Thank Yahweh, that instead of a Gestapo, we have a Stasi/s.[1]
Unless protest and speech have within it the potential to provoke violence, at least in the abstract, then one does not possess the freedom of speech. Indeed, this is American Jurisprudence… at least for the time being. This is why Alex Linder was not sent to prison for his praise of Hero Bowers. Sancte Bowers, ora pro nobis. So, in the United Kingdom, one does not possess either the freedom of effective speech, or the freedom of effective protest. Despite the lofty baroque refrains of Rule Britannia, Britons are, thanks to their defeating themselves in World War 2, slaves.
If Hitler had won, we would not be free… however, we would be free-er. Regardless of the political system, absolute liberty is a delusion. We would be free of negro subhumans from Rwanda stabbing our little girls to death, for one thing. We must constantly remind people of that alternative universe in which the good guys—as opposed to the Jews, Christians and Communists, i.e. the Allies—won World War 2.
One can be deeply critical of National Socialism, as Linder and I are, and still maintain that ’twere[2] better if the axis had won World War 2. I take Tom Metzger’s position. I would have been sent to Dachau, a camp for political dissidents, for being more based than the Nazis.
Is é an tSláinte an Buaidh!
Victoria Salus!
Victory is Salvation!
__________
[1]Stasi – Communist East German Secret police. (Also ‘/s’ is an internetism that means: the preceding was sarcasm.)
[2]twere – An old-fashioned form of: ‘it were’, an English subjunctive. It were better means: ‘it would have been better’.
Have any visitors to this site heard of an autobiographer, of our times or times past, who has written a philosophical autobiography, in several books, about how his or her parents and other adults destroyed the life of the autobiographer in question?
What distinguishes The West’s Darkest Hour from other racialist sites is that here we preach an open and blatant exterminationist ideology (see, for example, ‘Dies Irae’, the first article in my Day of Wrath compilation). What is not clear to the ordinary visitor, unless someone has read my trilogy, is that such exterminationism originated precisely after what several crazed adults did to me in my adolescence.
The mind changes dramatically after experiences like the one I suffered. It usually changes producing, in the already adult victim, a mental disorder: either psychoses such as so-called schizophrenia or suicidal depression, or neuroses such as addictions (alcoholism, drug addictions—even legal psychotropics, etc.). In the most serious cases, the victim of maddening parents feels compelled to commit serial murder. This is not said by ordinary psychiatrists, who subscribe to the medical model of mental disorders (a bio-reductionist ideology), but by dissident psychiatrists: those who try to create a trauma model of mental disorders.
Some proponents of the trauma model know that those who had schizogenic (i.e., maddening) parents entered, to paraphrase the gospel, through the ‘wide door’. Sadly, 99.99 per cent of those with schizogenic parents enter through the wide door. What these professionals ignore is that there is another door, ‘the narrow door’, which circumvents psychosis. I am talking about spending decades of your life telling your story, at least to yourself, with an emphasis on the most painful episodes.
These days, for example, I have been reviewing my second volume. It has been so disturbing to relive my early experiences, and what my mother used to do to me, that I have had to make an enormous effort, plus countless pauses, to resume over and over again both rereading and revising (i.e. adding or rewriting many sentences and even paragraphs). To tell yourself your own story, through a good deal of re-reading of what has already been written, and to improve the text in further revisions to leave the original charcoal in diamond prose after so many decades, is what heals the mortally wounded soul.
Someone might reproach me that the mere fact of elaborating an exterminationist ideology after my experiences is, in itself, a psychopathological symptom. I believe that the opposite is true: those who don’t subscribe to such an ideology contribute to what we could call ‘Hell Planet’—our present Earth. This is because without the spirit of Kalki the evil of the earthlings will continue unchallenged, producing endless unnecessary suffering. (Those who want to delve deeper into the matter will have to familiarise themselves with the philosophy of Savitri Devi, who in the darkest hour of the West invokes the exterminationist archetype of the Hindu religion: Kalki.)
One of the things that so-called mental health professionals ignore is that they shouldn’t put the exterminationism of, say, a philosopher like Arthur Schopenhauer in the same basket as, say, a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer. They are not only different things, but Schopenhauer himself may have a moral code infinitely superior not only to that of Dahmer but also to that of the so-called mental health professional. This is something that the pseudo-scientists working in the mental health sector will never acknowledge: that philosophers like Schopenhauer could be… saner than them! Above I spoke of the first essay in my book Day of Wrath. To understand what I have in mind see now the third essay, ‘Unfalsifiability in Psychiatry’ (pages 21-30).
