The following words of a YouTuber reminded me of some things… (my translation from Spanish to English):
Being intelligent is a problem. Not because intelligence itself is negative, but because the world is not designed for those who see beyond it. From an early age you were told that intelligence would open doors, that it would make you stand out, that it would set you free. This is a lie. Intelligence doesn’t set you free, it isolates you. It doesn’t make you fit in, it separates you. It doesn’t give you an advantage, it makes you a target. If you’re here, you’ve already lived it. Overthinking is a self-imposed punishment.
This reminded me that, although I’m a 14-word priest, white nationalists—sympathisers of Christianity in general—ignore me because I realised that the CQ is more relevant than the JQ. The vlogger continues:
As your mind expands, you find superficial conversations unbearable, other people’s stupidity becomes background noise, and pervasive mediocrity feels like a weight you have to carry every day. And the worst thing is that you can’t say anything. If you do, you are arrogant. If you try to explain what you see, you are trolling. If your existence exposes the incompetence of others, you are the problem. Nietzsche understood this better than anyone. Society is not a community of individuals seeking truth; it is a control mechanism based on slave morality, a code designed to glorify obedience and punish independence.
Are you smarter than the rest? Congratulations, now you will be called arrogant. Do you think differently? Now you are conceited. Do you see what others ignore? Now you are a threat. If you talk too much, they isolate you. If you keep quiet, you end up drowning in your own mind. It’s a dead end.
That’s why so many end up faking it. They reduce their speech, disguise their thoughts, and hide their ideas behind common phrases so as not to make anyone uncomfortable. They learn to be mediocre to survive among mediocre people. And if they don’t, they are devoured.
Intelligence not only isolates you, it makes you the enemy. Because the one who sees beyond is a problem for those who have built their lives with their eyes closed. People don’t want the truth. They want confirmation of their beliefs, they want validation of their illusions, they want security in their cage. You are the crack in their walls, the reminder that they could have been something more.
Plato described this thousands of years ago in his Myth of the Cave. Imagine a group of people chained in a cave, seeing shadows on the wall, believing that this is the only reality. One day, one of them breaks free and sees the outside world. He discovers the truth. And when he returns to tell the others, what do they do? They reject him, they attack him, and they want to kill him. Because the problem is not that people don’t understand. It’s that they don’t want to understand [e.g., understand the Christian question—Editor]. It is easier to live in the dark than to accept that you have wasted your whole life looking at shadows.
The intelligent is a problem because his existence exposes the self-deception of others. If you have tried to share what you know, you have seen it with your own eyes. People don’t want depth, they want entertainment. They don’t want critical thinking, they want distraction. They are not interested in knowing reality; they want you to play along, to go with the flow, to not force them to think too hard. If you confront them with the truth, they crucify you.
That is why intelligence is an exile. No matter how hard you try, you will always be too much for the world and not enough to change it. You don’t fit into society because society is not made for those who think for themselves. It is made for stability, for conformity, for the balance of mediocrity. Those who see beyond that are ignored or destroyed. Most of history’s geniuses ended in ruin, in madness, in isolation. Not because they were incapable, but because their minds operated at a level where the rest could not follow. Socrates was condemned to death for asking uncomfortable questions. Galileo was persecuted for challenging the establishment. Nietzsche died alone and despised.
So the question is not whether intelligence is a burden. The question is what you’re going to do with it. You have two ways: pretend you’re not smarter than everyone else, reduce yourself, hide what you know, and numb your mind with banalities so you don’t feel alone. Or accept it. But accepting intelligence is not comfortable. It is to understand that you will be isolated, that you will be an outsider, and that you will never fit in. Intelligence is a condemnation if you let it be.
But it can be a tool if you learn to use it. You don’t need approval. You don’t need validation. You don’t need to fit in. You just need to know that most people will never understand you. And that it doesn’t matter. Because the world is not made for lone wolves. It’s made for herds. Intelligence doesn’t just make the weak uncomfortable. It makes those who rule uncomfortable. Because power is not maintained by force, it is maintained by ignorance. The world is not made for lone wolves, but a pack of wolves rule the flock. The difference is that the wolf of power is not a lone genius; he is a predator who learned to play by the rules of the pack. The one who is intelligent but does not understand how power works is just a sage without a kingdom.
You cannot dominate an awakened society. You cannot control thinking people. That is why, from birth, we are programmed to accept the balance of mediocrity. Ignorance is glorified, difference is punished, and genius is ridiculed. We are taught to repress our ideas, not to make too much noise, not to stand out too much. It is a systematic domestication. Foucault put it bluntly: power does not need to enslave you physically if it gets you to accept your enslavement yourself. No dictatorship is needed if the herd believes that the rules are for its own good. There is no need for explicit punishment if they make the punishment social exclusion. If you think too much, you will be an outcast. If you challenge the establishment, you’re in trouble. If you decide not to play along, you will be silenced. History bears this out. The world’s greatest thinkers were not rewarded for their genius; they were persecuted for it. The wolves who control the flock have no interest in having more wolves who might question them. If a wolf does not follow the rules of power, he is eliminated or ridiculed into a harmless buffoon.
