web analytics

Author: C .T.

Categories
Literature Racial right

Sixteen

years later (II)

The norns Urðr, Verðandi and Skuld beneath the world tree Yggdrasil (1882) by Ludwig Burger.

I continue to quote some passages from my binder. Incidentally, when it got wet, not only did the ink from my notes run, but it also bled through to the other side of the pages. Fortunately, it is still legible.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Once on the plane, when I no longer wanted to be in Zapatero’s Spain and was preparing to live in Mexico, on 12 September 2009, still on the ground but after midnight, I began to read the articles printed in my binder of The Occidental Quarterly Online (TOQ Online from now on).

The first one I read on the plane was “The Seven Pillars of White Nationalism” by Yggdrasil (I would later learn that this was John Gardner’s pen name). I was stunned to see that among the readings Yggdrasil recommended was Himmler’s Posen Speech!

Unlike what I had been reading in Larry Auster’s View From the Right, the contributors to TOQ Online weren’t Jews. Since I was just beginning to familiarise myself with white nationalist literature, I would not wake up to the Jewish Question until the following year (February 2010, to be exact). But on the plane, still grounded at the Gran Canaria airport, I had no way to awaken to the JQ, and I wrote in the binder something in Spanish that I am now translating. When I came across Yggdrasil’s recommendation of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, I wrote: “Wow, wow, wow. So these guys are totally paranoid?”

In January 2014, when I reread this article, my old notes and I had already awakened to the JQ, I added a postscript on the same page of the binder: “Look what I thought four years ago… I remember reading this on the plane and feeling that it was an evil trait of the author and of all TOQ in general—just the Pavlovian reaction that everyone who takes a look at my current blog for the first time must feel…”

When I started blogging in 2009, in the first incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour I hadn’t yet awakened to the JQ, so in 2014 I was referring to the second incarnation of my site; the present one is the third incarnation after WordPress cancelled my account. Incidentally, the Spanish word actual (translated as current) is underlined in my binder; above I put it in italics.

In his article Yggdrasil also recommended The Turner Diaries, a novel I was not yet familiar with, and on the second page of the article on recommended readings, I read this sentence by him:

Surprisingly, I was unable to find any coherent and helpful works in English translation from The Third Reich explaining how National Socialism might save us. Most of the major works of that period, including Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Century and Hitler’s Mein Kampf are dreadful tomes, which fail to recognize our basic predicament. The best explanation I can find of National Socialism is Lincoln Rockwell’s White Power.

I have complained a lot about this: there is no good book from the Third Reich that explains National Socialism; at most, there are inspirational booklets and, after 1945, Hitler’s readable after-dinner talks that can be read one a day (as David Irving recommended). But during the Third Reich there could be no frank books because that would have meant revealing the profound anti-Christianity of NS. It would have been political suicide to reveal that esoteric aspect to the masses. So, while I do not blame Hitler or his intellectuals for the absence of such an educational book (as Mein Kampf is a dreadful tome as Yggdrasil rightly says), our anthology The Fair Race could now be considered an introductory book (unlike the 1930s, in the new century the esoteric aspect of NS must become exoteric). Yggdrasil continues:

The prosperity that followed WW II has reduced the inclination of Euros to resist the human equality mania en-mass, resulting instead in localized witch hunts, including war crimes persecutions and hate crimes laws.

That is why what I long for most of all is for fiat currencies to collapse and, subsequently, for energy devolution to eliminate billions of Neanderthals. Only then will the degenerative effects of material comfort evaporate, like morning dew, among the surviving whites. Yggdrasil continues:

And you cannot interrupt the flow of social reinforcement by adopting a low status label—by claiming to be a KKK member, for example—just to gain the attention of the media. Adopting emblems and symbols that the controlled media has invested billions of dollars stigmatizing as low status merely serves to reinforce the belief among the outer party that their displays of the egalitarian delusions confer precisely what they seek—the opinion of their neighbors that they are “good people.” Thus, in order to interrupt the status transmission mechanism, the outer party must value your opinion of them. You must appear to be just like them. That means you must avoid markers of low status.