So for the next days and weeks, I will keep revising my second autobiographical book until I feel that the textual coal has turned into more lyrical prose. My thoughts must be hardened until they are as hard as diamonds. The saying ‘No pain, no gain!’ applies perfectly to the spiritual realm. Without the agony of constantly confronting my past, I would be as our friend Joseph Walsh is: in jail and before that, in a psychiatric ward (Walsh also had a schizogenic mother). Those who don’t process their pain through writing their very painful memoirs, and throughout the decades correcting the syntax of that original charcoal until the diamond prose is formed, will never heal.
No one among the racialist forums editors comes from where I come from: a sort of Bran the Broken seeing Westeros’ past because his dad (not Jaime) threw him off the tower, breaking his spine. As I was saying, the mind changes radically after decades of being in the cave retrocognitively seeing the past, what your dad did to you. Those broken lads who fail to reach Bran’s cave change for the worse (schizophrenia, etc.). But I changed for the better because I found it.
And it was precisely because of that change that I became interested in the real history of Europe in the century in which I was born; specifically, the real history of the Third Reich. By seeing my past as it happened, which has nothing to do with the distorted version my crazy mother told, I developed the knack of seeing, now, the historical past of the West as it happened, not as the Jewish media told it to us.
One way to begin to familiarise oneself with the most notable characters of the Third Reich is to read David Irving’s books. So, in parallel with my posts citing Brendan Simms’ and Savitri Devi’s books on Hitler, I think I will resume reading True Himmler which I had neglected since last year.
Anyone who wants to read my previous True Himmler entries can do so here, here, here and here.
European culture as a whole is eminently patriarchal, but even within the West, I believe I can observe the clash between patriarchal and matriarchal mentalities, expressed in the nations possessed by these concepts. Thus, France and Italy, as modern nations, traditionally represent a soft and decadent mentality tending towards matriarchy, while Russia, Germany, England, and the United States represent the more patriarchal and aggressive tendency.
Within our civilisation, it is obvious and undisputable that the two principles are in debate and that patriarchy has been slowly being overturned in favour of a pseudo-matriarchy for some time now.
It also seems obvious to me that patriarchal societies are superior and more advanced than matriarchal societies and, especially, have much greater potential. There is simply no point of comparison in terms of achievements and superiority between the ridiculous pacifist matriarchy and the glorious, all-conquering patriarchy. For me, it is enough to glance over mythology, or to read The Iliad, to feel deep sympathy for authentically patriarchal societies, besides the fact that patriarchy is inevitably associated with Aryan or ‘Indo-European’.
Editor’s Note: Real men (‘Yang’), not the white trash we see today throughout the West—except for the Russians who, in Ukraine, are now fighting the globo-homo ‘Empire of the yin‘.
As a sign of the ‘Oedipus complex’ that plagues our civilisation, we have the passions and fears that the word ‘fascism’ arouses in the modern world. What communists, socialists, progressives, democrats and the like hate and fear from ‘fascism’ is the organising severity of a patriarchal society that puts everyone in his place.
What do I think the future of this issue might be? The present abortion of matriarchy is doomed to disappear as soon as the slightest turmoil is unleashed. On the one hand, it has produced a weak society incapable of defending itself and will be overwhelmed by those who have not fallen prey to its scourge (e.g. Islam). On the other hand, the current pseudo-matriarchal society is doomed to extinction for the simple reason that those who profess it don’t preach the need to have children, falling into the most immense contradiction, for a society that believes it is indisputably in possession of the absolute truth (like the current one), should preach offspring to eternalise itself and ensure a future at all costs, in the face of societies that think differently, which are the majority. Over time, his surrealistic utopia will lose ground to the merciless harshness of the times to come, and will eventually be replaced by a patriarchal reaction more in tune with the reality of the world and of man, which is the need for abundant and strong offspring.
The awakening of the white race will, of necessity, be accompanied by a reworking of the old Aryan patriarchy. Sorry to spoil your party, oh herd of decadent Loewe-scented cattle, but the subnormalities are over and so much of what you took for granted is over. There will come a day when you will have to fight to the death just to enjoy the 1% of goods that now seem normal to you! Your disgusting promiscuity, your mental vacuity, your superficiality and your stilted bourgeois sophistication will be extirpated and woe betide you if you cry, stamp your feet or call Superman. Considering the past decadence and the catastrophic situation in which the race—which is the only thing that matters in this world—finds itself thanks to your repellent moral and spiritual baseness, the coming reaction must be exactly the opposite.
