web analytics
Categories
Civilisation (TV series) Kenneth Clark Who We Are (book)

Just imagine WWA on TV…

As we have seen so many times since May 2019, the story we tell ourselves, that we have been telling ourselves, is the perfect x-ray that portrays the soul of Western man.

If the story we tell ourselves invites us to believe in the Aryan man, the culture of whites will reflect that axiom through its collective unconscious. Think of how Greco-Roman art—architecture, sculpture and Homer—reflected the physical beauty of the Aryan. But if the story we tell ourselves reflects another people (there are no Aryan heroes in the New Testament), it eventually becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy that hands over the culture to the Semites.

When Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation was released in England, the producers and Clark himself were surprised that it immediately became a TV hit in the UK. Even three cardinals wrote letters to Clark, as in his series he portrays the Church as the rock on which today’s West was founded.

I’ve been thinking about what I said recently about the penultimate episode of Clark’s Civilisation, ‘The Fallacies of Hope’, where one can guess how an underlying Christian faith begins to transmute into the liberalism that led Europe into the French Revolution, and eventually into the havoc wreaked by the Russian Revolution and, still later, the 1968 student riots in Paris.

But that’s the story we’ve been telling ourselves, and Clark exemplifies it beautifully. Ten years ago I quoted some passages from Clark’s autobiography that are worth quoting again:

When the [Civilisation] series was shown in the U.S.A. things got out of hand. The number of letters quadrupled…

The series was shown several times in the National Gallery at Washington (a special copy was bought by the Senate and shown in the Capitol). When I arrived in Georgetown to stay with my old friends David and Margie Finley, Carter Brown, the Director of the Gallery, rang me to say ‘For God’s sake don’t go in through the front door. You’ll be mobbed’. I went in by the back door and down a long underground corridor to a press conference. After it was over I was led back along the same corridor so that I might walk the whole length of the Gallery upstairs. It was the most terrible experience in my life. All the galleries were crammed full of people who stood up and roared at me, waving their hands and stretching them out towards me…

I then went downstairs and retired to the ‘gents’, where I burst into tears. I sobbed and howled for a quarter of an hour. I suppose politicians quite enjoy this kind of experience, and don’t get it often enough. The Saints certainly enjoyed it, but saints are very tough eggs. To me it was utterly humiliating. It simply made me feel a hoax. I came up to lunch with red eyes, and tried to put the experience out of my mind. But, as the reader will have realised, it would not let go, and has not gone. And I record it because I must be one of the few ordinary, normal men on whom this kind of experience has been inflicted. The Finleys drove me home in silence. They felt as embarrassed as I did.

(One of the BBC’s top producers of Civilisation comments on the same anecdote in a video.) In the same chapter Clark tells how when he went to a pharmacy in Boston a woman asked the chemist: “‘Do you realise you have the greatest man in the world in your shop?” The chemist answered impassively “Sure I do”.’

Remembering those autobiographical passages from Clark’s book, I found it hard not to compare it to the discussion thread on the Christian site Occidental Dissent, mentioned in my previous post. And since I mentioned Pierce’s Who We Are (WWA) these days, I couldn’t avoid a eureka moment.

We can already imagine those tens of thousands of Clark fans who turned up at the National Gallery in Washington wanting to shake… William Pierce’s hand if the story told in WWA had been aired in thirteen television episodes!

That didn’t happen.

What was being produced in 1969 on Western television had to reflect the Christian and / or liberal zeitgeist. Only if Hitler had won the war would Pierce have had any chance of getting his story of civilisation onto millions of television sets.

The issue cannot be clearer. The story that whites are telling themselves, and have been telling themselves for centuries, is not the story they should be telling themselves. And racialist Christians who don’t want to see the obvious are traitors to their race.

If the Aryan is to be saved, the first thing he has to do is to get his story right. And the fact that even to this day the non-Christian National Alliance hasn’t published WWA only proves that the old story, the Judeo-Christian-liberal story that’s killing us, is the one that still reigns in the West (and the projection of the West that is Latin America). There is no Woke monster in countries that have never been Christian because ethno-suicidal liberalism was spawned from this toxic story.