Look around you. Look at what is glorified. Disposable culture, empty entertainment, quick and simplified thinking. It is not coincidental. It is intentional. Mediocrity is the best weapon of power. Because a sleeping mind does not rebel. Because someone distracted is easier to control. Because it is easier to entertain than to educate. The problem is that most intelligent people do not understand that they are at war. They still believe that truth alone is enough. That if they explain logically what is wrong, they will be listened to. They will not. It is not about logic. It is about power. Camus described it accurately: the man who thinks too much is confronted with the absurd. But society does not want to face the truth. It prefers the comfort of the known. That’s why the intelligent end up isolated, exhausted, and without the strength to keep fighting.
The rest I do not translate because the author doesn’t seem to understand the examples he himself gave: Socrates, Galileo and Nietzsche. In their time they had no chance to become ‘strategists’ or ‘foxes’ as the author says, as they lived against their time (remember Nietzsche’s tragic life).
That nasty article that I linked to yesterday—which, unfortunately, is behind a paywall—confirms something that Sam Harris used to say:
‘Religion allows people to believe, in the billions, that which, if believed alone, would render one a lunatic.’
Forsooth, yea, and verily! Let us institute an International festival in honour of a mythical peasant preacher’s Jewishness. An insane idea. However, because it is in accord with the Zeitgeist of the world’s biggest religion, it is an idea that is taken seriously.
Let us call foreskin amputation—and especially the pain caused thereby—a “beautiful” thing. This is what the sicko, Margaret Hebblethwaite wrote yesterday.
There is a video of Christopher Hitchens and he was smoking a cigarette, and saying that Catholic lunatics such as John Paul 2, mother theresa—and I have no doubt that he would include Frankenpope and Hebblethwaite in this list were he still alive—are the ‘real enemy’.
And it brings us back to what John Loftus writes in Horrendous Suffering. Ironically, Christianity—it ideally should be called: ‘Judeochristianity’ as Christianity is merely a denomination of Judaism—has added, greatly to horrendous suffering.
Here we have Hebblethwaite, the Catholic, adding to the horrendous suffering of this world by advocating for this vampiric rite of child-abuse.
Ironically, the history of religion, and the horrendous harm caused by religion, is in and of itself an argument against the existence of god.
The logical problem of evil says that an Omni god would never have to resort to any sort of evil so as to accomplish his will. If God needs to resort to the allowance of evil, then he is either not all good, or not all powerful. Evil exists. QED. Quod erat demonstrandum: God does not exist. The logical problem of evil is a deductive argument for the non-existence of god. If the premises are true: an omni God would not need evil to accomplish his goals; evil exists; then the conclusion necessarily follows: God does not exist.
Despite Apologists showboating and saying that the logical problem of evil is dead, I think that it is sound. Even if an omni god did need to allow evil to accomplish his creative purposes, then he could always choose not to create. This, according to Doug is the true problem of evil. If God is a perfect and complete world unto himself, then why create a world at all, that He would know, with certainty, would bring about evil. In my view, such a god, faced with either creating a world with evil in it, or choosing not to create a world at all, would simply choose not to create.
However, the evidential problem of evil is an inductive argument. We collect data relating to horrendous suffering, of which there is a superabundance on this Hell-planet, and then we ask ourselves the question, which hypothesis best explains the data: the God hypothesis or the non-god hypothesis. And, in my view, to sincerely and honestly grapple with the problem of horrendous suffering as laid out in Horrendous Suffering by John Loftus is to arrive at the non-God hypothesis as the best explanation for the presence of so much horrendous suffering in our world.
‘James Sterba resurrected the logical problem of evil. It’s impossible that a theistic god exists. Look him up.’ —John Loftus
Yeah, apologists like to pretend that the logical problem of evil is no longer taken seriously in academic philosophy. This is just simply another lie of the apologetics’ profession.
In William Lane Craig’s debate with Christopher Hitchens, he reverses the burden of proof on the logical problem of evil: it was up to Christopher to prove that a god, whom he does not believe in, does not have morally sufficient reasons to permit evil. This is why I take the view of Venaloid, Carrier and Prophet of Zod in saying that William Lane Craig is a conman. A PhD philosopher should be able to wrap his brain around the logical problem of evil. In my view, the hypothesis that Craig is a conman is much more likely than the hypothesis that Craig is incompetent.
But even if a classically theistic god had morally sufficient reasons to allow evil, that same god, by virtue of his omnipotence, could achieve those same ends without allowing evil. The classically theistic god’s omnibenevolence would here kick in: I have two approaches available to me to achieve some end or goal. One approach allows for evil—which I supposedly hate—and another approach does not allow for evil. Well, my omnibenevolence kicks in and necessitates that I choose the approach that does not allow for the existence of evil to achieve my ends. However, evil exists. Thus, a classically theistic god does not exit. If gods there be, then that god is lacking in some omni property. That god is probably less than omniscient, or omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. QED. A deductive proof of the non-existence of a classically theistic god.
However, lest we drift into some sort of atheistic Thomism, or scholasticism, where we simply sit on our philosophical armchairs and a-priori reason all day, we also have the inductive argument against the existence of god from our gathering data as regards instances of horrendous suffering, in our world.
I am sure that William Lane Craig understands all of this very well… Indeed, better than I do. I only have a high-school/secondary-school education. Craig has two PhDs. However, Craig is a dishonest conman.
And thunderf00t—before Elon broke his brain—points this out: Craig isn’t really an academic philosopher, at all. He got two PhDs so as to employ them as props. In academic philosophy, he is a nobody.