By way of Appendix: The peoples of the north and the ‘civilisation of the mother’, from Adriano Romualdi’s La Question d’une Tradition Européenne:
The emergence of a European physiognomy from the mists of High Prehistory took place in the fifth millennium b.c.e. This event was accompanied by a spiritually significant choice: the rejection of the ‘Mother Civilisation’ and the affirmation of the Indo-European Urvolk (‘original people’, German) as an essentially virile and patriarchal community.
The Neolithic, the age of the first agriculture and the first settlements, the age in which families become tribes and tribes become villages, is inaugurated on the European continent with the penetration of the Eastern and Mediterranean elements. These are the Thessalian Sesklo-Dimini cells, heirs of the near-eastern communities that spread up the Danube and proliferated throughout Central and Balkan Europe. This is the so-called Danubian culture, with its banded pottery (Bandkeramik), rough wooden hoes and large collective houses. This culture conveys its spiritual message through small figures depicting a naked female deity. She is Mother Earth (Gê Metêr), the Great Mother of harvests, the dispenser of fertility who holds the keys to life and death. She is the naked goddess, whose kingdom extends from Mesopotamia to Asia Minor, Crete, Malta and beyond. Throughout Western and Atlantic Europe, from the Iberian Peninsula to the British Isles, the dagger-wielding goddess also appears in megalithic engravings. The Eurasian and Euro-African sky of the Mother penetrates, through the Mediterranean race with its Lybian, Ligurian, Iberian and Pelasgic proliferations, to the heart of the European continent.
However, the Mother’s domain does not extend as far as northern Europe. This is the region around the southern Baltic, the area of the beech, yew, birch, and spruce; the area of the wolf, the bear, the salmon, the beaver; the territory that linguistic geography presupposes for the Indo-European Urheimat (‘original home’, German). It is also the territory of the Nordic race where, from the beginning of the 5th millennium, local groups of hunters and fishermen, heirs of the Magdalenian community of the Ice Age, reorganised themselves into a new agricultural culture alien to the world of the Danubians and the Great Mother.
The Norse megalithic culture, with its great stone tombs bearing witness to a firm political and gentile structure, together with its two offshoots, the culture of globular amphorae and the culture of chorded pottery, constitute the original matrix of the Indo-European languages and are responsible for a violent transformation that will affect Europe and vast regions of Asia.
From 3200 b.c.e. onwards, the whole of central, eastern and Balkan Europe was raided by the Northern Peoples. The Globular Amphorae Culture and the Stringed Pottery Culture, departing from their headquarters in the Germanic plain, invade the peaceful communities of the Motherland with their hammer axes, transforming the archaeological picture as far as Greece and Ukraine.
Significantly, this irruption was accompanied by the irruption of solar symbols. The Swastika was born, the oldest example of which appears on a ceramic from the Globular Amphorae Culture found in Poland; the radiated cross and the squared discs, with a dot in the centre or surrounded by rays, were born.
This is a vast symbolic range that finds its greatest flowering in Troy, the frontier city between Europe and Asia, marking the passage of Indo-European peoples into Asia Minor. The Swastika, the primordial symbol of generation and the resurrection of light is associated with the first appearance of the Indo-European peoples in the heart of the fourth millennium, and only fifteen hundred years later it reached India and China.
In the heart of Anatolia, the tombs of Alaja Hüyük, as a prelude to the future splendour of the Hittite kingdom, show us, alongside hammer-headed pins of the northern barbarians, banners decorated with swastikas and other solar symbols. One of these banners features a large stag in the middle of two smaller bulls. We are witnessing the subjugation of telluric, southern, maternal symbolism.
The bull, a symbol of the blind generative force, linked to the ideology of fertility, crudely represented alongside the naked goddess in the most archaic European agricultural cultures, is contrasted with the deer, the animal of the hunters of the North, Seelentier des nordischen Menschen (‘animal of the soul of Nordic men’, German) and, according to Weisweiler, ‘animal of the Arctic civilisation’.
The deer is significantly associated with the symbolism of the sun and light:
Den Sonnenhirsch sah ich von Süden her gehen Seine Füsse standen auf der Erde aber die Hörner reichten zum Himmel
These verses of The Edda are illustrated by several prehistoric figures, starting with those from Valcamonica, in which the stag’s horns are stylised in the form of a sun disc.