Update of 12:39 pm: Compare this—:

—with these paragraphs of WWA in the chapter devoted to the fall of the Roman Empire:

It had begun as an offshoot of Judaism, had established itself in Jerusalem and a few other spots in the eastern Mediterranean area, and had traveled to Rome with Jewish merchants and speculators, who had long found that city an attractive center of operations. It eventually became known to the world as Christianity, but for more than two centuries it festered in the sewers and catacombs of Rome…

The “White guilt” syndrome exploited so assiduously by America’s non-White minorities is a product of Christian teachings, as is the perverse reverence for “God’s chosen people” which has paralyzed so many Christians’ wills to resist Jewish depredations.

Categories
Art Civilisation (TV series) French Revolution Kenneth Clark Liberalism Napoleon

The fallacies of hope

The best way to realise that it is we rather than the Jews who are responsible for white decline is simply to listen, very carefully, to the great communicators of Western culture.

In my post on Tuesday, in which I reproduced an angel painted by da Vinci, I alluded to Kenneth Clark: who from the time we had a black-and-white television captivated us with his Civilisation series. These days I re-watched ‘The Fallacies of Hope’ while reading the corresponding chapter in the text version of Civilisation. In the TV version, we heard that Clark chose a few bars of the Funeral March from Beethoven’s Eroica to illustrate his disenchantment with Napoleon.

It’s a pity that what Clark told us in the TV version about Napoleon’s secret police doesn’t appear in the book. Why did he leave it out? The audio-visual version is supposed to condense what is written, not vice versa; and the dungeons of Napoleon, who crowned the French Revolution, are not even pictured in the text.

‘The Fallacies of Hope’ is a phrase from the painter Turner, and in the episode referred to we see allusions to various years: France 1830, Spain 1848, Germany 1848, France 1848, Hungary 1848, Italy 1861, France 1871—all these were the naive daughters of the monster that came later—Russia 1917, Spain 1936 (remember what I recently said about Franco), Hungary 1956, France 1968 and Czechoslovakia 1968.

Clark then complains about prisons for political prisoners in Nazi Germany, Franco’s Spain (who was a dictator when the BBC filmed Civilisation) and Hungary, but says not a word about the millions of Russians imprisoned by Lenin and Stalin. Why did Clark omit the most conspicuous?

Civilisation, about which in 2012 I had written several reviews on this site, can serve wonderfully to show how the distorted view of today’s West was generated: liberalism as a product of Christianity (Clark considered the Church of England too secular for his taste). A close reading of Civilisation, as well as careful viewing of the television version, is an excellent passport to penetrate the Christian-liberal zeitgeist.

Here is what Clark, who had a very deep insight into Western art, didn’t know. Since he speaks of the Church as the cornerstone of our civilisation (his series begins with Greek art and continues through the Middle Ages), it is clear that he knew nothing of what we have been translating from Karlheinz Deschner’s book (Clark died three years before the first volume, in German, of Deschner’s history of Christianity came out). Also, in 1969 Civilisation was released in the UK and the US, a few years before The Gulag Archipelago was published. As we have been saying on this site, to be ignorant of the history of Christianity, or communism, is tantamount to being a historical fool. Since I was brought up as a child in the arts that Clark mastered so well, it is easy for me to understand him. But art alone is insufficient to understand what happened: we need to know the dissenting voices.

Still, as I said, Civilisation, in its two versions, is a magnificent gateway to understanding how liberalism is shaped by a Christian scholar. Despite the title of the penultimate episode of Civilisation, ‘The Fallacies of Hope’, Lord Clark never lost hope in the liberal point of view. That same episode, in its television version, shows us images of liberated students in post-’68 Paris, and Clark puts his faith in their struggles never suspecting that, once grown up, those same Sorbonne students would open the gates to mass migration.

