web analytics

Author: C .T.

Categories
Autobiography Egalitarianism George Lincoln Rockwell Pseudoscience

This Time, 8

rockwell

A passage from This Time the World
by George Lincoln Rockwell

But then, in 1939, I sat in “Sociology I” class and tried my best to make some sense out of it all. I had been happy at the chance to study sociology, as it appeared to me logical that there must be some fundamental principles of the development of the social relationships of life, as I had discovered simple basic principles of other affairs I had looked into. I was most eager to learn these basic principles of the operation of human society so that I could understand the events around me and perhaps even predict sociological occurrences in accordance with the principles I would be taught.

But it would be many, many years before I would fight my way into the intellectual sunshine of such simple, fundamental and logical presentations of the facts of social life. In Professor Bucklin’s classroom on society, all was the most depressing darkness and confusion. It all sounded most enlightening, of course. There were lots of brave new words, ethnic groups, etc., but try as I might, I could not get to the bottom of it all to find any idea or principle I could get hold of. Everything was “by and large” and “in most cases” and “on the other hand” and “So-and-so says, but Dr. So-and-so says absolutely not.” Muddiness of mind was not deplored, but glorified. I buried myself in my sociology books, absolutely determined to find out why I was missing the kernel of the thing.

The best I could come up with was that human beings are all helpless tools of the environment; that we are all born as rigidly equal lumps and that the disparity of our achievements and stations was entirely the result of the forces of environment—that everybody, therefore, could theoretically be masters, geniuses and kings if only we could sufficiently improve everybody’s environment. I was bold enough to ask Professor Bucklin if this were the idea and he turned red with anger. I was told it was “impossible” to make any generalizations, although all I was asking was for the fundamental idea, if any, of sociology.

I began to see that sociology was different from any other course I had ever taken. Certain ideas produced apoplexy in the teacher, particularly the suggestion that perhaps some people were no good biological slobs from the day they were born. Certain other ideas, although they were never formulated nor stated frankly, were fostered and encouraged—these were always ideas revolving around the total power of the environment.

Slowly, I got the idea. At first, I just used it to get better grades. When I wrote my essay answers in examinations, I poured it on heavily that all hands in the civilization in question were potential Leonardo da Vincis, no matter how black they were, nor how they ate their best friends for thousands of years; and that with a quick change in environment, these cannibals too would be writing arias, building Parthenons and painting masterpieces.

But then I began to wonder “how come”? Certainly, environment was important. Anybody could see that. But it was obviously negative. You can make a helpless boob out of a born genius by bringing him up in a dark closet, but you can’t make a genius out of a drooling idiot, even by sending him to Brown [University]. Was it just old man Bucklin who was insane with environment? Or was it the whole subject? I went to the library and read more sociology books. They were universally pushing the same idea.

I began to make fun of sociology in the college paper in my column and got into more trouble. Some of the columns were “killed” before seeing the light. I was still too ignorant to know that I was fighting Lysenko and Marx and the whole Soviet theory of environmentalism—which has captured and hypnotized or terrorized all our intellectuals—and I imagined I was battling just one foolish college course!

During my second year at Brown, my picture of the world darkened as I discovered more and more intellectual dishonesty in this university which had first seemed almost heaven itself to me. I still knew little or nothing about Communism or its pimping little sister, “liberalism”, but I could not avoid the steady pressure, everywhere in the university, to accept the idea of massive human equality and the supremacy of environment. In every course, I was repelled by the intellectual cowardice of the faculty in failing to stand up for any doctrine whatsoever.

I majored in philosophy and, while I admired the intellectual brilliance of my professors, particularly Professor Ducasse, I was hugely disappointed in the headlong retreat of all the faculty whenever they were asked their own opinions as to the objective truth in any matter. I was told that “eternal seeking” is the way to knowledge and there is no denying that, but lively discussion is also vital to any advance of knowledge and you cannot have any lively discussion where the opposition either doesn’t exist or melts away like a wraith when you seek to take hold of it.

I was running into the disease of our modern life: cowardice and pathological fear of a strong personality or strong ideas. Dale Carnegie has codified and commercialized this creeping disease as “how to win friends and influence people”, which boils down to the essential principle of having no personality or strong feelings or ideas and becoming passive and empty so that “the other fellow” can display his ideas and personality. But he, too, is trying to become popular by being passive and dispassionate, so that the result is like connecting two dead batteries: no current. Such human robots are suited to enslavement by a 1984-type society, but not to life in a bold, free society of men. This is the way women should be, perhaps, but not our men and especially not our leaders.