Similarly, it is significant that in Ireland, when the Celtic element meets the aborigines of Iberian stock, the stag and the bull play a central role in the sagas. Where the words oss, dag and ag, which in the Leinster saga name the stag, in the Ulster saga have come to mean bull.
Behind this clash of symbols, behind the spread of the battle-axe peoples and the spread of the Indo-European languages, lies an event of great spiritual significance.
The paternal principle is pitted against the ‘Mother Civilisation’; Olympian virility against the taurine and maternal myth of fertility; the ethos of the ‘societies of men’ against the enthusiastic promiscuity of ancient Matriarchy.
The echoes spread throughout Europe, where more than a thousand years later, Doric and Latin migrations would create the premises of the classical view of life. But, even more, the effects of this sudden expansion of the Nordic, white and Indo-European stock are felt in the most distant centres of irradiation: on the plateaus of Persia and the threshold of India.
Matriarchy is distinguished by hedonism, promiscuity, concupiscence, indulgence, narcosis, passivity, laziness, drunkenness and an overloaded, opulent, baroque sensuality.
Everything is permeated with ‘free will’.
Spiritual influence belongs to the matriarchs. Women have a disproportionate influence on society through sexual suggestion and by monopolising the upbringing of children away from their fathers.
Things are kept quiet for fear of offending. Ambiguity and ‘political correctness’ are born.
Value is placed on material possessions and wealth.
Leisure time is mainly taken up with dances, feasting, parties, orgies, acrobats and dancers.
Embellishments, make-up, dresses, colours, luxury, well-being, spices and dyes are valued.
Matriarchy pampers the weak. Peaceful and weak collectivities flourish, too rooted in their piece of land and unable to conquer, explore, pioneer or endure uprooting and loneliness. The archetypal matriarchy is a timorous, docile, humanitarian, anti-heroic, pacifist and pusillanimous society. Peace is extolled and everyone fornicates with everyone. ‘Make love not war’ is a very typical neo-matriarchal slogan.
The spineless man is appreciated for his docility. The cowardly and weak are protected as one of the group. No one has the right to punish or reproach, authority is dissolved.
Everything that preserves life and tends to make life more bearable for the weak is valued. Harshness is removed, and everything is softened. The goal is the enjoyment of a long and pleasurable life.
In matriarchy one tends to enjoy quietly and uncompromisingly and catches pleasure on the fly as soon as it presents itself, in a rather pseudo-tropical mentality. The ‘playboy’, the ‘dandy’ and the fat man are typical products of the matriarchy, and impossible in a real patriarchal society. The pursuit of easy pleasure sets the tempo of matriarchal peoples.
All life is sought to be protected and preserved, even if it means isolating it from the harshness of the real world. Well-being and comfort are sought.
Greetings are elaborate and promiscuous. Manners are nervous, there is a tendency towards indiscretion, groping and getting too close to the interlocutor. Their voices are raised in absurd situations, but they are afraid to shout when the situation calls for it.
As Julius Evola said, matriarchy is a carrier of egalitarian social forms of anarchist or communist character. Ants and bees live in pseudo-communist matriarchies. The ‘Mother Church’, with its manhood-castrated priests, is another matriarchal figuration, however much it may shock the fans of The Da Vinci Code.
Dogmatic, utilitarian and materialistic rules and precepts are obeyed.
The lazy laughter of corrupt women and spineless men, the indulgence and the pampering, the mocking, sad and empty look of the weak, the coughing of the sick, the whining, the depressions, the inconstancy, the capriciousness of over-pampered children, the whining of the bereaved, the inbreeding, the wailing of the disconsolate, the aberration and neutralisation of powerful and vital instincts are characteristic of Matriarchy and a society deprived of order and the influence of fighting men.
Patriarchy: society and idiosyncrasy
Patriarchy is marked by effort, struggle, will, purpose and action, and is distinguished by asceticism, self-control and sobriety. Women are excluded from state or decision-making processes (see the Senate of Rome or the Germanic Thing), and it is the men who mould the new generations to their whim, although it is taken for granted that a man is usually not complete until he has a complementary female spirit by his side to inspire him and bring him some magic.
Everything is imbued with order, ritualism, severity and simplicity. In India, the Aryan invaders call their dark-bred enemies ‘those without rites’.