Sixteen years after I read the article, we see that even that isn’t possible in the darkest hour of the West. I have been watching many videos about Charlie Kirk, who was murdered this month by a homo, and it hurts that someone as good as him—good by normie standards—, so incapable of the slightest hatred, was slandered as a hater not only by the murderer but also by the progressives who applauded the attack. So it’s not enough to appear to be a good guy, as Yggdrasil recommended, to prevent crazy people from calling you a Nazi. I prefer to show my true colours: red, white and black so that at least a few visitors will want to become priests of the sacred words (cf. our featured article).

Yggdrasil’s article was published on 6 September 2009. Unfortunately, TOQ Online no longer exists. That’s why it was worth printing the articles that started my ideological transformation.

Those were different times. Online I never, ever insulted White Nationalism at that time! Incidentally, only one brief comment appeared in the comments section, from Michael O’Meara, who subscribed to white nationalism but not to NS. O’Meara commented: “I feel about the world in a way different from Yggdrasil, but at the same time I think every important idea of my WN comes from what I learned from him.”

Greg Johnson was then editor of TOQ Online, and I was surprised to discover in my binder that the previous article Johnson had published in that webzine was titled “All-Time Leading Hitlers”.

As I said, those were different times…

Categories
Liberalism Racial right

Sixteen

years later (I)

The long task of drying my wet books has given me the opportunity to reread some texts that greatly influenced my thinking. In particular, I want to revisit the writings that introduced me to white nationalism in September 2009. I believe quoting and analysing these texts will help clarify how my views were shaped, especially given that, before encountering white nationalism, I had no exposure to such ideas due to their suppression by the System.

At the time, I was living in Spain. The first author I read who critically spoke about forbidden topics, such as blacks and feminism, was a Jew who had converted to Christianity and was still alive in 2009: Larry Auster. At that time, I knew nothing about the Jewish Question and was fascinated by what Auster wrote on his website View From the Right. I will be quoting from my printouts in the order in which I placed the articles from 2009 in the binder (pic left), whose pages, incidentally, are still damp. Today, I will have to put them back in the sun to continue drying.

So let’s quote some passages from what Auster said at a conference in Baltimore in February 2009 (emphasis mine):

To deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is.

The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society.

The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life.

The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence.

This liberal principle of destruction is utterly simple and radically extreme. Yet very, very few people, even self-described hard-line conservatives, are aware of this principle and the hold it has over our society. Instead of opposing non-discrimination, they oppose multiculturalism and political correctness. But let’s say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end Muslim immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of Muslim immigration. The source of it is our belief that we must not discriminate against other people on the basis of their culture, their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion. This is the idea of the 1965 Immigration Act, which was the idea of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to all of humanity: all discrimination is wrong, period. No one in today’s society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it.

To see how powerful the belief in non-discrimination is, consider this: Prior to World War II, would any Western country have considered admitting significant numbers of Muslim immigrants? Of course not; it would have been out of the question. The West had a concrete identity. It saw itself as white and in large part as Christian, and there was still active in the Western mind the knowledge that Islam was our historic adversary, as it has been for a thousand years, and radically alien. But today, the very notion of stopping Muslim immigration is out of the question, it can’t even be thought.

What would have been inconceivable 70 or 80 years ago is unquestionable today. A society that 70 years ago wouldn’t have dreamed of admitting large numbers of Muslims, today doesn’t dream of reducing, let alone stopping, the immigration of Muslims. Even the most impassioned anti-Islamic Cassandras never question—indeed they never even mention—the immigration of Muslims, or say it should be reduced or stopped.

You don’t need to know any more than what I’ve just said. The rule of non-discrimination, in all its destructive potentialities, is shown in this amazing fact, that the writers and activists who constantly cry that Islam as a mortal danger to our society will not say that we ought to stop or even reduce Muslim immigration. Such is the liberal belief which says that the most morally wrong thing is for people to have a critical view of a foreign group, to want to exclude that group or keep it out.