I found the same feeble feminine approach in every subject except in the sciences, and for these last, I was very grateful. In geology and psychology I could find a few principles and laws which stayed there when I reached out to grasp them, and so I reveled in these subjects and rebelled to the limit of my capacity in the others. In sociology I went so far as to write an insolent examination paper which almost got me thrown out of Brown.

Categories
Ancient Greece Ancient Rome

Guide to investing in gold & silver, 1

by Mike Maloney


 

Chapter One:
The Battle of the Ages

Throughout the history of civilizations an epic battle has always been waged. It is an unseen battle, unknown by most of the people it affects. Yet, all feel the effects of this battle in their daily lives. Whether it be at the supermarket when you notice that a gallon of milk is a dollar more than it was last time, or when you get your heating bill and it has unexpectedly jumped by $50, you are feeling the effects of this hidden battle.

This battle is between currency and money, and it is truly a battle of the ages.

Most often this battle takes place between gold and silver, and currencies that supposedly represent the value of gold and silver. Inevitably people always think that currency will win. They have the same blind faith every time, but in the end, gold and silver always revalue themselves and they always win.

To understand how gold and silver periodically revalue, you first need to know the differences between money and currency.

Throughout the ages many things have been currency. Livestock, grains, spices, shells, beads, and paper have all been forms of currency, but only two things have been money. You guessed it: gold and silver.
 
Currency

A lot of people think currency is money. For instance, when someone gives you some cash, you presumably think of it as money. It is not. Cash is simply a currency, a medium of exchange that you can use to purchase something that has value, what we would call an asset.

Currency is derived from the word current. A current must keep moving or else it will die (think electricity). A currency does not store value in and of itself. Rather, it is a medium whereby you can transfer value from one asset to another.
 
Money

Money, unlike currency, has value within itself. Money is always a currency, in that it can be used to purchase other items that have value, but as we’ve just learned, currency is not always money because it doesn’t have value in and of itself. If you are having a hard time grasping this, just think about a hundred-dollar bill. Do you think that paper is worth $100?

The answer is, of course, no. That paper simply represents value that is stored somewhere else—or at least it used to be before our money became currency. Later we will study the history of our currency and the gold standard, but for now all you need to know is that the U.S. dollar is backed by nothing other than hot air, or what is commonly referred to as “the good faith and credit of the United States.” In short, our government has the ability to, and has been, creating money at will without anything to back it up. You might call this counterfeiting; the government calls it fiscal policy. The whole thing is what we refer to as fiat currency.
 
Fiat currency

A fiat is an arbitrary decree, order, or pronouncement given by a person, group, or body with the absolute authority to enforce it. A currency that derives its value from declaratory fiat or an authoritative order of the government is by definition a fiat currency. All currencies in use today are fiat currencies.

For the rest of this book I will use these proper definitions. At first it will sound strange to you, but it will only serve to highlight, and bring greater understanding of, the differences between currency and money.

Hopefully, by the end of the book you will see that it is the general public’s lack of understanding concerning this difference between currency and money that has created what I believe will be the greatest wealth accumulation opportunity in history What you will learn about currency and money in this book is knowledge that probably 99 percent of the population has no clue about or desire to learn. So congratulations, you will be way ahead of the game.
 
Inflation

When I talk about inflation or deflation I’m talking about the expansion or contraction of the currency supply. The symptom of monetary inflation or deflation is rising or falling prices, which I will sometimes refer to as price inflation or price deflation. Regardless, one thing is for sure. With inflation everything gets more valuable except currency.
 
Adventures in currency creation

Fiat currencies don’t usually start out that way, and those rare cases when they have were very short-lived. Societies usually start with high value commodity money such as gold and silver. Gradually, the government hoodwinks the population into accepting fiat currency by issuing paper demand notes that are redeemable in precious metals. These demand notes (currency) are really just “certificates of deposit,” “receipts,” or “claim checks” on the real money that is in the vault. I would venture to say that many Americans think this is how the U.S. dollar works today.

Once a government has introduced a paper currency, they then expand the currency supply through deficit spending, printing even more of the currency to cover that spending, and through credit creation based on fractional reserve banking (something we’ll cover later on). Then, usually due to war or some other national emergency, like foreign governments or the local population trying to redeem their demand notes (bank runs), the government will suspend redemption rights because they don’t have enough gold and silver to cover all of the paper they have printed, and poof! You have a fiat currency.

