‘An early marriage with many children is hence a basic requirement of National Socialism’ (see pic here).
Categories
Author: C .T.
As a Sanskrit saying goes, from the corruption of women all evils follow. And as I have shown in many articles on my website The West’s Darkest Hour, feminism goes hand in hand with a thoroughgoing feminisation of the Western male. Both are two sides of the same coin: a folie en masse that has been destroying the fair race throughout the West. Feminism’s third wave began with the sexual revolution of the 1960s that has caused the disintegration of the family and the fall in birth rates due to the emancipation of women from all family responsibilities. But in this compilation we will also talk about the first and second waves, which explain the third and which long precede what happened in the 60s.
Feminism, ‘the great destroyer’ as William Pierce called it in an interview abridged for this book, has been corrupting whites ever since Nietzsche complained that Europeans were beginning to abandon the institution of marriage. George Lincoln Rockwell said something similar in a passage of one of his books, also reproduced here. Today’s suicidal ethos among whites cannot contrast more with the pamphlets that the SS gave to its soldiers so that they could procreate abundantly with their wives or Aryan lovers. Unlike the West of today, Hitler’s Germany was a very healthy society. After I finish putting this book together I will start quoting some passages from those pamphlets on my website, including Sieg des Waffen, Sieg des Kindes.
Instead of National Socialism what we see in the United States is a small group of diligent pro-white advocates often referred to as white nationalists. Rarely do their proponents declare intellectual war on feminism. One exception is Roger Devlin, whose seminal article on the subject is reproduced here. Some white nationalists are so incredibly obtuse that in the comments section of ‘A Breakthrough Year’, a December 30, 2015 piece of The Occidental Observer, Devlin had to say:
When I began writing and talking about sex in racialist circles a few years ago, even some very intelligent people did not understand the relevance of what I was saying to their concerns. The relevance is, of course, that races reproduce sexually. Feminism in all its aspects is as much an attack on our race as Boasian egalitarian dogma, and the same struggle must be waged against both. Like the Soviet Union of old, the contemporary West is a regime built upon lies, and cannot survive once those lies are brought into open and general contempt.
To expose the lies here I also reproduce a brief comment of someone who used to sign his comments with the penname of Stubbs; some texts authored by Andrew Anglin who runs The Daily Stormer, what Lord Kenneth Clark said in Civilisation, and the words of a MGTOW man who uploads videos under the controversial pseudonym of Turd Flinging Monkey. John Sparks studied animal behaviour with Desmond Morris at the Zoological Society of London. Here I reproduce some excerpts of Sparks’ BBC book Battle of the Sexes.
This book comprises eleven texts, of which I am the author of the first, the last and a brief note about Pride & Prejudice. The title is inspired by a passage from Morris’ The Naked Ape. That essay, ‘On Beth’s cute tits’, also alludes to the character from the series The Queen’s Gambit, which according to Netflix has been its most popular limited series. The longest essay in this book is my critique of HBO’s most popular series, Game of Thrones, which also promotes feminism. My final words on ‘The Iron Throne’ summarise my philosophy in such a way that it will remain linked in the sticky post on my website.
C.T. (Editor)
June 2021
Categories
Greg interviews Jared
After minute 35 the American Jared Taylor talks about the founding fathers of his country and even mentioned Eisenhower as someone congenial to white interests! Compare this to what I say in ‘The Iron Throne’ that is now a kind of sticky post for this site, and to one of the final chapters of Pierce’s book that I have been linking to lately (where he also talks about the psychological toll of the Second World War).
The blindness of white nationalists is portrayed in this interview. Neither Jared nor Greg Johnson want to see that the founding myth of post-war whites has to do with the bestiality of the Hellstorm Holocaust, the de-Nazification of Germany and the lies that, through the media, reversed the story about what really happened in WW2. Greg, who interviews Jared, suffers from identical blindness throughout the interview. In the 40th minute, speaking of Eisenhower’s repatriation of Mexicans living in the US, he tacitly put that monster as a good president.