In patriarchy, the man dominates the family. There is always some sort of supreme patriarch, leader, king or emperor. Children are made to grow up with their duty in mind to take over power from their parents’ generation. The first-born predator of power is the hope of the future and gives character to his society. Social hegemony belongs to the young, vigorous, aggressively impulsive warrior who thirsts for power and to make his mark on the world.
Things are said up front and almost crudely (think of the modern Baltic and Slavic countries). Fights and duels of honour abound.
Value is attached to value itself, and material possessions are only valuable insofar as they express status (as arms, shields, armour, horse and plundered booty once expressed the position of the military caste). Likewise, great value is placed on that which is difficult to achieve, that which is within the reach of the select minority.
Leisure time is occupied mainly with sport, hunting, study, religious meditation and military training, resulting in people who are athletic, warlike, vigorous, spiritual, predatory and ready for anything.
Simplicity, coarseness, naturalness, austerity and toughness are valued. This results in Spartan lives of constant hardening.
Patriarchy pampers the strong and directly worships war, courage, daring, risk and heroism. Severe and aggressive societies flourish, tending to invade, conquer and possess new lands, under the mentality that ‘might makes right’. Patriarchy is thus the system capable of giving birth to heroes through a patriarchal life. Pioneers, explorers, restless and searching men, brimming with ambition and the will to power are forged.
The cowardly, the docile, the useless and the mannered are hated to death. Boys despise girls and girls fear boys.
Boldness, honour and courage are valued. Violence, harshness, force and even brutality are respected. It accepts risk with morbidity, plays with death and pain, and flirts with discomfort, stress, horror and fear, thinking that it strengthens men. A life of honour and glory is valued, even if it is very short (this choice is condensed in the brilliant Greek figure of Achilles). Heroism and sacrifice are worshipped, even if it means a life of suffering and toil. Eugenics, comradeship, the sacredness of the teacher-pupil relationship, mors triumphalis and euthanasia are ideals of the patriarchal mentality.
Pleasure and luxury are regarded with extreme suspicion and treated with great care, or even banished. Discipline, asceticism, self-control, will, training, haughty, rustic, aggressive and military character take their place. The phenomena of soldiering and militarism, as well as athleticism, are typical products of the long-term social action of patriarchy. This gives rise to imperialist peoples who glorify war. Feminist Marilyn French states (Beyond Power), not without some revulsion on her part, that patriarchy is a system that gives pre-eminence to power over life, control over pleasure and dominion over happiness. We might add that patriarchy also gives importance to control over emotions, feelings, suffering and pain (children are told that ‘men don’t cry’), and to power over the earth and matter.
It seeks to harden and strengthen life by exposing it to discomfort and thus shielding it against future bad experiences. The most representative phrases of this mentality are ‘it is for your own good’ and ‘you will thank me in the future’. Struggle and ascension prevail over the pursuit of pleasure.
In patriarchy, greetings are sober and simple. There is a tendency towards discretion, simplicity and static and solemn manners, almost martial in their runic rectitude. Patriarchy is influenced by the philosophy and way of doing things of the männerbunden (‘men’s societies’, or armies), which are one of its hallmarks and cornerstones.
Patriarchy carries hierarchical social forms of a fascist character, in which order decides everything. State and empire are originally patriarchal institutions. In the animal kingdom, just as ants and bees are close examples of matriarchy, wolves live in a quasi-patriarchal system, ruled by dominant males who renew themselves over the generations. The entire pack participates in the training and apprenticeship of the pups, and the fathers expel the offspring from the home once they have reached sufficient maturity to earn their living.
Principles and codes of honour are obeyed which have their origins in the world of spirit and ideas and which unquestionably have a long-term practical purpose. The best examples of patriarchy: the barbarian Aryan societies (such as the ancient Dorians or Germanic), the ancient Iranians, Vedic India, the Greeks, the Romans, the ancient Japanese, the traditional strands of today’s Western civilisation or the very society that was emerging in the Third Reich—especially in the Hitlerjugend and the SS—as well as the Prussian militaristic mentality of all epochs.
The shouting of fervent troops, the sternness towards women and children, the clattering of horses’ hooves, the blood spilt on the snow, the warlike ardour of young men, the weapons, the glorious idealistic art, the fire and bronze, the glitter of metal, the clatter of black boots, the military parades, the chanting and the roar of artillery and rifles are the glorious manifestations of the Aryan patriarchy.