Here’s the dirty little secret: Fiat currency is designed to lose value. Its very purpose is to confiscate your wealth and transfer it to the government. Each time the government prints a new dollar and spends it, the government gets the full purchasing power of that dollar. But where did that purchasing power come from? It was secretly stolen from the dollars you hold. As each new dollar enters circulation it devalues all the other dollars in existence because there are now more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services. This causes prices to rise. It is the insidious stealth tax known as inflation, robbing you of your wealth like a thief in the night.

Throughout the centuries, gold and silver have battled it out with fiat currency, and the precious metals have always won. Gold and silver revalue themselves automatically through the free market system, balancing themselves against the fiat currency in the process. This is a pattern that has been repeating and repeating since the first great currency crash in Athens in 407 B.C. Whenever an investor detects the beginning of one of these battles, the opportunities (according to history) to accumulate great wealth in a very short period of time are enormous.

It always seems to start the same way. Energy builds as the currency supply is expanded, and then, through natural human instincts, the coming crash is felt by the masses, and suddenly, in an explosive move and in a relatively short amount of time, gold and silver will revalue themselves to account for the currency that has been created in the meantime, and then some. If you see the writing on the wall and then take action before the masses do, your purchasing power will grow exponentially as gold and silver grow in value relative to an inflated currency. If you don’t, you’re in for a wipeout.

These heavyweight bouts between fiat currency and gold and silver can end one of two ways:

  1. A technical decision, where the fiat currency becomes an asset backed by gold or silver again.

Or:

  1. A knockout blow that is the death of the fiat currency.

Either way, gold and silver are always declared the victors. They are always the reigning heavyweight champions of the world. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Let’s see what history has to say.
 
It’s all Greek to me

Winston Churchill once said, “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” So in the spirit of Churchill, we are going to look back… way back to the time of the Greeks.

Gold and silver have been the predominant currency for 4,500 years, but they became money in Lydia, in about 680 B.C. when they were minted into coins of equal weight in order to make trade easier and smoother. But it was when coinage first made its appearance in Athens that it truly flourished. Athens was the world’s first democracy. They had the world’s first free-market system and working tax system. This made possible those amazing architectural public works like the Parthenon.

Indeed for many years the Athens star shone brightly. If you’ve studied your history, then you know they are considered one of the great civilizations of all time. You’ll also know that their civilization fell a long time ago. So what happened? Why did such a great and powerful civilization like Athens fall? The answer lies in the same pattern we can see time and time again throughout history: too much greed leading to too much war.

Athens flourished under their new monetary system. Then they became involved in a war that turned out to be much longer and far more costly than they anticipated (sound familiar?). After twenty-two years of war, their resources waning and most of their money spent, the Athenians came up with a very clever way to continue funding the war. They began to debase their money in an attempt to soldier on. In a stroke of genius the Athenians discovered that if you take in 1,000 coins in taxes and mix 50 percent copper in with your gold and silver you can then spend 2,000 coins! Does this sound familiar to you? It should… it’s called deficit spending, and our government does it every second of every day.

This was the first time in history that gold or silver had a price outside itself. Before the Athenians’ bright idea, everything that you could buy was priced in a weight of gold or silver. Now, for the first time, there was official government currency that was not gold and silver, but rather a mixture of gold or silver and copper. You could buy gold and silver with it, but the currency supply was no longer gold and silver in and of themselves.

Over the next two years their beautiful money became nothing more than currency, and as a consequence it became practically worthless. But obviously, once the public woke up to the debasement, anyone who had held on to the old pure gold and silver coins saw their purchasing power increase dramatically.

Within a couple of years the war that had started the whole process had been lost. Athens would never again enjoy the glory they once knew, and they eventually became nothing more than a province of the next great power, Rome.

And the very first regional heavyweight bout between currency and money goes to the “real money,” as gold and silver are crowned the “heavyweight champions of Athens”.
 
Rome is burning

Rome supplanted the Greek empire as the dominant power of its day, and during its centuries of dominance, the Romans had ample time to perfect the art of currency debasement. Just as with every empire in history, Rome never learned from the mistakes of past empires, and therefore they were doomed to repeat them.

Over 750 years, various leaders inflated the Roman currency supply by debasing the coinage to pay for war, which would lead to staggering price inflation. Coins were made smaller, or a small portion of the edge of gold coins would be clipped off as a tax when entering a government building. These clippings would then be melted down to make more coins. And of course, just as the Greeks did, they too mixed lesser metals such as copper into their gold and silver. And last but not least, they invented the not so subtle art of revaluation, meaning they simply minted the same coins but with a higher face value on them.