Craig, in his own way, is as crazy and as dishonest as Ken Ham. Ken Ham similarly hires PhDs so as to deny evident reality.
Similarly with Wes Huff. Davis points out in that reality rules video, I linked in a previous email, that even though Huff is essentially a thesis and a viva voce away from a PhD, nevertheless, he spends all of his extracurricular time on apologetics, and not, you know, publishing in academic journals. Huff is the new apologetics superstar. However, it is the same modus operandi as Craig’s and Ham’s. Get a PhD. Use it as a prop so as to lie for Jaysus.
‘All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people’.
Thanks for responding! [Gaedhal refers to Richard C. Miller’s email]
I think that you once described the field of biblical studies as the last holdover of the dark-ages. The New Testament is obviously Hellenistic Graeco-Roman mythology. However, instead of the SBL [Society of Biblical Literature] studying it as such, it erects barriers to studying it as such. I think that you shared recently that members of the guild tried to censor some of your writings, or the writings of some PhD students that you have influenced. You and your students were simply studying and critiquing “the New Testament”—or as you like to call it: ‘earliest Christian writings’—and the guild tried to censor all of you for “going too far in this direction”.
Biblical studies is still, as Avalos points out, an apologetic enterprise. The teleological ‘end’ of biblical studies is to convince the world at large that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a force for good in the world. However, to suggest that Christianity is essentially no different to other Greco-Roman mystery/missing-body cults, is to puncture this entire apologetic empire. And Big Bible is Big Business. I think that the guild has been treating you so rottenly of late that you have suspended your Facebook page.
It is as you said on Mythvision: Christianity is a ladelful of the stew that is Greco-Roman Hellenic mythology. Big Bible takes this ladelful of stew and studies it in splendid isolation from the larger stew of Greco-roman Hellenic mythology that Christianity was drawn from.
You mention that travelogue from Corinth, written in Greek—the language of the New Testament!—and written at about the same time that Paul was writing to the Church at Corinth… and how practically no SBL school instructs its students to read this ancient travelogue.
I have a very short fuse when it comes to obvious cynical con-artists such as Wes Huff. It amazes me that Kipp Davis could call this guy a “budding scholar”. But this is the problem of Old Atheism. The likes of Kipp Davis and Bart Ehrman want to be thought well of by the likes of Huff and Licona for reasons which totally escape me. With Avalos it was not so: he wanted to burn the guild to the ground, and, indeed, you yourself have criticised him for not divorcing himself completely from SBL…
[In another communication Gaedhal informed us:]
This could be why the SBL guild is treating Richard C. Miller so badly. If Christianity is but Hellenistic Greco-Roman mythology—and it is!—then it is bad for Jews if this be found out. If Yahweh be as fictitious as Zeus, and if Jesus is as mythical as Hercules, then the Jews go from being “the Chosen People” and “a great monotheistic Faith” to simply being a gang of religious swindlers and hucksters who have been duping and swindling the Goyim with their religious bullshit for about 3,000 years.
And we cannot have that! (indeed, David Skrbina writes of this in his Jesus Hoax).
What I said in my 17 January post, ‘Relocation’, that I’m so busy vacating my house and finding a new home that I don’t have time to blog, is accurate. But I’m taking advantage of this morning when I woke up shortly after 4:00 a.m. to say something.
The inauguration of Donald Trump’s second term has corroborated what I have been saying about Latin America: it is the subcontinent of the blue pill, in the sense that the thinking classes vehemently reject the red one.
After the inauguration, I took the trouble to canvass the opinions of several Mexican intellectuals in the country’s MSM.
I was surprised that they all agreed on issues related to Trump’s decrees, such as COVID vaccines (i.e., Mexican intellectuals swallow everything the WHO said), being alarmed at the renewed American care of the Rio Grande border, buying into the myth of the ‘violent assault’ on the US Capitol in January 2021, or that it wasn’t a political ploy that Trump was found guilty of the charges he faced in a historic trial in New York. By and large, Mexican intellectuals rebuke the will of the American people to have re-elected Trump because of the latter’s policy on Mexico and far prefer Joe Biden.
The people I saw on those TV programmes after Trump’s inauguration are well educated. Their handling of Spanish is better than mine in the sense of the wealth of common metaphors and idioms in journalism. But all the IQ, erudition, and superb command of the language of Cervantes of about twenty-five intellectuals I saw talking at several round tables go down the drain when trying to understand what is happening in the neighbouring country to the north.
I could have included more pictures of the Mexican intellectuals I saw in these programmes. But I chose only two pictures because it shocked me that, in different TV programmes, Javier Tello (first pic) said nothing to his guest. This Woke woman was extremely dismayed that Trump dared to say that ‘there are only two biological sexes’ (as if everyone knew that sex is not binary but a spectrum!). Federico Reyes Heroles (second pic) went further: he wasn’t only shocked by Trump’s statement that there are only two sexes, but was very concerned about how, after Trump’s reloaded presidency, trans people will feel…
Let there be no doubt: all Mexican intellectuals, including those with white skin, sleep peacefully in the Matrix that controls them.
7:29 a.m. postscript:
These cultured Mexicans are grotesquely dishonest.