In the 45th minute Jared wondered ‘how white people have been tricked into thinking like this’ referring to the anti-white religion suffered by whites, ‘a church where there is no salvation’, only collective suicide. Neither of them realises that the story about WW2 that we have been telling each other for over seventy years triggered the final phase of white psychosis: a condition that was already underlying the collective unconscious of whites due to Christian-instilled guilt, but that has only recently metastasized.
By the way, the review of the book on feminism that will be published by my Daybreak Press is taking much longer than expected. Those who haven’t read Pierce’s book should print it out at home and study it while I am away from this blog.
Dr. Robert Morgan is a notable commenter on The Unz Review. His main mistake is his unilinear philosophy of history. In reality, as the historian Hugh Trevor Roper put it, history is not just what happened but what could have happened (for example, if whites hadn’t gone bananas after Constantine).
If a Jewish sect hadn’t seized the soul of the Greco-Romans, technology and military science wouldn’t have been interrupted. A horde of Mongols would have had no chance against a Roman Empire that hadn’t declined technologically. The West wouldn’t have been easy prey to invasions by non-whites as it was in the history we know.
Morgan’s anti-technological take of history is nonsense. When I attended a CSICOP conference in 1994, Carl Sagan said that the West inflicted on itself a prefrontal lobotomy with what it did to Hypatia and the Alexandria library during the hostile takeover of Christian fanatics. If what Morgan believes is true, the West wouldn’t have been on the verge of succumbing to Islam and, more specifically, to the Huns and Mongols after the Christians destroyed almost all the technological knowledge accumulated by the ancient Greeks and Romans. (We were spared by a historical miracle in the case of the Mongols!)
If I were a film director I would make films about this parallel world that didn’t exist: a Roman Empire without Christianity where eventually the scientific method that the Greeks were very close to discover would be discovered, and how without Christian ethics and the technology applied to the military whites wouldn’t have only pulverised the Huns and the nascent Islam but even the Mongols.
My pals who comment on The Unz Review (Morgan et al) haven’t been paying attention to what I said at the end of ‘The Iron Throne’, where I link to William Pierce’s history of the West. There is no point in arguing with them unless they read Pierce’s book.
Update of May 28
Yesterday I visited Morgan’s latest comments on The Unz Review and came across a crazy pronouncement regarding the Third Reich, responding to a guy using a Nietzschean penname.
Morgan said that over time, even if Hitler had won the war, the Nazis would’ve become corrupted by technology, allowing the loosening of customs, even racial purity, etc.
That is what I call megalomania in psychologicis: believing that one has psychological access to a parallel future where all roads lead to Aryan decline, even a triumphant Nazi Reich, due to tech and Morgan’s nasty philosophy of absolute determinism (which reminds me of the doctrine of those predestined to eternal damnation).
What madness. I think I’ll no longer be quoting what Morgan says.
Categories
What story did they tell you?
two years ago the finale of Game of Thrones, ‘The Iron Throne’, was released. Below, a transcription of Yezenirl’s video ‘The Power of Stories: How Bran the Broken was Always the Ending’ which can be seen on YouTube:
______ 卐 ______
‘Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of York’. —Richard III
Tyrion: ‘All hail Bran the Broken, First of his Name, King of the Andals and the First Men, Lord of the Six Kingdoms, Protector of the Realm’ [Editor’s note: in Yezen’s video these italicised words are brief audiovisual clips of different scenes; the sentences between the brackets are mine].
I do get it. David Benioff and D.B. Weiss aren’t great writers. The ending was rushed, Season Eight was sloppy, and frankly I thought Season Six and Seven felt like fan-fiction. So it should come as no surprise that there’s a lot of complaints and confusion about the ending.
Still, Tyrion was right about one thing: stories are powerful. There’s nothing like a good story. And now, it seems there’s nothing like a bad one either. Yet, somehow Game of Thrones managed to be both. For years now it shocked us, captivated us, angered us and brought us together. And for all the flaws of the final season, this is the story we got. Books aside, all we can do now is to decide what to make of what the show gave us.
I know for many that means dissecting where the writers went wrong, and I’ll eventually get to that, but as for right now, I’m not interested in just joining the chorus of fanboy rage. Instead, as a guy who did call King Bran [Yezen was the only one who correctly predicted who would become king in the finale], let me try to explain why this was always the direction the story was headed, and try to make sense of just what the ending meant, as broken as it may have been.