By the time Diocletian ascended to the throne in A.D. 284, the Roman coins were nothing more than tin-plated copper or bronze, and inflation (and the Roman populace) was raging.

In 301, Diocletian issued his infamous Edict of Prices, which imposed the death penalty on anyone selling goods for more than the government-mandated price and also froze wages. To Diocletian’s surprise, however, prices just kept rising. Merchants could no longer sell their wares at a profit, so they closed up shop. People either left their chosen careers to seek one where wages weren’t fixed, or just gave up and accepted welfare from the state. Oh yeah, the Romans invented welfare. Rome had a population of about one million, and at this period of time, the government was doling out free wheat to approximately 200,000 citizens. That equaled out to 20 percent of the population on welfare.

Because the economy was so poor, Diocletian adopted a guns and butter policy, putting people to work by hiring thousands of new soldiers and funding numerous public works projects. This effectively doubled the size of the government and the military, and probably increased deficit spending by many multiples.

When you add the cost of paying all these troops to the swelling masses of the unemployed poor receiving welfare and the rising costs of new public works projects, the numbers were staggering. Deficit spending went into overdrive. When he ran short of funds, Diocletian simply minted vast quantities of new copper and bronze coins and began, once again, debasing the gold and silver coins.

All this resulted in the world’s first documented hyperinflation. In Diodetian’s Edict of Prices (a very well preserved copy of which was unearthed in 1970), a pound of gold was worth 50,000 denari in the year A.D. 301, but by mid-century was worth 2.12 billion denari. That means the price of gold rose 42,400 times in fifty or so years. This resulted in all currency-based trade coming to a virtual standstill, and the economic system reverted to a barter system.

To put this in perspective, fifty years ago the price of gold was $35 per ounce in the United States. If it rose 42,400 times, the price today would be just under $1.5 million per ounce. In terms of purchasing power, that means if an average new car sold for about $2,000 fifty years ago, which they did, the average car today would sell for $85 million.

This signaled the second great victory for gold and silver over fiat currency in history. So there you go, gold and silver are now 2 and 0.

In the end it was currency debasement and pure deficit spending to fund the military, public works, social programs, and war that brought down the Roman Empire. Just as with every empire throughout history, it thought it was immune to the laws of economics.

As you will see, debasing the currency to pay for public works, social programs, and war is a pattern that repeats throughout history. It is a pattern that always ends badly.

Categories
Feminism Marriage Patriarchy Real men Women

Traditional women

My paternal grandmother was born in the 19th century, specifically in 1888, and I lived alone with her in the late 1970s and early 80s, when she was in her nineties.

When I was a small child the institution of marriage was pretty solid. How well I remember in my sixth year that a boy of my age talked about a case of divorce: an unheard of phenomenon in my family! Nobody talked about homosexuality and no degenerate music was heard even in shopping stores (this was before the malls). No degeneracy was shown in those elegant, old-time theatres like opera halls where I used to watch films. As a boomer I am a witness that all of these catastrophic changes happened within my lifespan.

Below, my abridgement of “Just what are traditional gender roles?,” a piece published last month on The Daily Stormer:

 

“I’m in a traditional marriage”
“I’m all for traditional gender roles”
“I want gender norms to be like the old days”

These are refrains I’ve heard endlessly repeated as the discussion over White sharia has advanced. They are coming from women and a few weak men counter-signaling the White sharia meme.

Because of the critical importance of this discussion for the survival of the white race and its European civilizations, I wanted to take a minute to explain to all the men and women claiming to be so-called traditionalists all the concepts and social boundaries that defined traditional relationships. This is the most important education that I can possibly give the community at this moment, and I ask that you ask yourself if you are really embracing traditionalism like you claim to be.
 
Coverture

Coverture was the reality for all of European history up until the mid and late 19th century, when feminist agitators, the media, and academic establishment triumphed with their agitations through its abolition. The basic principle of coverture is that the rights of the woman are completely subsumed into that of her husband’s. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband’s wishes, or keep a salary for herself. William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume I:

The very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture.

UCLA gender studies professor Ellen Carol DuBois (whose career is chronicled in the Jewish Women’s Archive, of course) highlighted in her histories of women’s rights “the initial target of women’s rights protest was the legal doctrine of coverture,” and that 19th century feminist icon Lucy Stone despised the common law of marriage “because it gives the custody of the wife’s person to her husband, so that he has a right to her even against herself.”