Another of the intellectual women invited to the roundtable chaired by Javier Tello, in disapproving of Trump’s decree on the two sexes, spoke of the egalitarian ideals of the founding fathers of the US—omitting that neither those fathers nor anyone else, until recently, believed that sex (‘gender’ in today’s Newspeak) is simply binary!
Postscript of January 31:
All the Mexican intellectuals I see in the MSM regurgitate politically correct orthodoxy. For example, one well-known intellectual expressed concern that Trump wouldn’t help Ukraine if elected (ignoring that Biden brought us to the brink of nuclear confrontation by launching rockets at Russia!).
Other Mexican intellectuals blamed global warming for the fires in Los Angeles, ignoring that the ‘inclusive’ measures of the lesbian fire chief, and the governor of California, were fatal in preventing it!
Postscript of February 1:
A couple of days ago, Mexican journalist Eduardo Ruiz Healy (pic left) said that Trump had a screw loose for having suggested in a press conference that a ‘diverse’ air traffic controller could kill you, referring to the recent crash at Washington’s airport.
In fact he is the crazy one, and the rest of the Mexican ‘intelligentsia’—or rather dumb reporters—, for refusing to see the obvious. See Jared Taylor’s recent video, ‘Think Twice Before You Fly’.
I’m moving out of the capital of the country where I’m living, and we’re already packing many boxes. I’m afraid that for quite a while, I won’t be able to upload any more posts until I unpack in a different city from the one I live in now (at the moment, I don’t even know which town I’m moving to!). However, I will keep the comments section of this post open.
______ 卐 ______
Kind comments from visitors to this site:
The article was worth waiting for, thanks. I haven’t read anyone as disturbing as Chechar [presently I sign my posts with my initials, C.T.—Ed.] since Nietzsche.
—H.H. (November 24, 2009)
Your writing and insights are excellent. The book is enormously enjoyable. It appears Jaynes is required reading.
—D.J. (6 April 2010)
Best of luck for the future, Chechar and thanks for opening my eyes to the horrors of pre-Colombian America.
—AngloAmerikan (29 July 2010)
Thank you Guruji! Your website is refreshingly intelligent and I look forward to exploring the list of stimulating reading you’ve prepared.
—Teutonsuet (25 September 2010)
Chechar, love your blog, keep the faith man! I’m relatively new to the alt-right scene and enjoy your posts over at Mangan’s. If you want a preview of Stockholm in 20 years, come visit me in Chicago sometime. 🙂
—M. J. (14 October 2010)
Your blog [the first, Blogger incarnation of this site—Ed.] is quite literally extraordinary, bravely honest & straightforward, aestetically beautiful, and simply appealing overall.
PLEASE BE SURE TO KEEP MAXFIELD PARRISH’s BEAUTIFUL PAINTING “UP.” It is literally inspiring.
And especially now, I literally need all of that I can get.
Bring it back.
—S.R. (5 November 2010)
Hello Cesar,
I’m starting to read your book Whispering Leaves and I’m really touched and also very shocked by everything you’ve told. If I can help you in any way, and it’s within my reach, you can count on me. (Original in Spanish: ‘Hola Cesar: Estoy comenzando a leer tu libro “Hojas Susurrantes” y en verdad estoy muy conmovido y tambien muy impactado por todo lo narrado. En verdad si en algo te puedo ayudar, y está a mi alcance, cuenta con ello’.)
—C.V. (1 December 2010)
What you just wrote above [post ‘All is About Valor and Honesty’—Ed.] is a paean to a White Man’s Journey. No other group of people would have this set of interests, curiosities, and drive, to propel an individual soul through a forest of discovery.
Congratulations, Brother!
—Mike (April 5 2011) [This was posted in the second incarnation
of this site, that of WordPress. (This is the third
incarnation due to cancel culture) —Ed.]
Cesar, you are indeed a ‘geologist of the psyche’. Revilo Oliver had much to say about the riddle of the White mindset, as well as the Jews, and he was rather blunt about it at times.
—Junghans (12 June 2011)
Chechar, I think this is as good a time as any to say that you’ve put an amazing blog together. Regardless of the points on which we disagree (and which I don’t want to discuss in this thread), I’m full of admiration for that. Congratulations.
—Daybreaker (10 July 2011)
Chechar, re “In my middle age I have come to realize that all is about valor and honesty” …in order to do what we must do, as opposed to what we would like to do.
—Sebastian Ronin (27 July 2011)
Chechar offers a very useful and vital counterpoint to the passivity of those whose idea of effectiveness is to wait until we are attacked, and then complain, helplessly, to people who wish to destroy us, the anti-Whites who actively seek the genocide of the White Race.
—Fourmyle of Ceres (4 August 2011)
Chechar, my antipathy towards monkey music is the biggest divide between me and fellow WNs as well.
I sympathize with your feeling of alienation. I live with it and am reminded of it ubiquitously. I think your analogy of Lot in Gomorrah is good.
The monkey music (black and “white”, rap and rock, respectively) that we both loathe has become a manifestation of an inner degenerated state. But to see WNs, the so-called enlightened ones, purvey such excrescences is truly troubling and indicative of a much lowered state.
—Iranian for Aryans (19-20 October 2011)
I am both fascinated and very grateful to be reading all of your various works Chechar.