The dilemma suggests the solution. What is now unthinkable, must become thinkable; what is now unsayable, must become sayable; and ultimately it must replace non-discrimination as the ruling belief in society. I know that this sounds crazy, utterly impossible. But fifty or a hundred years ago it would have seemed crazy, utterly impossible, that today’s liberalism with its suicidal ideology would have replaced the traditional attitudes that were then prevalent. If society could change that radically in one direction, toward suicidal liberalism, it can change back again. It’s not impossible.

In the same way, modern liberalism says that it is evil to believe that some people are more unlike us than others, because that would also be a violation of the liberal principle that all people are equally like us. The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature.

This is the ubiquitous yet unacknowledged horror of modern liberalism, that it takes the ordinary, differentiated nature of the world, which all human beings have always recognized, and makes it impossible for people to discuss it, because under liberalism anyone who notes these distinctions and says that they matter has done an evil thing and must be banished from society, or at least be barred from a mainstream career.

This liberalism is the most radical and destructive ideology that has ever been, and yet it is not questioned. Communism and big government liberalism were challenged and fought in the past. But the ideology of non-discrimination, which came about after World War II, has never been resisted—it has never even been identified, even though it is everywhere. What is needed, if the West is to survive, is a pro-Western civilization movement that criticizes, resists, and reverses this totalistic liberal belief system that controls our world.

There are several observations I can make now, reflecting on these texts after sixteen years. With greater maturity, I can identify key ideas that I missed at the time, which are central to my current understanding.

Auster observes that liberalism, which poses a threat to the West’s ethnic survival, emerged after World War II. However, he avoids the argument that England’s war declaration on Hitler was wrong (future quotes from the binder don’t come from ethnic Jews like Auster).

Another thing that comes to mind is that, behind Auster’s principle of non-discrimination, we encounter what I quoted the day before yesterday. I am referring to Robert Barnes: “Slavery abolition was on the clock the moment the American Revolution went forward. Because once you say, ‘All men are created equal’, sooner or later all men have to be treated equal”.

Bingo! Those who heard Barnes’ audiovisual words that I linked to in that post will have heard that the principle of non-discrimination is due to Christian ethics, secularised by the Founding Fathers (or as we should call them, the Founding Cucks). In Barnes’ words, “What they [the Founding Fathers] meant by a Christian nation was the ideal that we are all equal, and that we get that equality from [the Judeo-Christian] God, that gave us all souls. That was a revolutionary break”. Indeed, and as Tom Holland wrote in Dominion, “[Benjamin] Franklin, like the revolution for which he was such an effective spokesman, illustrated a truth pregnant with implications for the future: that the surest way to promote Christian teachings as universal was to portray them as deriving from anything other than Christianity” (emphasis added).

Naturally, Auster, the Jew who converted to Christianity, didn’t go so far as to blame his adopted religion as the ultimate cause of the principle of non-discrimination that currently surrounds us like water surrounds a fish.

Categories
Racial studies

What

was the colour of Hitler’s hair?

by Heinrich

I’m in full agreement with Mauricio. Even if the Führer were a black-haired “Mediterranean” I would still venerate him as the Greatest Man. His courage, gravitas, persistence, eloquence, wisdom, nobility and kindness were exemplary of a specimen of the highest calibre, and once you get to grips with racial psychology you realize that all those virtuous traits could only materialize in a man of pure Nordic blood.

Every time when someone implied that there is a self-contradiction in Hitler being a Nordicist with brunet hair I always responded that hair colour is just one of many racial characteristics of an individual, so he would still be mainly Nordic even if he had dark hair, and that this would only show that you can support the cause of perfection selflessly despite yourself not being as perfect.

As most people I too found that his personality and Weltanschauung are far more important than his physical features, but after accidentally finding out the truth I cannot sit anymore and watch baseless lies being spread about him often driven by malicious mockery.

So let’s look at the actual evidence.