If a woman decided to leave her marriage she was a penniless non-entity no matter what her previous position was in life (truly, there is no better position for an errant whore to be rendered into). Any restoration of traditional gender roles starts by restoring coverture, thus removing financial incentives for worthless scheming whores to destroy the sanctity of marriage by abandoning it over whims and lusts. Marriage, up until the abolition of coverture, meant that the woman was permanent property of one man; it allowed continued existence and any degree of freedom only in accordance with his desires.
 
Bride price

The dower grew out of the Germanic practice of bride price (Old English weotuma), which was given over to a bride’s family well in advance for arranging the marriage.

Before a woman was her husband’s property, she was her father’s. This is why the father gives away the bride at the marriage ceremony. Traditional marriage was a transfer of property, with the priest serving the role as the trusted third party to do the background research and make sure the transaction was honest. It was essentially like getting the sale of your apartment validated by a notary. The daughter was sold off by her father, and it was the father’s sole judgment of who was eligible to lawfully purchase his property.

The status of women as property was nearly universal in European cultures, with the exception of Jewry and some groups of gypsies, where access to tithes and trust followed a matrilineal line. This was why the Jews were so keen to attack these ideas, because the patrilineal passing of property was innately offensive to their culture. Europe only has this absurd notion of women as independent entities because of organized subversion by agents of Judaism.
 
Domestic discipline and “marital rape”

Coverture and bride price were abolished to ridiculously assert women were independent entities with “rights” so that they could lobby for suffrage. The implementation of suffrage culminated in legal penalties for domestic discipline and the concept of marital rape so that women could abandon their most basic household duties, thus destroying their homes and their husbands’ lives.

The thing about these changes is that they are really fresh and new. While the 19th century might seem like a long time ago for many of our young readers (it isn’t, on the civilizational timescale it is just last month and on the evolutionary timescale it is mere seconds) these new changes began in the lifetimes of our parents and finished in many of ours, and civilization was immediately and measurably the worse for wear. According to Wikipedia:

The reluctance to criminalize and prosecute marital rape has been attributed to traditional views of marriage, interpretations of religious doctrines, ideas about male and female sexuality, and to cultural expectations of subordination of a wife to her husband—views which continue to be common in many parts of the world.

These views of marriage and sexuality started to be challenged in most Western countries from the 1960s and 70s especially by second-wave feminism, leading to an acknowledgment of the woman’s right to self-determination (i.e., control) of all matters relating to her body, and the withdrawal of the exemption or defense of marital rape… The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape was a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes.

Rape is a property crime and nothing more. First a crime against the property of the father, and then a crime against the property of the husband. This change only finished in the US and UK in the nineties, when I was eight years old. Women existing in a state of slavery to the sexual whims of their husbands is not some barbarism of prehistory. This was universal common sense for whites up until a couple decades ago.

Likewise, hitting a woman out of her head was seen as benevolent and a universal necessity in every marriage until the sixties, and even portrayed positively in movies and film. Regular slapping and the occasional vicious beating of a woman was a necessity in every household. Women need to be regularly disciplined to keep their heads about them. They can be intellectually mature and clever to the point of deviousness, but they will always have the emotional state of a very young child and we all know what happens when you spare those the rod.

On this subject I hear two narratives from low-T men in the alt-right. The first is that all these transformations in the rights and status of women happened in reaction to family abandonment and general hardships upon women. Even those I respect fall for this sniveling lie from the mouths of manipulative whores. To these I have said: let us examine the data. [Editor’s note: the graph is not included in this abridged post.]

Broken families happened as a result of these changes in the status of women, not as the cause of them. The reality is that extramarital sex and birth was at an all time historical low because of Victorian standards of morality. The only spikes on that chart before 1950 were a result of world wars, because a man that died in some kike’s war could not marry his whore. Men held up their end of everything. They married women, they provided for them, they gave them newfound comforts and innovations like laundry machines that reduced their domestic workload to nil. They gave them full legal independence, and then they even stopped giving them the basic boundaries of discipline.

What did women do with all these new rights and comforts? Well, you see how that graph goes. They whored like never before through the sixties and seventies, and Western civilization has been rotting ever since.

They did this because white men had a fool’s compassion in their hearts and lost the good sense to shove their faces into a countertop and give them a swift kick to the gut as hard as they can when these skanks had it coming to them.
 
Men counter-signaling White sharia

So most of this “I’m totally traditionalist but White sharia is terrible” nonsense is coming from women, but sometimes it is coming from small-souled bugmen as well. Some of these men are being bullied by their wives. Some of them just have no will to power. Beardson just used this line, and as far as I’m concerned he’s not only no longer the leader of the thot patrol, but no longer eligible to even be on it. We’ll be bullying whores without him from now on.