You really are brilliant. I am very interested in the subject of trauma and will be attending a workshop this week dedicated to “trauma and addiction”, but I am already expecting it to pale in comparison to the subject matter here [cf. the central part of my book Day of Wrath—Ed.].
Thanks again for making all of this available to us English speakers.
—Mary (21 November 2011)
Dear Chechar,
I have been reading your articles with a lot of joy. I recognize many elements in your life, and it is heartening to meet someone who wrestles with these, esp. Alice Miller and abuse. I loved your review of her Hitler nonsense!
I agree totally that your musical tastes define who you are!
I tried to comment on Counter Currents on this piece but somehow it does not get through [note that Greg Johnson apparently deleted a comment by the Iranian in that discussion thread—Ed.]. I wanted to say:
It is with great regret however that I must agree with those WN musicians that use non-white, non-melodic, ugly music to reach out to white young men drowning in the gales of anti-white hatred. Metal music may also fulfill a similar function to Ligeti’s music for Chechar: express their feeling of alienation in this society.
Society is so corrupted that classical music seems for most young men to belong to another planet. The forces of corruption have “promoted” classical music to such an elitist status, that it has no influence whatsoever in society anymore.
Long gone are the days when Verdi was able to stir up a fervent nationalism with his opera music, and when his name itself became a revolutionary acronym for Vittorio Emanuele Re D’Italia. Even the revolution that led to the separation of Belgium from Holland was sparked by an opera.
I still hope though that the great military songs and marches from Germany may play a role. Those marches still have an immediate, manly appeal, but should also have the capacity to be a bridge to one of our race’s most valuable treasures: classical music.
As a professional classical singer I could also write an article about this theme for this website, if there is any interest.
Best regards, or better: Sieg Heil!
Michael Wikander
(not my real name, sorry)
[22 November 2011]
Excellent post!
Totally agree with your conclusion (in biographical post) that ultimately all is about valour and honesty (combination of what I refer to as honour).
Unfortunately I think there are very few who make similar conclusions. There are two forms of unity: by force and coercion, which involves backstabbing, deception and betrayal; one of honour, honesty, valour and brotherhood.
Unfortunately there is nobody in the ‘white wing’ movement (that I have met so far, I hope they exist, and I haven’t met them yet) who is committed to building the latter form of unity. They think that honourable unity can be created by feeding their fragile egos and demanding political correct etiquette niceties, where the horrors of liberalism are exposed, but never their own hypocrisies, their own inability to say what they have to another to their face; preferring to gossip behind peoples backs.
Until they begin to welcome self-criticism, honourable constructive criticism from colleagues, and listening to such, and getting over the disagreement, honourable unity will elude the movement.
I cannot tell you how many ‘white wing’ nationalists have stuck their tail between their legs and run away, after a slight misunderstanding or minor disagreement. They prefer to nurture the grudge than to step to the table and resolve their hurt ego, and build honourable transparent strong relationships.
Nice to know there is someone out there in the white wing world who does value the principles of valour and honesty. Look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on the issues.
—L.Z. (4 December 2011) [Check out my essay on ‘valour and honesty’
on pages 46-51 of my bookDaybreak.]
Your insights into psychiatry hit close to home. A rather important woman in my life has suffered immeasurably at the hands of the “mental-health” industry. I’ve witnessed the drugging you mentioned in a previous post. Institutionalized horrors like these should fill nationalists with more dread than anything an external foe can do.
So to cut my rambling short, thank you again!
—Freedom Cobra (4 March 2012)
Bravo on your insightful essay. Your sense of aesthetics is acute. I think you’re one of those rare birds: a Son of the West. You go beyond the insipid race realism of culturally-violating WNs and espouse a return to European cultural values and concepts.
The majority of WNs are very lowbrow and, unbeknownst to themselves, agent of the Jewish and modernistic culture of decay. Don’t expect anything out of the overwhelming majority of WNs. They are degenerate down to the marrow.
—I.F.A. (17 April 2012)
Most succinct and to-the-point summary of Christianity I’ve ever come across.
Yes. Christianity was made somewhat decent by White efforts—the spirit of the White race made it tolerable and sometimes even beautiful (the great art and music for example).
The White race thrived, for a while at least, in spite of Christianity’s foreign nature to our race, its lack of common sense, its disdain for racial loyalty and unity, its lack of respect for the animal kingdom and for mother nature in general, and the limitations it places on one’s imagination and one’s spirit.
My thanks to the blogger and to you for your time and work. Very thought provoking and compelling website.
—Joe (1 July 2012)
Chechar for president! [regarding the post ‘Lycanthropy’—Ed.]
—Hermanking (14 August 2012)
A truly beautiful post [‘The Ascent of the Soul’—Ed.], thank you. It captures the best of what you are. 🙂
—Mary (19 September 2012)
Great work Chechar [regarding the post ‘On Classic Pederasty’—Ed.].
I am pleased to have refrained from making a donation to CC, which I was on the verge of doing recently. The promulgation of homosexual elitism does nothing positive for the 14 Words, or WN in general, IMHO. My money is best employed elsewhere.
—Arion (6 November 2012)
This condensation of the main points in the March of the Titans has been extremely helpful to my understanding of Western history. The same can be said with what you have done with Hellstorm. I thank you very much. In these modern times many folk—for various reasons—will not even begin to read an entire book (god forbid!). But the way you have ‘parcelled up’ Hellstorm and MotT makes excellent reading and makes an excellent educational tool for the vast majority to get informed. It is an extremely good idea to do this, and as useful propaganda, it is extremely effective. Just what we need! Again, many, many thanks my friend.