Black-white photos aren’t of any use in determining the colour of his hair, because everything except for the fairest hair appears dark on them. But in determining forms and shapes they are helpful, and they tell us something really important.

If we look closely we can observe he used some kind of hair-dressing product to shape his hairstyle. You cannot see the look he had naturally. These products were at the time oil based with wax, and were known to darken blond hair with several shades.

When reading Hans F. K. Gunther’s Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes I was pleased to see that he makes very similar observations when discussing Nordic hair, namely that 1) Any other shade of blond that isn’t the lightest will appear dark on the photos of that time, and 2) Oily or wet blond hair will appear dark.

This also explains why we don’t have many more testimonials describing him as blond: it didn’t appear as striking due to the side effects of the hair-dressing product. The only person we know of describing him as blond is Lothrop Stoddard, a eugenicist who probably had been used to paying special attention to details and precision:

There are certain details of Hitler’s appearance which one cannot surmise from photographs. His complexion is medium, with blond-brown hair of neutral shade which shows no signs of grey.

Another piece of real, and undisputable evidence is a painting by Heinrich Knirr who is the only artist ever to paint Hitler from life. He also painted photocopies of course, but one painting we know with 100 per cent accuracy not being a photocopy and made in excellent light conditions is Der Führer (1937). He painted two examples of this. One was brought to London by J. von Ribbentrop and is now at the British imperial war museum. It shows him with light to medium blond hair, with the hair dressing product on!

The other version of the painting was exhibited at the Grosse Deutsche Kunstausstellung that year, and had been kept in Germany, so it ended up destroyed in the war and there is only later colourizations of it circulating on the internet:

There is no trace [!] of the other version that had been displayed at the 1937 great German art exhibition. It was presumably wrecked by bombs, looted or destroyed by victorious allied troops. —The Art Newspaper

The version kept in Germany had been black-and-white photographed before it got destroyed and there is a colourized version circulating of it on the internet, his hair being colourized brown of course. I have seen it being often used as a counterargument so many times. So it is very important to emphasize: it’s a colourized version of a black-and-white photo. This version of the portrait was never even captured in colour, so it cannot be used as evidence for his actual colouring.

Somebody also showed me a few strands of hair from his hairbrush, sold at an auction. Curiously, the hairs were also blond. We should in general be cautious with items from auctions, but because they corroborate the other two pieces of evidence we have, I think it’s highly probable that they are real. And if we also consider that his actual hair colour is always overlooked by literally all historians, I highly doubt forgers would know about him actually being blond and use blond hair strands in a world where everyone “knows” he had dark hair. If we look really closely these hair strands also look like they have some residual hair-dressing product left on them at certain parts, where they appear thicker, which is consistent with his daily habits.
 

What about colour photographs?

Colour photography back then was still in an early stage of development which makes it an unreliable tool for determining colour.

Blond hair consists of mainly yellow with some red/orange undertones. In the context of photography, Yellow light = Red light + Green light. We can see the problems Agfacolor had with its sensitivity to green and red light. But now that we understand what’s missing from the old Agfacolor photos, it is not difficult to imagine how they would look if captured with a modern camera.

Hammering this supposed self-contradiction in Hitler’s worldview was started as early as the Second World War (see, e.g., Soviet propaganda poster below). Most historians who are of course by default anti-Nazi either don’t care or actively participate in keeping alive these lies. None ever dare even mention the evidence that contradicts the mainstream convictions which are built on zero evidence. So it is our job to show the real evidence.

Propaganda poster ridiculing Hitler for his alleged dark hair being in contradiction with the Aryan ideal.

However we’re not trying to argue that he did all of what he did out of selfishness or self-worship, or that his Nordicism was only motivated by his own self-image. We are only striving for historical accuracy as we regularly do so regarding important historical figures. Like the Heroes of Homer, Alexander or the Roman patricians, there is no reason to soften this case when the Führer is more significant than all of the aforementioned combined.

Everyone ought to know the truth because the lies have been repeated many times. Adolf Hitler deserves not only to be remembered, but to be remembered accurately, without falsification.