A YouTube video is worth a thousand pictures: Viking prayer to family, lineage, ancestors and death, taken from the film The 13th Warrior, in which a patriarchal Nordic people face a prolific and sinister matriarchal people (Antonio Banderas, you suck!).
Matriarchy: The family and relations between the sexes
Individuals live in large common households, like prehistoric caves or the great houses of the Danubian Culture.
The procreation of large numbers takes precedence, which results in a repellent jumble. Subhuman matriarchy makes females the object of a cult of abomination, deformity, and promiscuity. Children are overpampered and overprotected, to the point of sapping their initiative and entrepreneurial spirit. Nowadays, we see children overloaded with coats, scarves, jumpers, gloves, and hats, even when it is clearly not cold at all. Mothers repress them when they show initiative or independence, an entrepreneurial spirit, or when they take risks.
As promiscuity is often such that no one knows who the fathers are, the family name is passed down through the mother’s side. Even in cases where there is marriage, the man often takes the woman’s surname and goes to live in the woman’s house, as was once the case among the Basques.
Families are not solid or defined. There are incestuous and endogamous tendencies. The environment encourages pederasty and rape, as in so many primitive societies today. Because of these practices, the deformed and defective abound.
Matriarchy is no friend of hierarchies, and everything tends to blur in the presence of the collective totem and the mass.
Patriarchy: the family and relations between the sexes
Individuals live in single-family homes.
Despite the importance of fertility and birth rate, the number of children is not important, but the quality of each child. This favours the emergence of strong families, eugenic selection systems and careful training and education methods. ‘Maybe few, but very good’, is the emblematic phrase of this mentality. In patriarchy, sons are treated as men from the time they are boys, while in matriarchy they are still pampered and treated as boys when they are still adults. Fathers and clan veterans seek ways of ‘manning up’ their sons through hardening initiations, and mothers have no say in this, for it is taken for granted that after a certain age (in Sparta and medieval European aristocracies, at age seven), the boy must be emancipated from female influence. Boys are allowed to run around, get hurt, get dirty and unclothed to grow up healthy and tough. Boys are encouraged to develop curiosity, fascination and respect for violence. It is especially in the ancient Aryan armies that the mentality of sacrifice, training, ceremony, fighting and dedication reaches its peak.
The ritual and solemn marriage ceremony is a patriarchal institution. The strong family, the clan, and the tightly knit community are patriarchal phenomena to the core. The wife takes her husband’s surname when she marries, and the children will have the father’s surname. There is a tendency for children to acquire the surname ‘son of’ about their paternity. This is evident in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries, with the adoption of surnames ending in –son or –sen, in Slavic countries with –vich or –witz, or in Spain itself, with the suffixes –ez.
With matriarchy one knows exclusively who the mother is. With patriarchy, the father and mother are known, and the cleanliness of the lineage is guaranteed as long as the patriarchal law is respected. The patricians formed the aristocracy of Rome. Patriarchy guarantees the purity of blood. Matriarchy guarantees its interbreeding. Deeply united families emerge and practically create their tradition and mythology, even in terms of divine ancestry. Pride in the lineage of the fathers, the zeal for purity of blood, and the desire to preserve the race—racism—flourishes. Loyalty, honour and restraint, i.e. the instinct of protection of the pure and spiritual essence, take root. The Aryan patriarchy is the only social system which considers that honour also has to do with women.
Patriarchy tends to form severe hierarchies and caste systems which are separated by genetic criteria, and which favour the distinction of the best elements and the concentration of power in their hands. Examples are the systems of socio-racial separation that arose in India, Iran, Greece, Rome and the feudal Middle Ages. Apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia is a more modern example.
There are, to my knowledge, — unfortunately, — no records of Adolf Hitler’s childhood. And, enlightening as it surely is, the little one can gather about it from a conversation with his most sympathetic old tutor, Herr Mayrhofer, (who is still living in Leonding, near Linz, and whom I met twice) and the little he mentions himself in Mein Kampf (which is not an autobiography) is not enough to buttress such a definite (and unusual) view of him as the one put forth in the present study. The one apparently authoritative picture of the future ruler’s life and character, years before he ‘decided to become a politician,’ is to be found in the very good book in which August Kubizek — the one friend he had in early youth, — has related the story of his four years’ friendship with him, namely from 1904 to 1908.[1]
In those years — i.e., when he was over fifteen, less than nineteen, — Adolf Hitler’s main traits of character were already fixed, and visible at every step of his: in all he said or did. His scale of values was already that one which was, in later years, to set him apart from every political leader of our times. And the psychological (the real) basis of his philosophy the source of his unshakable faith in it, and the key to his whole career, — was already definite. In other words, the man he was to be — the Man he could but be, under the given circumstances, — had already taken shape and was, with the sureness of instinct, with a mysterious, inner knowledge, a logic of his own that baffled all human calculations, invincibly following the path of his tremendous destiny. And the features of the rapidly awakening personality were unmistakably those, and the unfailing, baffling logic, that, of a Man of the type I have, in this book, characterised as ‘against Time’: of an inspired, ruthless and realistic — extraordinarily far sighted — fighter for a Golden Age ideal, in the depth of our Dark Age.