But what Clark got absolutely right is that, to understand a culture, you have to understand its art. More recently Tom Sunic has said things in line with this premise, and I have refracted it here by mentioning the novelistic art of some nineteenth-century white authors, such as the European author of Ivanhoe (a pro-Jewish novel), the female author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin (a pro-black, anti-racist novel) and Ben-Hur (authored by a pro-Jewish American colonel): great bestsellers of their time.

Rather than the misguided approach of so-called social sciences, to penetrate the deep secrets of art is to understand our soul.

Categories
Aryan beauty Civilisation (TV series) Kenneth Clark Racial right Who We Are (book)

Hitler verbatim

Yesterday I was struck by the wise words that, in his table talk of July 21, 1941, Hitler pronounced:

Und dann unsere eigene Geschichte auf italischem Boden: Wer kein Organ für Geschichte hat, ist wie ein Mensch, der kein Gehör oder kein Gesicht hat: Leben kann er auch so, aber was ist das?! (There’s also our own past on Italian soil. A man who is indifferent to History is a man without hearing, without sight. Such a man can live, of course—but what a life?)

In the West, the religion of our day seems to be to exterminate the white race through historical slander and lies. That is why the most important subject of all we can imagine is what Hitler says: the history of the white race, the reading of which sets the record straight.

Lately there have been some videos that have become fashionable on YouTube about reconstructions, with computer special effects, of ancient Greece and Rome and how they would look with their citizens. I was shocked to discover that, along with the beauty of classical architecture, the scoundrels who make these videos have been putting the inhabitants of Greek and Roman cities as dark-skinned! They were actually very white, and Hitler implied that when he said ‘There’s also our own past on Italian soil’, referring to the migrations of Nordids (such as the Dorians or the original Latins) when they conquered the southern mudbloods.

The great failure of white nationalism is not starting with the Classical World as understood by the Greeks and Romans: a culture based not only on architecture but on sculpture that showed the beauty of the Aryan body and face uncontaminated by mud blood. (American white nationalists do not begin their narrative with the pre-Christian art because, as Sebas Ronin said, most of them are patriotards.)

In his TV series Civilisation Kenneth Clark says that in the transition from the Ancient World to Christendom the human figure disappears, although Clark failed to add that it was the figure of the pure Aryan that disappeared (pre-Renaissance Christs represent the Semitic man, not the Aryan). Lord Clark was a Christian. Yes, he had an immense sensitivity towards art, but he was a Yahweh worshiper after all. Clark’s widow said that her husband always had a profound Christian sensitivity, and that whenever he went into a church in search of works of art he would first kneel and pray.

Like Lord Clark, the history books read by whites who are under the illusion they are racially conscious were written by Christians, Jews, and neochristians. The latter are the secular whites who never abandoned the Semitic ethics that the New Testament bequeathed to us.

Only William Pierce wrote a story of the white race from the point of view that we could call the POV of the priest of the fourteen words. But Pierce’s story is not read in the circles of white nationalism because even anti-Semites continue to allow themselves to be sodomized by Yahweh. They reason in this way: ‘Indeed, the Old Testament orders the Hebrews to exterminate the non-Hebrew peoples that they are conquering. But we are good. How do we know that we are the good guys? Because unlike the Old Testament written for them, in the New Testament Yahweh commands us to love all our neighbours and we obey Him. Thus, we abhor the exterminationist fantasies of our enemies’.

It goes without saying that the only way to prevent Yahweh from continuing to sodomize us is to stop subscribing to the moral code imposed on us by his gospel. And that means even going beyond Arthur Kemp, the other historian who wrote a story of the white race from the POV of the 14 words. Unlike Pierce, Kemp is not an exterminationist. Some could even say that he is a secular neochristian. Many years ago a commenter said in this forum that Kemp had come to write about the rights of a group of blacks in an African country. I didn’t visit the Kemp article that this commenter linked to, so I can’t substantiate his claim. But we can say that the so-called human rights that became fashionable after the French Revolution are a by-product of Yahweh’s command to love one’s neighbour.

