically wrong, and so they cannot relate, and thus are quick to dismiss. Either that, or they’re still repressed over their own lives.
I notice for conservatives their main enemy seems to be the left. For us it’s nigh-on everyone, perhaps irrespective of politics. I myself have a particular hatred of the orthodox racial right (and all non-whites), not to say that leftists are not an irritating problem also to be addressed – as you say, a Dachau equivalent would be most effective.
It seems horrible to say, but a leftist, no matter how misguided his position, is more likely to empathise with us precisely because his rebellion stems from the hell at home. Even in anti-white series like Netflix’s Jeffrey Dahmer, it’s clear that the child went through horrible abuse by his parents, who belonged to a bourgeois family (in real life, Jeff was indeed abused).
As I said, it’s easier to generate empathy in the misguided, and sometimes even psychotic, leftist (like the transsexuals you mention) than in the conservative bourgeois. They will never understand the trauma model of mental disorders, but will instead take refuge in the medical model. Thus, the Fourth Commandment is obeyed even by atheists.