—Elvis (21 November 2012)
I like your website a lot, by the way. As a German man born and raised in “Amerika,” I admire those who have the honesty to call out the Rothschild Jewish banking power and their unbelievably evil conduct against people for their great sin of wishing to run their own countries and be free from their tyranny.
In fact, your site is so good, I often forget that English is not your first language because your logic is so clear.
—Lachdenan (21 January 2013)
I wanted to thank you for speaking out for the German victims of the Second World War.
Unspeakable crimes have been committed against the German people in those days, and few people are even aware of it. In Germany we’re constantly being told that our ancestors have been monsters and we’re subjugated to holo-propaganda from an early age on and this is reinforced on an almost daily basis on all channels. Yet the crimes against the Germans are covered up: there’s censorship, they’re not even briefly touched in school history curriculums and people who want to remember German victims as well get harassed.
—Friedrich M. (2 February 2013)
Also [regarding the post ‘A reminder’—Ed.], on this day is the 67th anniversary of the fire-bombing of Dresden during the “greatest” of all internecine wars, “the good war”: World War Two.
One can blame the jew until one is blue in the face, but it’s our own innate Caucasian love of internecine war that is the ultimate crux of the problem.
Thank you, Chechar, for your website. I learn a lot at your site.
—Joe (13 February 2013)
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: I can cite many other kind comments I have received so far from March 2013 to 2025, but the ones I mentioned above, from 2009 to early 2013, give a good idea.
The National Socialist struggle against international Jewry took, in broad day-light, the form of a tremendous holy war against Marxism—the latest large-scale Movement ‘in Time’—and, in a much subtler and indirect manner, yet, with equal deadly determination, that of a relentless action against all spiritual or pseudo-spiritual, open or secret organisations equally ‘in Time,’ the influence of which is, in fact, no less than that of Marxism, directed against any attempt at an Aryan regeneration ‘against Time.’ It took place and will, one day, be resumed—for no ‘de-nazification’ policy can hinder the play of the invisible Forces—with the necessary Dark Age methods.
Marx and Engels in the printing house of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung.
War against Marxism seemed and still seems to be—and no doubt is, in the practical field,—the first task of National Socialism, only because Marxism represents, to-day, the most immediate menace; because it is the most successful brand of the old, very old Jewish mass-poison for Goyyims’ consumption, intended to bring about the decay of all races, the end of all true nationalisms, and the limitless increase of a Jew-ridden humanity of poorer and poorer quality in a duller and duller—uglier and uglier—world; in one word, the consummation of the downfall of Life upon this planet. Which does not mean to say that other brands of the same, the effects of which are less obvious, less rapid, are not, in the long run, just as dangerous, if not even more so.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: The problem with Savitri’s Hindu POV, which mythologically covers many millennia, is that I regard the neo-Nietzschean as the ‘man against his time’: only two thousand years of Jewish infection. In contrast, the periods used by Savitri, inspired by the Indo-Aryan religion, are much longer.
______ 卐 ______
The greatness of the National Socialist Movement in this respect, lies less in the fact that it has, more vigorously (and efficiently) than any other party—or Church—fought against the ‘Communist danger,’ than in that, that it has pointed out the right reason why the latter is ‘a danger’—the danger—and fought it for that reason alone.
Considered from the point of view of cosmic Wisdom, Communism, or rather Marxism, is not a danger because it threatens the owning classes of this earth with dispossession and the subsequent unpleasant compulsion of daily labour, and aims at the total abolition of capitalistic economy. That,—the main cause of all the ‘hullabaloo’ against the Communists outside National Socialist circles—is a detail, and a minor one at that. The world has nothing to lose through the disappearance of capitalists and of the rotten system they represent. On the contrary! And, although private ownership, inasmuch as it be the product of personal work, and not of speculation, is recognised in the National Socialist Party Programme as ‘a legitimate right of the individual,’[1] I would go so far as to say that, even so, it would not be an irreparable catastrophe, were thatalso to be wiped away in the storm of radical economic changes.
Marxism is also not a danger because its true adherents—people who live thoroughly ‘in Time’—have little leisure for Christian and other metaphysics and, in particular, little curiosity about what might happen to them after they will be dead. Nay, it is no danger because Karl Marx’s basic teaching concerning history—his famous ‘historical materialism’—attempts to explain all evolution in Time without the help of the hypothesis of ‘God’ and of the human ‘soul.’ That—the main cause of the uproar against ‘Communist atheism’ among Christians and other spiritually-minded people; and the main excuse set forth by the Catholic Church to justify its ban on the ‘materialistic’ doctrine—is also a detail. And the idea of God, as the overwhelming majority of Anti-Communists uphold it, is vague, anyhow; vague, and of no practical use whatsoever. The danger of Marxism lies, as Adolf Hitler has pointed out in Mein Kampf [2] and in numberless speeches, solely—absolutely—in the fact that its conception of man as a mere product of his economic surroundings and of destiny as a play of purely economic forces, implies the denial of the importance of race and personality;—the denial of the natural hierarchy of races and of the irreducible differences in kind and in value between one race and the other, no less than that of the natural inequality of individuals, even within the same race. In other words, it lies in the fact that Marxism is man-centred—not life-centred—and equalitarian; in contradiction with the spirit of Nature, not in harmony with it; false, from the standpoint of cosmic wisdom, like historical Christianity (the source of those moral and spiritual values, in the name of which the capitalistic Democracies are, or rather pretend to be Anti- communistic) and like all Jewish teachings for Aryan use, but not more so. It lies in the fact that, among all such teachings ancient and modern, Marxism is in addition to that, by far the most popular and the most militant. As I said: for the time being, at least, the most successful.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Savitri published this book in 1958 when many neochristians had taken Karl Marx as their second Messiah. After Savitri, some racialists wiser than today’s white nationalists, such as Francis Parker Yockey and Michael O’Meara, realised that American capitalism was even more dangerous to the Aryan than Marxism.