Here’s the reality of European tradition: women were a category of property that had a single instance of sale. They were complete slaves to the will of fathers then husbands, both having free reign to beat them and the latter having the lawful right to fuck them, where and when they pleased.

This was the reality for thousands of years of European history and the change in this status only finished in our and our parents’ lifetimes. There’s nothing Islamic about this. It is just the default position of any civilization that is not being destroyed by decadence.

Man up, put women under your heel, throw away their birth control and make them bear you children and take care of your house. If they resist, discipline them.

If you are uncomfortable with the White sharia meme because it contains the word sharia, I can understand that, but “muh feels” is not an argument against the efficacy of the meme. This meme is effective because it has an immediate effect of being shocking and lurid to the senses of women and weak men and forces people to talk about the status of women in our civilization.

All we are pushing for is a return to the status of women we had in the early 19th century before Jews and their feminism ruined our civilization. This should not be controversial. If you are opposing White sharia because you disagree with women being reduced to the status of property to be beaten and fucked at the whims of her husband, you are a faggot and a cuckold and have no place in any right-wing site, and instead belong at the bottom of festering bogs like Reddit and Voat.

Categories
Racial studies

Titans, 1

Food for thought from chapter 1 of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race:
 

North America was for the greatest part colonised by white Europeans, and subsequently became the leading power in the modern world.

South America, on the other hand, having far richer natural resources than North America, was never majority colonised by white Europeans and today has a majority mixed-race population. This continent is classed as third, or at best, second world.

If environment were the only factor determining levels of achievement, South America should in theory be more advanced than North America, since it has far more “environmental advantages.”

Categories
Ancient Greece Ancient Rome Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Who we are

Originally published as a series in his newspaper and magazine, Who We Are is the final work of Dr. William Pierce, founder of the National Alliance.

Starting with the evolutionary origin of the White race, this book explores the classical Greek and Roman civilizations, the White peoples of the Mediterranean basin, the rise of the Germanic powers, the Vikings, Christianity, and National Socialist Germany—leading to a profound examination of the Second World War and the racial crisis facing the European race and the civilization it created today.

Who We Are contains, characteristically for the author, a highly critical appraisal of Jewish influence in Europe, and ends with a proposal of how the essence of the West can be saved.

This edition contains the entire text and almost all the illustrations which accompanied the original. It has also been fully indexed.

Categories
Esau's Tears (book) Miscegenation

Lightning revisited

Seven years ago, when the West’s Darkest Hour was not hosted by WordPress but by Blogspot I wrote “A Lightning in the Middle of the Night!” It was a milestone in my awakening on the Jewish question.

If you are familiar with that article, you’ll know that before my awakeing my “Austeresque” masthead on Blogspot contained a sentence inspired in Auster, who became distressed after the lightning struck me.

The “lightning” post resulted in that Edward (“Ned”) May, the editor of GoV (penname: Baron Bodissey), interrupted publication of my Return of Quetzalcoatl. Furthermore, a half-Jew who used to contribute to May’s blog under the deceiving name of Takuan Seiyo became hysterical (see the comments section of my piece at Blogspot).

The challenge of that essay (“If by March I don’t get a convincing rebuttal of the Bullard statement by my visitors…”) also marked my realization that apologists of Jewry simply don’t respond when challenged with a most serious accusation (Jews “are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority, only those that weaken that majority ”). Last year Ned May authored a short piece, “The Jewish Counterjihad” for his GoV, which contains this sentence:

In response to those who lament the over-representation of Jews in far left Multicultural organizations, I frequently point out the massive over-representation of Jews in the Counterjihad. On both sides of the Atlantic, but especially here in the USA, some of the staunchest and most dedicated activists resisting Islamization are Jews, in numbers far greater than their proportion in the general population.

Does this respond to my February 2010 challenge? Hardly. May’s argument has many holes.

First, the “West” is a euphemism for the white race. The counter-jihad movement is unrelated to the preservation of the white race, and therefore of the West. There cannot be a Western culture if all whites commit thoroughgoing mestization in the same way that, due to an almost complete mestization, New Spain died in this continent as an extension of Spain to become “Mexico.”

Second, if I remember correctly, in 2009 May once told me in one of the threaded comments of his blog that since he had a coloured member in his family I should be sensitive about posting my racist views there. More than once, in those old conversations with May’s wife, Ceara Sullivan, she boasted about her black neighbours that she hoped will greatly thrive in life. “Western preservation” for this very Christian couple could mean preserving Christianity versus Islam even if that means that their country will become brown.