Categories
Egalitarianism

Founders

What white nationalists of the patriotard variety will never accept is that their nation was born with the wrong ideals: the ultimate aetiology of Aryan decline, which I have been calling neochristianity. (The JQ has been merely an opportunistic infection arising from the primary infection: the Christian ethics shared by the deist founders of the US.) Let us listen to what Robert Barnes has to say, interviewed by Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris:

Slavery abolition was on the clock the moment the American Revolution went forward. Because once you say, “All men are created equal”, sooner or later all men have to be… treated equal.

The last question for Barnes is especially noteworthy (click here).

Categories
Liberalism

Stage

by Gaedhal

My good friend Alex [Linder], who has since gone to be with the ground, said that we should attack and mock—with our words—conservatives, because we are in direct competition with them, and not with Liberals, and Communists.

There are a lot of voices out there, like this nutcase, who wish to drag us back to a previous stage of the Christian Revolution. Fascism is different to Naziism. Fascism is a Christian phenomenon, whereas Nazism is esoterically antichristian. I was reading Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin, and it is clear from this dialogue that Hitler was antichristian, although he pretended otherwise. In Bolshevismus by Dietrick Eckhart, Hitler calls Christianity “the first communist cell”.

This form of Fascism—specifically, Christian authoritarianism as practiced by Salazar, Franco, Mussolini, and Dollfuss—is inherently Christian. Communism and Liberalism, so far from being anti-christian is simply what happens when Christianity, naturally, atheises. The Christian god, let us remember, does not exist, and so Christianity, if left to itself, will eventually atheize. Thus Revilo P. Oliver spoke of “The Marxian Reformation”.

Liberalism was dreamt up by the Christian theologian, John Locke.

Spinoza, who dreamt up the “dialectical” metaphysic of Communism was good friends with Quakers, who themselves were a more extreme sect of Communist Anabaptists like John Bunyan and Thomas Muentzer.

Thus, what our wingnut, Alex Hexagon, describes as political systems of decay: Communism, Liberalism and Christian Authoritarianism, are merely evolved states of Christianity.

Hexagon equates Liberalism with The Cult of Ugliness. Christianity was the original cult of ugliness. They whitewashed the frescoes, threw sculptures into the see, defaced sculptures with crosses, destroyed beautiful architecture such as the Serapeum. Christians did in the first centuries of the Common Era exactly what “Liberals” do today: and a hatred of good architecture is shared between yesterday’s Christians and today’s liberals.

Isaiah assures us that the central character in the Christian mythos, Jesus Christ, has no beauty in him. Early Christianity was a literal cult of ugliness.

The answer to a revolution is not to overthrow it with an earlier stage of that revolution, but to overthrow the revolution, completely, ad radicem, at root.

Christianity, as Revilo P. Oliver points out, was a mob revolution against Aristocratic Epicureanism. If you want to overthrow the revolution, then return to Epicureanism, i.e. the observance of causal reality. In Epicureanism, there most certainly is a difference between Jew and Gentile, between male and female. In Aristocratic Epicureanism, the first are always first and the last are always last. In Aristocratic Epicureanism, the Xenos is not someone to be welcomed, but an enemy invader to be countered. Aristocratic Epicureanism is basically an opposite ethic to that of the sermon on the mount. If you want Europe to return to its former greatness, then re-embrace what Revilo P. Oliver calls the true white western philosophy: Aristocratic Epicureanism.

There are plenty of hucksters out there selling Christianity as a cure-all for all that ails us, whereas, in my estimation, it is the thing that slowly poisoned us to begin with. A philosophy totally at odds with reality: the last shall be first, will eventually doom our civilization.

Starting with the Reformation, Europeans began to take the ethic of the New Testament seriously. Illiterate peasants, prior to the Reformation, probably had no idea what the Sermon on the Mount even was, and, therefore, opperated according to the previous pagan-ethic. The Roman Catholic Church, certainly, did not want to follow the suicidal ethic of the New Testament. However, as Nietzsche points out: when Luther “restored the gospel”, the poisonous suicidal ethic of the New Testament was let loose upon Europe unto its own destruction. The Roman Catholic Church would itself embrace this suicidal ethic at Vatican 2.