Here we see my hand holding a hard-cover copy of Uncle Adolf’s after-dinner talks in the original language. A priest of the 14 words takes Uncle Adolf’s talks as his Aryan gospel. This cannot be more contrasting with the Semitic gospel of the ‘anti-Semites’ of American white nationalism.

Categories
Ancient Greece Aristotle Aryan beauty Christian art Civilisation (TV series) Kenneth Clark Nordicism Plato Racial right

Veritas odium parit, 2

In the royal chapel of the cathedral of Granada this painting representing the Mass of St. Gregorio is preserved. Jesus shows the wound on his side and the attributes of his passion appear around him. It is a work of a 15th-century painter known as ‘Master of the Legend of St. Lucía’.

Apparently, the images of Christian art that I have been choosing as introductions to different posts have nothing to do with the content of the articles. For example, apparently this painting, in which the most famous Jew in history shows the wound on his side, inflicted by evil Romans, has nothing to do with the phobia that many white nationalists feel toward Nordicism (a Nordicism that, in times of the golden age of the American eugenicists and the Third Reich, was taken for granted).

But art is the Royal Road to understand the Zeitgeist of a stage of Western culture. In his 1969 series, Civilisation, Kenneth Clark showed the Greek head of Apollo as an example of the highest white culture. He then said that, with the arrival of Christianity, the human body virtually disappeared and the only thing that remained were degenerate homunculi in Irish pictorial art, especially as illustrated books.

A lot of white nationalists are still Christians who don’t want to hurt the feelings of the homunculi. If the beauty of the ancient Aryan man had not been demonised throughout Christendom, there would be no anti-Nordicists in the alt-right today. In other words, anti-Nordicism is the tail of the Era in which the Semite convinced the Aryan that His beauty was sinful. This is the last part of the tail of ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond or free, male or female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus’.

The superiority of National Socialism over the American movement today consists in that, like the Renaissance Italians, the Germans transvalued the Christian disvalue of a wounded Jew to the ancient value of Aryan beauty. That was very remarkable in the art, pamphlets and outdoor sports of the Third Reich. Replacing the Jew that shows us his wounds to make us feel guilty (the ancient version of the Holocaust), with the sculpture of a perfect Aryan, is part of the healing process to save the fair race.

The author of Counter-Currents insulted by anti-Nordicists (surely muds with an inferiority complex) wrote:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Northern Europe vs. the Mediterranean

The oft-quoted statement of Aristotle, “Man is a political animal,” is actually a mistranslation. A truer rendering of his words would be, “Man is the kind of animal who lives in a polis.” That Greek word encompasses more than “city-state,” its usual translation. First of all, the English term “city-state” makes the city the dominant element and the surrounding countryside an afterthought, whereas in ancient Greece, most people lived in villages and farming communities. Even in the polis of Attica, which had the bustling city of Athens, the citizens it sent to fight at the Battle of Marathon were mostly farmers.

Such a community, moreover, must be relatively small. Athens was the exception: most Greek poleis had a total population of fewer than 50,000, with perhaps 5-10,000 citizens. In the Laws, Plato sets the ideal, with characteristic precision, at 5,040 citizens. Aristotle did not have Plato’s affinity for applying mathematical exactness to human affairs, but he did believe that a man should know his fellow citizens, if not personally then at least by reputation – else how could he properly judge if a man is fit to govern? He also thought it important that the citizens should be able to assemble in one place. Still, the polis must not be so small that it cannot meet its economic needs and defend itself properly.

Most important of all, by polis Greeks understood a whole nexus of ideas centered around a self-governing community that is bound not just by laws but by traditions and a common religion, language, and history. Absent these elements, the polis ceases to be. If the community is ruled not by itself but from a distant capital, or if it is a vast metropolis comprising a kaleidoscopic range of ethnicities, it is no longer a community in the true sense. What is more, its inhabitants cannot reach their moral, spiritual, or intellectual potential, because their nature has been cramped. Thus, life in the kind of community Aristotle describes is intimately bound up with Western man’s nature; without it, he becomes less human.