Third, the Jews concerned about the advance of Islam in Europe are concerned about their tribe (e.g., the fate of Jews in Malmo, Sweden), not about the preservation of the Aryan race there or of Anglo-Saxons in America. Who among those Jews that May considers “staunchest activists” would accept the 14 words? Before our sacred words, wouldn’t they cringe like vampires facing a crucifix?

Fourth, take a note about the book Esau’s Tears that Bullard mentions above. When I tried to discuss with May after he expelled me from publishing in his site, I took heed of an advice by Fjordman: that only Jews or half-Jews would be able to criticize Jews objectively. I played their little game and called their attention to Esau’s Tears, an academic work published by Cambridge University and authored by the Jew Albert Lindemann. The book, that I have read, elicited good reviews from Jews and it demonstrates that the Jewish problem is not an Aryan hallucination, as Takuan Seiyo claimed in the comments section of my lighting article.

In 2010 I received no reasonable response from May, Fjordman, Seiyo, Auster and even Conservative Swede about approaching the JP according to their rules (only Jews should criticize Jews, etc). They simply ignored Esau’s Tears!

In conclusion, Jews are never overrepresented in organizations that advocate Aryan preservation. In the specific case of counter-jihad it is full of Jews, half-Jews and self-bamboozled gentiles trying to get you stuck just there. Their memes are Don’t cross the psychological Rubicon! Don’t reach the other side and realize that all’s about racial consciousness!

For instance, in the comments section of “The Jewish Counterjihad” May commented: “It’s the same error (or syndrome) as blaming all Jews for what Jewish lefties do.” But the point is that even if not all Muslims in Europe are jihadists, Muslims in general should be deported from Europe.

Exactly the same can be said about the other Semites living in the West.

For the visitor of this site who has not crossed the psychological Rubicon, or cannot get a copy of Lindemann’s book, I recommend William Pierce’s “Seeing the Forest.”

Categories
Democracy Neanderthalism Philosophy of history Zweites Buch

Zweites Buch, 4

Excerpted from “Elements of Foreign Policy,” Chapter 4 of Hitler’s Second Book. The whole chapter includes these subjects: Must learn from the past—Must forge the instruments for change to a fruitful German foreign policy—Correct ideas valueless unless translated into action—The Pan-German League—Necessity of taking risks—Policies must be carried out with vigor even if total success not guaranteed—Breaking the circle of enemies of Germany.
 
It is often terrible to see how little men want to learn from history, how with such imbecilic indifference they gloss over their experiences, how thoughtlessly they sin without considering that it is precisely through their sins that so and so many Nations and States have perished, indeed vanished from the Earth.

And indeed how little they concern themselves with the fact that even for the short time span for which we possess an insight into history, States and Nations have arisen which were sometimes almost gigantic in size, but which two thousand years later vanished without a trace, that world powers once ruled cultural spheres of which only Sagas give us any information, that giant cities have sunk into ruins, and that their rubble heap has hardly survived to show present-day mankind at least the site on which they were located.

The cares, hardships and sufferings of these millions and millions of individual men, who as a living substance were at one time the bearers and victims of these events, are almost beyond all imagination. Unknown men. Unknown soldiers of history.

And truly, how indifferent is the present. How unfounded its eternal optimism, and how ruinous its wilful ignorance, its incapacity to see, and its unwillingness to learn. And if it depended on the broad masses, the game of the child playing with the fire with which he is unfamiliar would repeat itself uninterruptedly and also to an infinitely greater extent.

Hence it is the task of men who feel themselves called as educators of a Folk to learn on their own from history, and to apply their knowledge in a practical manner now, without regard to the view, understanding, ignorance or even the refusal of the mass.

It is noteworthy that innumerable hygienic measures which perforce redound to the advantage of a Folk, and which individually are uncomfortable, must be formally forced upon the main body of a Folk through the autocratic standing of individual persons, in order however to disappear again when the authority of the personality is extinguished through the mass insanity of democracy.

Categories
Obituaries

Bob Whitaker (1941-2017)

Robert Walker Whitaker, perhaps best known for being the creator of “The Mantra,” a strategy to fight white genocide, died earlier this month.