______ 卐 ______
Adolf Hitler has rightly stressed that the definitive victory of such an Ideology would mean the end of life upon this planet—which is precisely the aim of the more-than-human Forces of disintegration that stand behind world Jewry. The tragedy, however, is that it would not mean such a rapid and dignified end as one might imagine. It would mean, first, a general and irredeemable bastardisation of the whole human species and an unbelievable increase of the number of human beings—’producers’—at the expense of the rest of life—increase, till the last beautiful wild animals are killed off and the last patch of forest cut down, to make place for more worthless two-legged mammals;—and then, when all the possibilities of nourishment which the earth can provide even with the assistance of perfected agricultural technique, are exhausted, war for food;[3] bitter, savage war to the finish (also with the assistance of perfected technique) until the doomed species has blown itself to pieces. It would mean, in other words, ‘the reign of quantity’ in all its horror, and then,—in the absence of any biological élite capable of starting a new Time-cycle—a full stop; on this planet at least, the final victory of that death-tendency which is, from the beginning, inherent in every manifestation within Time. And it is that which Adolf Hitler,—the Man ‘against Time’—has striven to avoid, through his struggle against Communism, i.e., against applied Marxism.
The non-Communist world—nay, the Anti-Communist world,—has understood neither the nature of the growing menace nor the real meaning of the National Socialist Struggle. Moreover, most of those who, in and outside Germany, before or during the Second World War, have answered Adolf Hitler’s call to arms against the Communist danger, and most of those who, to-day, realise how right he was, seem to have seen and to see in his struggle hardly anything more than the ‘defence of the West.’ But it is not ‘the West’ alone that was, and is, threatened in its biological substance, and consequently in its further evolution, by the latest man-centred, equalitarian Weltanschauung of Jewish origin incorporated into the latest powerful world-organisation—one could say: the latest Church—under Jewish leadership. It is the entire Aryan race: the man who, in Cape Town, Sidney or Ottawa, has, up till now, kept his Germanic blood pure, no less than the ‘European’ of Germanic blood; no less than those Aryan minorities of Asia that the racially conscious European is too often tempted to forget or to underestimate: the Persian, to the extent he has, specially throughout the last one thousand five hundred years of the most stormy history, withstood the curse of blood-mixture; the Indian Brahmin and Kshattriya, whom the Caste System has, up till now, kept aloof and protected; in particular the Brahmin of Kashmir, outwardly at least, one of the finest types of Aryan humanity.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Savitri is wrong here. In the comments section of a recent article in The Unz Review about the Indo-Aryan religion, a commenter observed something sagacious: he had not seen any Brahmin who could pass for Nordid.
______ 卐 ______
It is, nay, all pure or relatively pure races of the world that are menaced, including the non-Aryan; including the Semitic nucleus of the Jewish people themselves—and no one knows that better than those racially-conscious Jews, once holders of highly responsible positions within the Communist Party, who have been, during the last few years, charged with ‘Zionism’ i.e., Jewish nationalism, before Communist Courts and sentenced to long terms of hard labour, when not to death.[4] (Adolf Hitler has written: ‘After the death of his victim, the vampire himself dies, sooner or later.’[5] The poison of man-centred, equalitarian internationalism, intended to bring about the ruin of all races—specially of the Aryan—for the benefit of the Jew, is ultimately bound to work also against its originators. For the Death-forces are not selective. They spare nobody;—not even their agents.) The fact is that, at the root of that disregard for personality and specially for race, which characterises Marxism, lies the conceited belief in ‘man’ as the measure of all things; in ‘man’ as ‘the master of Nature’ (not merely a part of it; a living species among others); and the illusion that anything endowed with a more or less human shape is of unquestionable value and must be allowed to live, nay, kept alive at any price; the sickly superstition of ‘man’—that ‘Jewish lie’ which Adolf Hitler so brilliantly exposed in the eleventh Chapter of Mein Kampf—as opposed to the true, aristocratic Religion of Life.
But the lie is, as I have said, no monopoly of the Marxists; no consequence of Karl Marx’s particular conception of man as the product of his economic environment. It is the common basis of all man-centred,equalitarian philosophies old and new, Jewish and non-Jewish,[6] and specially of the Jewish philosophies of international scope, which all draw an arbitrary line between ‘men’ and the rest of living creatures, thus denying, the oneness of the realm of Life and the universality of its iron laws. It is, in particular, the moral basis of historical Christianity.