Bran was always meant to climb to the top. And it’s pretty clear upon re-reading the first book that this was always the plan. Personally, I figured this several years ago, when George R.R. Martin’s editor Anne Groell revealed that Bran’s end point was the only one she knew.
Obviously, certain things will differ in the books. I expect how he’s chosen will be a little bit different, as well as how he acts, and book-Bran will probably rule from Harrenhal, not King’s Landing. But the question most people have is, what does this mean? Why write this tale of handsome princes and beautiful conquerors only to end with a crippled King?
One reason why King Bran is so controversial is that he’s probably the most poorly understood major character in the story. Bran’s character arc, at its core, is pretty straightforward: he’s a reference to Bran the Blessed, Frodo Baggins, and Rainbow Crow. It’s the tale of a boy who was deemed so broken by a society that he’s even mocked for not killing himself. So, believing the world will never have a place for him, he struggles to see value in his own life, eventually going beyond the Wall in search of purpose, merging with a godhood [the old religion] and fighting against the apocalypse [the white walkers]. Much like the audience, the Seven Kingdoms doesn’t really understand what Bran has become, or how he helped save the world.
Yet, when Bran returns, the Kingdom was broken just like him. And all of the things that once made him useless to the militaristic culture of Westeros, now make him the ideal Fisher King: an incorruptible figurehead to help usher in a new system. And thus, Bran the Broken is immortalised as a story around which the Kingdoms of Westeros can unite. The bittersweet irony is that when Bran is finally celebrated, he’s too consumed by godhood to feel his own triumph.
Bran: ‘You shouldn’t envy me. Mostly, I live it in the past’.
Bran’s emotional distance from the audience is very much the point. And so is the abruptness of his coronation. Bran’s arc doesn’t move towards Kingship; it’s the arc of the Seven Kingdoms that moves toward Bran the Broken. Essentially, the message here is one of humility—a reminder that each of us is bound by blessed and cursed fates. A once ridiculed woman (Brienne) can become the truest of knights [transcriber’s note: this is bullshit feminism], a despised imp (Tyrion) can be a brave hero, an exiled girl (Dany) can become a great liberator—and a great liberator (also Dany) can become an unstoppable tyrant. The capacity of outcasts to rise and fall means that we must learn to see value in everyone, including the cripples, bastards and broken things.
Of course, the big question about King Bran is whether he planned it all out. Was Bran a puppet master, or was he a puppet who could see the strings? Did the Three-Eyed Raven manipulate events to put itself into power?
Bran: ‘Why do you think I came all this way?’
Well, maybe?
The former Three-Eyed Raven [Ser Brynden Rivers in Martin’s novels, called Lord Bloodraven] seemed to know that Bran would eventually be Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, and hinted at it back in Season Six:
‘You won’t be here forever. You won’t be an old man in a tree’.
But in Season Seven, Bran seemingly doesn’t see it, and often admits to not knowing things.
Bran: ‘I can never be Lord of Winterfell. I can never be Lord of anything’ [words to Sansa in Season 7].
Bran: ‘I don’t know. No one’s ever tried’ [words of season 8, episode 2].
Bran: ‘His last name isn’t really Snow. It’s Sand’ [words to Sam in season 7, episode 7].
Bran: ‘I need to learn to see better’ [words to Sansa under Winterfell’s weirwood tree].
So, it’s likely that if the Three-Eyed Raven did set things up, then for Bran it’s something like a half-remembered dream. That said, in Jon’s final dialogue, we do get one last hint that the Three-Eyed Raven was in fact the Lord of Light.
Jon: ‘I’m sorry I wasn’t there when you needed me’.
Bran: ‘You were exactly where you were supposed to be’.
This interaction references several conversations about characters serving the Lord’s purpose. And thus seems to imply that the Lord of Light’s plan was also the Three-Eyed Raven’s plan. So, Jon was in fact there for Bran all along, as a soldier in the Three-Eyed Raven’s war, which provides the closest thing we can get to an answer over that burning question: Did Bran do anything, or did Bran do everything? [Transcriber & editor’s notes: Here follows a few words we won’t quote that Yezen apparently picked up from an episode in Futurama where God speaks to the main character.]