Categories
Nordicism Racial studies Science

Raciology, 3

At the 19th century’s end, scientific racism conflated Græco-Roman eugenicism with Francis Galton’s concept of voluntary eugenics to produce a form of coercive, anti-immigrant government programs influenced by other socio-political discourses and events. Such institutional racism was effected via craniometric skull and skeleton studies; thus skulls and skeletons of black people and other colored volk were displayed between apes and white men. In 1906, Ota Benga, a Pygmy, was displayed as the “Missing Link”, in the Bronx Zoo, New York City, alongside apes and animals.

The most influential theorists included the anthropologist Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1854-1936) who proposed “anthropo-sociology”; and Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803), who applied “race” to nationalist theory, thereby developing the first conception of ethnic nationalism.

The Dutch scholar Pieter Camper (1722-89), an early craniometric theoretician, used “craniometry”—interior skull-volume measurement—to scientifically justify racial differences. In 1770, he conceived of the facial angle to measure intelligence among species of men. The facial angle was formed by drawing two lines: a horizontal line from nostril to ear; and a vertical line from the upper-jawbone prominence to the forehead prominence.

Camper’s craniometry reported that antique statues (the Græco-Roman ideal) had a 90-degree facial angle, whites an 80-degree angle, blacks a 70-degree angle, and the orangutan a 58-degree facial angle—thus he established a racist biological hierarchy for mankind, per the decadent conception of history. Such scientific racist researches were continued by the naturalist Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) and the anthropologist Paul Broca (1824-80).

In the 19th century, an early American physical anthropologist Samuel George Morton (1799-1851), collected human skulls from worldwide, and attempted a logical classification scheme. Influenced by contemporary racialist theory, Dr Morton said he could judge racial intellectual capacity by measuring the interior cranial capacity, hence a large skull denoted a large brain, thus high intellectual capacity. Conversely, a small skull denoted a small brain, thus low intellectual capacity; superior and inferior established. After inspecting three mummies from ancient Egyptian catacombs, Morton concluded that Caucasians and Negroes were already distinct three thousand years ago.

In Morton’s Crania Americana, based on craniometric data, he reported that the Caucasians had the biggest brains, averaging 87 cubic inches, Native Americans were in the middle with an average of 82 cubic inches and Negroes had the smallest brains with an average of 78 cubic inches.

In The Mismeasure of Man (1981), the historian of science Stephen Jay Gould argued that Samuel Morton had falsified the craniometric data, perhaps inadvertently over-packing some skulls, to so produce results that would legitimize the racist presumptions he was attempting to prove. A subsequent study by the anthropologist John Michael found Morton’s original data to be more accurate than Gould describes, concluding that “contrary to Gould’s interpretation… Morton’s research was conducted with integrity”. Jason Lewis and colleagues reached similar conclusions as Michael in their reanalysis of Morton’s skull collection.

In 1873, Paul Broca, founder of the Anthropological Society of Paris (1859), found the same pattern of measures—that Crania Americana reported—by weighing specimen brains at autopsy. Other historical studies, proposing a black race / white race, intelligence / brain size difference, include those by Bean, Mall, Pearl, and Vint.

One of the first typologies used to classify various human races was invented by Georges Vacher de Lapouge (1854-1936), a theoretician of eugenics, who published in 1899 L’Aryen et son rôle social. In this book, he classified humanity into various, hierarchized races, spanning from the “Aryan white race, dolichocephalic”, to the “brachycephalic”, “mediocre and inert” race, best represented by the Jew.

Vacher de Lapouge’s classification was mirrored in William Z. Ripley in The Races of Europe (1899), a book which had a large influence on American white supremacism. Ripley even made a map of Europe according to the alleged cephalic index of its inhabitants. He was an important influence of the American eugenist Madison Grant.

After the War of the Pacific there was a rise of racial and national superiority ideas among the Chilean ruling class. In his 1918 book physician Nicolás Palacios argued for the existence of Chilean race and its superiority when compared to neighboring peoples. He thought Chileans were a mix of two martial races: the indigenous Mapuches and the Visigoths of Spain, who where ultimately from Götaland in Sweden. Palacios argued on medical grounds against immigration to Chile from southern Europe claiming that mestizos who are of south European stock lack “cerebral control” and are a social burden.

Categories
WDH radio show

WDH Radio Show – Episode 2

National Socialism contra White Nationalism

— Listen to it here! —
 
WDH hosts: Joseph Walsh, Jake F. and yours truly
Special guest: Blake
 

“WN is simply a stepping stone along the way, not a destination.” —Adit

At 34:40 we lost the connection. Sorry about the buzz sound and the conversational gap. We are still trying to learn how to use the software to avoid these problems and hope the audio will improve in the next podcasts.

Anyway, donate button has been relocated to the bottom of this page.