Categories
Conservatism Solitude

Erika’s speech

During the tribute to Charlie Kirk in Arizona, the widow Erika Kirk forgave the murderer because, she said, that’s what Christ did hanging on the cross. It was truly amazing to see and hear the number of references to Jesus and Christianity during today’s tribute from the panelists!

Donald Trump also spoke. If we remember his “no follow-through” record (for example, he never built the Wall across the Rio Grande), I wonder if he’s really going to destroy Antifa as he threatened this week.

To inaugurate Dachau II and truly annihilate the enemy, Americans would have to repudiate the New Testament, including que above gospel quote, and become Nazis. Alas, as Jack Frost said ten years ago in the comments section of The Occidental Observer:

Although it might be possible to develop a racist interpretation of Christianity (e.g., what the Nazis tried), I’ve never seen a convincing theological justification of it. The fact that all major churches and 99%+ of all who today call themselves Christians reject racism ought to tell you something… You probably want to hang on to most of Christianity as it has been “traditionally” practiced in relatively modern times, while discarding only the anti-racism. Everyone who ever tried that has failed, but I guess you don’t see that as a problem.

Then again, the cognitive dissonance issue is nearly as problematic. In order to accept being called a racist or a Nazi with equanimity, normal American whites would have to reconcile that with their country’s history of being violently opposed to racism of any kind, from the Civil War forward. They would have to admit to themselves and to others that all of that blood shed in trying to stamp out racism had been shed in vain, and in fact, worse than in vain, in an evil cause. They would have to admit that their ancestors were evil, and that they themselves had also been evil before they saw the light and became racists.

The likelihood of even white nationalists making this change on a massive scale within their ranks is zero. These neo-normies, like the thousands of normies who attended Charlie’s memorial, still obey New Testament morality. That is to say, they are obedient to the ethical mandates of the Jews who wrote the gospel, not to the mandates of the Aryan who wrote Mein Kampf.

Does it become clear once again what it means to be a man against his time fighting with the men of their time? If much of my library was soaked in the downpour that flooded the room where the boxes of my books were, it was only because a man against his time never receives the juicy donations that Erika and the Christian organisation his late husband left behind have been receiving.

Hearken white men!

The Aryan Race needs a religion of war, not a religion of peace!

The Aryan Race needs a religion of hate, not a religion of love!

The Aryan Race needs a religion of boldness, not a religion of meekness!

The Aryan Race needs a religion of anger, not a religion of sorrow!

The Aryan Race needs a religion of severity, not a religion of mercy!

The Aryan Race needs a religion of revenge, not a religion of forgiveness!

Umwertuung aller Werte!

Categories
Racial right

Men

of their time

I continue to dry the books of my library; some are still wet while others are just damp…

A good way to explain Savitri Devi’s concept of “men of their time” vis-à-vis a “man against his time” is to listen to the latest Counter-Currents podcast on the consequences of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

A man against his time is a potential revolutionary who is just waiting for conditions to arise (e.g., collapse of the dollar and energy devolution to peak) to act in the real world. In contrast, men of their time go no further than supporting the recent decisions by Donald Trump and his vicepresident to designate Antifa as terrorists.

One of the podcast panellists even identified himself as a Christian. After an hour of the podcast, a listener asked how to crush the left. Compare Greg’s answer which, as I said, doesn’t go beyond the ideological horizon provided by Trump, with my admiration for the Dachau Concentration Camp, which I so admire that I visited this year.

As my mother tongue is not English, I didn’t understand what one of the panellists said about The Turner Diaries at approximately 1:19, but I think it was a negative comment. Greg Johnson then talked about corporations. Compare this with what a National Socialist would say about these organisations: this type of capitalism must be destroyed (see for example Brendan Simms’ book on Hitler).