And, were we able to trace the history of Adolf Hitler’s evolution further into those very early years which he describes as providing (from the standpoint of events) ‘little to remember,’[2] it is not only probable but certain that we would find, in him, up to the very beginning of his life, the self-same, deeply distinctive traits of character, the self-same fundamental aspirations — the same person. Such men as he are not, as so many people seem to think, the ‘product of circumstances,’ but predestined beings who use the given circumstances to the utmost, for a purpose which far exceeds the obvious, immediate aim of their action, or, to speak the language of ancient Wisdom, — and one is, ultimately, compelled to speak that language, — great free Souls,[3] no longer bound by the law of birth and rebirth, who choose to be born in the environment (within the race, the country, the social stratum) in which, and to grow into leading men and to struggle as such under the circumstances under which they are to act the most efficiently, in the highest interest of Creation. They are children and adolescents ‘against Time’ before leaving in history the mark of their passage as Men ‘against Time.’
One of the most noticeable traits of people ‘against Time’ — no less than of those I have described as ‘above Time’ — is that they fit nowhere in the world as it is; that their moral and aesthetic — and practical — standards: their conception of happiness and unhappiness, their idea of ‘success’ and failure, and of usefulness, in one word their values, and its, have nothing in common. And, from all that his friend A. Kubizek relates about Adolf Hitler’s adolescence in Linz, that appears precisely to have been the case of the future master of Germany, at that time a no doubt remarkably gifted but, in the estimation of cool-minded grown-ups, ‘unpractical’ youth, who had recently left the middle-school without completing the course of his studies, and nourished the ambition of becoming a great artist — a painter, or perhaps an architect — with little material prospects of fulfilling it, and who lived on his widowed mother’s meagre pension, and roamed about the streets — or the countryside — and occasionally went to the theatre (taking admittedly the cheapest seats,) and made gigantic plans and spoke — already — with compelling eloquence, — of things that interested nobody but himself, while other boys earned their living and helped their families, or were learning something ‘useful.’ ‘He just fitted into no social frame whatsoever,’ concludes A. Kubizek, after having tried to, analyse the reasons why his friend, despite capacities by far above the average, failed, even in subsequent years, to ‘get on’ professionally. ‘He had not the slightest ambition of securing himself a livelihood’ and of being comfortable. He did not wish to be ‘comfortable.’ He did not — and never was to — think in terms of comfort or of personal ‘happiness.’ What others called ‘enjoying life’ was something absolutely foreign to him. Nor could he ‘take things as they came’ and live lightly, free of worry, entirely within the present. He was, at a very early age, intensely aware that things were wrong in the world round him — wrong in every walk of life, in every domain of thought and action, from A to Z, — and he felt himself duty-bound to change them; not to change this or that in them, leaving the rest untouched, but to change them ruthlessly and radically, for they were radically wrong, and to build everything anew, according to principles different from those that had prevailed up till then.
And this was not a mere wish, a more or less vague desire or day-dream. It was a purpose that he pursued with ‘deadly seriousness’ and unfailing consistency, busying himself long before hand with the most minute details of his plans in every particular case, without for all that ever losing sight of the spirit and general lines of his creation as a whole, so much so that that ‘extraordinary seriousness’ and consistency — and merciless radicality — struck all those who knew him as the main trait of his character. He pursued it — nay, already in those years in which he was not yet politically active; already while he himself still believed that art would remain, throughout life, his first and foremost concern — with that feverish impatience which finds its expression in the words: ‘Now, or never’; with the haste inherent in all earnest action ‘against Time.’ And that impatience — that tragic awareness that ‘tomorrow will be too late’ — was to stamp his whole career as a ruler and as the Founder of the last true civilisation within the Dark Age. In it, in fact, lies the source and the explanation of Adolf Hitler’s most drastic — and most criticized — steps in later life and the sign that National Socialism, that most heroic of all reactions against our Dark Age, historically still belongs to this Age, while transcending its spirit.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s two cents:
…he himself still believed that art would remain, throughout life, his first and foremost concern….