Using Aristotle’s criteria, we can see that medieval Iceland, for example, meets the definition of a polis. Overwhelmingly rural, it possessed no metropolis drawing off all financial and intellectual capital from the countryside. While spread over a large territory, the citizens of the Icelandic polis managed to assemble once a year at the Althing. That they knew of each other by reputation, or through a sort of medieval Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, is evident from the impressive corpus of their sagas. In these, newcomers in the narrative always identify their kinship and lineage to an impressive degree, often crossing over between sagas, giving others the proper context in which to place them. The Icelanders governed themselves and were as fiercely independent as the Greeks who faced the Persian invasion. Above all, they were bound by a common history, language, and religion—this latter unity being such an important point that the official conversion to Christianity was decided at the Althing.

It does not take much imagination to see that the polis can also be a tribe: that is, kinship proves more important than geographic location. Aristotle was adamant, in fact, that whatever we call a collection of people who happen to live in the same place and interact merely for the purpose of making money off each other, we cannot call it a polis. Upon closer inspection, then, any of the Germanic tribes described by Tacitus meet Aristotle’s definition of a polis, and this would apply even later, during the period of the great Völkerwanderung that hastened Rome’s demise. But the polis had long since died out in Aristotle’s homeland, which had much to do with his most famous pupil.

Categories
Civilisation (TV series) Kenneth Clark

Kenneth Clark and Notre Dame

Start watching from: this minute.

Notre Dame is a sad icon of the fallen West. Fortunately, I visited it many years ago, before its destruction.

What will the cucked, self-flagellating and neo-Franciscan French build on its place, a mosque?

Categories
Ancient Greece Child abuse Civilisation (TV series) Day of Wrath (book) Emigration / immigration Human sacrifice Infanticide Psychohistory Wikipedia

Day of Wrath, 18

What is redeemable in psychohistory?

The best introduction to the sane side of the deMausean thought available on the internet appears in the third part of the book The Emotional Life of Nations, especially in the final chapters: “The Evolution of Childrearing” and “The Evolution of Psyche and Society.” However, even in the following pages, where I would like to spare the salvageable part of deMause’s legacy, I will continue the criticism of his psychohistory.
 