At 1:40, one of the panellists refused to use slurs about the nigger who stabbed the Ukrainian girl on the underground. Once again, compare that Christian/neochristian stance with the infinite hatred felt by the priest of the sacred words: a man against his time.

Categories
Racial right

De facto

conservatives

As I said in my previous post, I will be busy for a long time trying to salvage what remains of my library. But I can afford to make a brief comment.

Four of the most popular websites on the American racial right have been mentioning the recent murder of Charlie Kirk: one of the most prominent conservative activists in the United States and a trusted ally of President Donald Trump, who has little to do with us. But when it was recently revealed that Alex Linder, who was one of us, had died of cancer, all these major sites remained silent: zero obituaries.

The reason is not difficult to understand.

The vast majority of white nationalists are not National Socialists but de facto conservatives. And conservatives don’t like exterminationist voices like Linder’s that also harshly criticise Christianity (since it is the Christian ethics that atheists have adapted that have prevented us from behaving, shall we say, like Cro-Magnons).

It is essential to understand this when trying to investigate why white nationalism has never emerged from the ignored fringes of society: they cling to the old paradigm. And just as society in general ignores the intellectual work of the racial right, racialists themselves ignore the more radical racist voices, while honouring the memory of conservatives like Kirk.

Categories
Autobiography Literature

Bibliophile

Hatnote of September 14:

These days (weeks?) I’ll be drying the dozens of soaked books, page by page, with paper towels. I won’t have time to post many entries. My library takes priority because it allows me to write.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Der Bücherwurm is an oil-on-canvas painting by the German painter and poet Carl Spitzweg.

This is an update to my article from earlier this month, “Books”.

Today, I took a taxi to retrieve my flood-damaged books, which were packed in five boxes.

As I said nine days ago, what is really valuable about these books are my countless footnotes. Since I am debating with the authors, they are like intellectual diaries. That is why I plan, to the extent of my modest means (I have already purchased special brushes to remove the mould, a fan, and a heavy-duty dryer), to rescue what I can from the wet books.

It will be an arduous task that will take weeks… This afternoon, for example, I can’t do anything because the sky is already cloudy, and it was rainy. Tomorrow I will start: in this season it very rarely rains in the mornings and the sun is healthy.

It pains me that I won’t be able to recover the glossy paper books, usually the ones with illustrations, because the pages have stuck together; and the home remedies on YouTube no longer work because my books were wet for several weeks (the guy who keeps them at home is a bit deranged and didn’t warn me when a downpour flooded the room with my boxes). I spoke to an institution that is capable of separating those stuck pages, but the cost of that process, with special liquids and chemicals, is so prohibitive that only a multimillionaire could afford it.

The rest is salvageable, but the water managed to erase many of my notes.

Something that alarms me about the new generations of noble Aryans who are conscious of their race is that they do not seem to value books, but rather focus on purely physical activities. Given that the darkest hour of the West is due to the Jewish infection—I am referring to Christianity—which was transmitted by the written word, to defeat that idea requires another written idea (see what Messala said to Sextus). As the Spanish saying goes, Para que la cuña apriete tiene que ser del mismo palo (For the wedge to tighten it has to be of the same suit), i.e., if you want to defeat the Jew and his ideas, you better become a scholar, a bookworm.

On the one hand, I understand these very young Aryans, because most respected human knowledge has nothing to do with 14/88, as LK rightly observed on this site today about people like Stephen Hawking. But keeping the books I have been accumulating for decades is vital because the notes are testimony to a spiritual odyssey. And if I ever have an heir living in my town to whom I can pass on the mantle, he would keep those old books for their biographical value (just as, say, those who preserve the work of William Pierce keep his personal library).

Although I am not a fan of Carl Sagan, I would like to end this post with this clip from Cosmos: A Personal Voyage.

Categories
Miscellany

Notice

To facilitate navigation on this site, the titles of the most recent articles, the most recent comments, archives of old posts, categories & tags can now be seen at the bottom of this page.