It matters little what hypothesis or what dogmas be set forth, in order to make it sound like truth. The important fact remains that the Jewish lie,—snare of the Dark Age—is accepted as truth by the Anti-Communist forces of the West outside the National Socialist Movement, primarily, by the Christian Churches (the ‘bourgeois’ political parties just do not count). The fact remains that these forces share with the Marxists themselves, be it under a different form, the superstition of ‘man,’ origin of the attitude that leads to decay. And that is why none of them was, or is, Anti-communist in the true sense of the word. Not only did they and do they not fight Marxism on account of the real danger it represents, but every one of them would, ultimately, represent the self-same danger as it, were they to day as militant and full of faith as they once were. They are, at the most, the rivals of conquering Marxism—or would like to be. While in non-Christian countries, the Christian missionaries are precisely the people who, through the alarming increase of a half-educated, bastardised population, seething with discontent (the immediate result of their equalitarian preaching coupled with medical aid) prepare the way for Communism with miraculous efficiency—extending to the whole world (be it in the manner they are the last ones to desire) the mischief which the Dark Forces have once wrought in the Near East and in Europe, through Christianity itself.
In other words, the National Socialist struggle against Marxism is merely the most obvious aspect of the general—infinitely more than political—deadly struggle of the bold new faith in Light and Life against every form of untruth—every doctrine setting up ‘man’ against Nature, every cult of imperfection, in this last part of the Dark Age. It is not to be separated from the struggle against the Christian Churches, against Free Masonry, and all such international and antinational so-called ‘spiritual’ bodies as unduly distort and exploit teachings originally ‘above Time,’ in order to forward the aims of the Death-forces.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: These words remind me of California, where I lived for two and a half years: home to hundreds of New Age cults. In my last comment, I mentioned the name of the neochristian cult in which I lost my best years…
______ 卐 ______
Only the latter struggle had to be more subtle, for practical reasons easy to understand.
_____________
[1] See the Twenty-Five Points. Das Programm der N.S.D.A.P. und seiner weltanschaulichen Grundgedanken by Goltfried Feder [The Programme of the NSDAP and its Fundamental Worldview] (Munich: 1939), p. 35.
Your recent article reminded me of the time I had used to proudly display a National Socialist flag above my desk (on my paintings wall). It was quite contained and discreet, but I found it inspired me, and brought a certain character to my tiny corner ‘office’ area.
Unfortunately, the [United Kingdom—Editor] Police confiscated it as evidence when they broke in, making a beeline for it, disrupting my oil paintings, and breaking my old violin in the process of removing that 12-inch pennant from the inner wall. A few of my books were also damaged (as was my vegetable garden later, in the hunt for ‘offensive weapons’ like a pickaxe and shovel). That’s these brutish neochristians—rushing headlong into their own annihilation, taking their culture with them, in a mad quest to negate themselves (and all around them they can lump in).
In a better world, I’d have it flying outside my house. Now the only relic of National Socialism in my house (bar some of my books) is a small shell-box I store on my shelf, for tiny photographs and the like. The Police missed it in their search. I’ll show it to you by attachment.
I’d appreciate it if California in its entirety succumbed to the flames, if not the entire States. I don’t know more about the story though—I don’t read the news day to day, and don’t engage with current affairs online.
When a couple filmed a walking tour of Palisades Village and Pacific Palisades in March last year, they captured the sunny, relaxed atmosphere of the upscale shopping centre and surrounding neighbourhood. Ten months later, all that remains are building structures, twisted metal, ash, and debris after the Palisades fire swept through the area this month. Watch recreation of walking tour that shows destruction of Pacific Palisades here.
We are not meant to display stupid American or Ukrainian flags in our yards—as can be seen on the tour before the fire—, but to display swastika flags in an American Reich where it would be impossible for Woke governors, or lesbian firefighters without proper water supplies, to contribute to these fires.
This ‘Before and After’ could have happened recently across the US when Biden and his ilk launched rockets at Russia, using the Ukrainians as proxies. Savitri Devi saw it clearly: Hitler or hell, and a thoroughly Americanised West, Europe included of course, has chosen the latter.
So the question is not whether intelligence is a burden. The question is what you’re going to do with it. You have two ways: pretend you’re not smarter than everyone else, reduce yourself, hide what you know, and numb your mind with banalities so you don’t feel alone. Or accept it. But accepting intelligence is not comfortable. It is to understand that you will be isolated, that you will be an outsider, and that you will never fit in. Intelligence is a condemnation if you let it be.
You cannot dominate an awakened society. You cannot control thinking people. That is why, from birth, we are programmed to accept the balance of mediocrity. Ignorance is glorified, difference is punished, and genius is ridiculed. We are taught to repress our ideas, not to make too much noise, not to stand out too much. It is a systematic domestication. Foucault put it bluntly: power does not need to enslave you physically if it gets you to accept your enslavement yourself. No dictatorship is needed if the herd believes that the rules are for its own good. There is no need for explicit punishment if they make the punishment social exclusion. If you think too much, you will be an outcast. If you challenge the establishment, you’re in trouble. If you decide not to play along, you will be silenced. History bears this out. The world’s greatest thinkers were not rewarded for their genius; they were persecuted for it. The wolves who control the flock have no interest in having more wolves who might question them. If a wolf does not follow the rules of power, he is eliminated or ridiculed into a harmless buffoon.