By leaving Bran’s actions ambiguous, the story actually upholds the choices made by the characters. After Hodor, Bran seemingly learns to never again violate another human being’s autonomy. So, regardless of whether the characters were playing the Raven’s game, or whether this universe is just random, each of them had free will and made their own choices.
The big misconception here is the idea that the problem of ruling has been resolved by a god, when in actuality Bran doesn’t solve the problem of ruling. He’s mostly a figurehead who subtly empowers people to fix the world themselves. The problem of ruling is left to Tyrion and his council of former outcasts.
Which brings me to the third element that needs to be discussed, which is the small thing Bran does bring to the table. In my prediction video [see our transcript: here] I talked about Bran’s wisdom as capacity for understanding. But the ending, rushed as it was, suddenly brought up another thing which I really hoped it would. And that is the nature of justice. Throughout the episode, there’s the dilemma presented about what justice really means. Can we forgive those who have done us wrong? Is the world we need one of mercy?
If you recall, Game of Thrones begins with Bran going to see his first execution: a man has deserted the Night’s Watch. As is the law, Lord Eddard Stark hears his last words and executes him. Afterwards, Ned prompts Bran that one day this justice will fall to him. And in the end, it does. But where the story opens on an act of retributive justice—a form of justice framed around punishment—Bran’s first act as King is to shift his Kingdom towards a justice that is more restorative, as in, justice which focuses on rehabilitating the offender and reconciling with the community.
Grey Worm: ‘This man is a criminal. He deserves justice’.
Bran: ‘He just got it. He’s made many terrible mistakes. He’s going to spend the rest of his life fixing them’.
Justice for Tyrion is to fix the problems he’s brought upon Westeros, by becoming Hand of the King. Justice for Jon is to return to the place he functioned best and act as King-beyond-the-Wall. Once again, Bran puts Jon exactly where he’s supposed to be. And while the show explore these ideas so sloppily that it’s hard to register, there’s really nothing we can do about that. The time where internet rage [the fans hated this season as Yezen explains: here] could have shifted the direction of the show’s writing is long gone. And I understand why that’s a frustrating reality for so many: especially those who’ve invested a ton of time and thought into this story. But all we can do now is try to make the most of the ending we got. Maybe I’m a little number to this because I’ve not been a fan of the writing for the past three seasons. For me, I’ve mainly looked at the show as a spoiler-filled preview of books that may never come.
Sam: ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’.
And you know, from that perspective, there’s a lot to be hopeful for about the ending. King Bran feels so true for Martin’s philosophy that I can no longer see how the ending could have been anything else. So although the Kingdoms of Westeros have been broken by war, it seems they may have learned a little something along the way. And you know? Hopefully we did too.
Jon: ‘It doesn’t feel right’.
Tyrion: ‘Ask me again in ten years’.
Anyways I got more content coming… In the meantime I’m also kind of sad that the ending turned out being so unpopular. And I hope this helped. Peace out. Thanks for watching.
Categories
WDH – pdf 389
Click: here
Categories
Sieg der Waffen – Sieg des Kindes, 2
Deshalb ist die frühe und kinderreiche Ehe eine Grundforderung des Nationalsozialismus.
Categories
Morgan quotes
‘The question is whether anti-racism is built into Christianity as a fundamental premise, and I think it’s clear that it is. If so, anti-nationalism and white genocide are also built in, and always were. No need for any church-capturing conspiracy to make it so. No need for any attacker to infiltrate or subvert it, as it must eventually subvert itself, containing “the seeds of its own destruction”, as MacDonald puts it in his review above’ (Source: here).
In another thread Morgan made the point of what I’ve said in ‘The Iron Throne’ this month, with very different words:
‘You can’t argue someone out of a worldview, since it is the worldview itself that sets the rules for what kind of arguments are convincing or even permissible. Hence, as we see to be the case, arguments for racism or sexism will be rejected out of hand by the vast majority of those with a Christian or post-Christian worldview’ (Source: here).