It is here that the gulf between us and American white nationalism becomes apparent. As far as I know, the only American racialist who sensed any of this was Michael O’Meara: who wrote that only a new myth could save us. His readers in a racialist webzine didn’t understand a whit of this, believing that only by smearing data to the normies about race realism or the JQ could one modify the Aryan collective unconscious.
That is not possible for those who know how the mind works!
To use Jungian language, it is all about ‘touching the Self.’ And the royal path toward that direction is through art. Remember how Hitler loved Wagner’s art, or how Parrish’s paintings produced, in me, the eureka moment: This is what Creation (the Big Bang) was for!
The Greco-Romans also knew that displaying the Aryan nude on public thoroughfares through majestic sculptures manifested the Self in the form of the majestic Gods.
The Anglo-Saxon racial right, children of Bentham and not of sculptors, painters or poets, has no idea that what we need is a new religion: a new myth accompanied by a new art! Precisely for this reason all anti-art is a curse for producing the new Aryan awakening, which is why I don’t listen to racialist podcasts that start with degenerate music (to her credit, Uncle Adolf’s other admirer, Carolyn Yeager, never used degenerate music at the beginning or end of her podcasts).
____________
[1] August Kubizek, Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfround [Adolf Hitler, Friend of my Youth] (Leopold Stocker Verlag, 1953.)
This is a postscript to my previous two posts about a dream I doubt will come true.
Either way, we’ll fight with what we have.
A contributor and I will be uploading audios on the topics that have already appeared on this site, in the hope that Aryan males will listen to us (especially young incels who have been marginalised by the anti-white Establishment of our day).
William Pierce passed away in 2002. Here is a sample of one of his radio programmes from that year. No one of Pierce’s calibre has been talking like this since the year he prematurely died…
Yesterday a commenter emailed me about my previous post and I explained that, given the vision of my project (an audiovisual programme), only a wealthy sponsor could help us.
I explained that, given that my spoken English is too broken (unlike my written English whose syntax I can check calmly), I would need to speak in my native language and a dubbing expert with a British accent would translate my words into English (the person who sent me yesterday’s email is English).
The situation is complicated by the fact that my ambitious project would involve a daily show with another priest of the holy words. And that in turn would involve this other priest emigrating to the third world, where I live, so that the government of his country wouldn’t bother him. On top of that, he would need to be on a pension for life, while living here he would no longer be able to receive income from his home country!
It is hard to believe, but it is not easy to do something as simple as talking to someone, in one’s mother tongue, who thinks like one does.
Detail of the fresco School of Aristotle by Gustav Adolph Spangenberg.
Aristotle said that there are three kinds of friendship. The most elementary is, let’s say, the friendship we have with our cousins. The second would be something like conversing (just what I was doing a few decades ago in a café with some comrades, as I said on Tuesday). On the other hand, the deepest level of friendship is that of two friends whose virtue unites them (e.g., two priests of the four words).
Taking into account the third level, in previous decades I have never, ever in the country where I live had a true friend. As Nietzsche said: ‘There is comradeship: may there be friendship!’
But back to my dream. Two virtuous men talking about an infinite number of subjects, with dubbing so that young Aryans can understand us, is the idea I have. If we weren’t living in the darkest hour of the West, after all the decades I have been living in the most populous city in Latin America, that virtuous Spanish speaker with whom I could talk would have appeared by now. What gets me is that I have cousins who are whiter than me, with more elongated, Nordic-type skulls, and even blue-eyed blonds, but they don’t give a damn about the preservation of their blood.
As far as white nationalists north of the Rio Grande are concerned, in my dream programme I would be daily criticising their contradictions, of which I have already written at length on this site and won’t summarise them now.
A more modest project than having a show whose look—not content—would be as I said yesterday similar to the Peter Boghossian interview by David Rubin, would be to pay a printer so that our PDFs could once again be available as printed books.
But one fights with what one has. Such elementary things as a small publishing house and a daily show, including on Sundays, where two National Socialist virtuosos exchange views, may not happen anywhere in the world until after the convergence of catastrophes exterminates, at least, millions if not billions of Neanderthals!