Pseudoscientific charts
DeMause likes to interpolate ever-ascending charts on the historical treatment of children in his books, and even once he wrote that primitive humans treated their children better than our ape ancestors. I do not think that is true. The most terrible form of interactions between parents and children is the ritual sacrifice and cannibalism of one’s own children: a level of cruelty that has not been observed in primates other than man. Also, deMause assumes a gradual improvement in child treatment from 460 AD to approximately 1100 AD: an impossibility if we consider that we have no childrearing data around 8th century Europe. This mistake does not invalidate the salvageable part of deMause’s model: only the dogmatic idea that the treatment of children was always from worst to least bad.
In The History of Childhood deMause writes: “The image of Medea hovers over childhood in antiquity.” But in post-Homeric Greece it was already unusual to kill grown-up children as Medea did. The insistence on denigrating the Classical World is derived from the deMause’s dogma that childcare has always gone from worse to less bad, from major to minor abuse: the eternal upward charts in deMausean psychohistory. The prolific Jewish psychohistorian Robert Godwin, for example, emphatically dispatches the Greco-Roman world as barbarian in terms of upbringing. Once again: regarding the Jewish narrative versus the Aryan, in the next chapters we will see who were really the most barbaric.
One of the things that piqued my interest when I first encountered psychohistory was the secularized Judeo-Christian spirit breathed in it. DeMause and Godwin seem to reject the vision of the Enlightenment: to consider the Middle Ages darker than the most lucid moments of Greece and Rome. In contrast to deMause’s claims it does not seem likely at all that the Middle Ages was better as childrearing methods are concerned, or that Christendom was better compared to Pericles’ Athens or Republican Rome. In my own version of psychohistory, the Athenians should have treated the children well enough to allow the explosion of arts, philosophies and politics that we have inherited. However, due to the tenet that “the further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care,” deMause has blinded himself to see the obvious. True, an archaic ritual performed at Knossos by the non-Aryan natives included the cooking and eating of children as part of the fertility celebration (see the history on the white race by William Pierce in Who We Are). But as Ramón Xirau writes at the beginning of his Introducción a la Historia de la Filosofía, the Greece that we know is great precisely because it gave up such practices: something I’ve always related to the Hebrew story of Abraham, who at the last moment changed his mind as to sacrifice his child. The veracity of Xirau’s opening paragraph can be substantiated in the final chapter of the most erudite contemporary study on the subject, Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece by Dennis Hughes. To the Greeks of the time of Plato and Theophrastus, says Hughes, human sacrifice was a thing of the past; what was left in their time were isolated cases “and the custom is particularly associated with non-Greeks.”
Not only does the classical world refutes deMause. Julian Jaynes, the author of the book that could be classified as a different kind of psychohistory, implied that the cruel Assyrian law contrasted sharply with the Code of Hammurabi, written six centuries earlier. However, deMause might not err in his assessment of the West from the 12th century AD onward. One of my most memorable readings, based on the captivating television series by Kenneth Clark, was the second chapter of Civilisation about the “The Great Thaw” of Europe at the beginning of the 12th century, as well as the next chapter on courtly love: the West had invented love. The thaw was nothing other than the beginning to treat European women better than what non-westerners did in the rest of the world; hence the treatment of these women to their children changed. From the late 13th century begins the historical record of the death penalty in cases of voluntary infanticide. In addition to their relatively high IQ, psychogenically speaking the people of Europe would evolve more than the rest of the world.
But the white man of the present is suffering the worst psychosis in the history of the West. When by the end of 2008 I called deMause’s attention on the issue of the betrayal that the white man inflicts on himself with mass migration, I realized he knew nothing about the subject. This has led me to think that his chart that appears in his texts about the evolving historic personalities is flawed. DeMause puts there as inferior the psychoclass that has as its model the “patriotic” man compared to the “activist.” The truth is that patriots are precisely the ones who defend their nations against the greatest evil of our times: race replacement. Unlike the ivory tower where both deMause and the academics live, it appears that the recent Western self-treason represents the most serious, plummeting drop in psychogenesis since prehistory.
The case of deMause is aggravated by his Jewish colleagues who abhor not only the Classical World but the West in general: a position that has infected and corrupted his school of psychohistory since its inception. I have not been able to corroborate that deMause himself comes from a Jewish family, although the names he gave to his children, as well as his extreme aversion for the Third Reich, would seem to suggest it.
 
Shoddy scholarship
DeMause’s mistakes do not end with the discussion in previous pages. Since he sometimes uses his sources very loosely, the possibility exists that his psychohistory could consist of assumptions based on little, if any, evidence. I have found that occasionally deMause takes his data out of context, and that some of his pronouncements on subjects I know better contain serious errors. (For example, instead of the Mexica patron god, Huitzilopochtli, in his books he writes of him as an “Aztec goddess.”) Although such errors do not invalidate his theory, deMause could have used his sources more carefully.
So far the only interesting discussion about psychohistory I am aware of can be read in several discussion pages of Wikipedia. After Ark insulted the editors of the article mentioned above, he returned for a brief time to edit and discuss in the article “Infanticide.” In the discussion page Julie Hofmann Kemp, the editor whom Ark had insulted, responded to him and the other Wikipedia editors in a reasonable manner:

Problems with this. You’re using shoddy scholarship to try to back up an unprovable claim. DeMause provides no analysis or discussion of his sources, merely a catalog of horrific quotes. We cannot tell the context, nor can we take them as representative.

What Julie told Ark next is more substantial:

Anybody can go through books and pick out quotes to make an argument. Since deMause’s work is criminally lax in scholarship, I suggest you try to use better sources. I just reread “A Modest Proposal,” and could see absolutely nothing that referred to rotting corpses of babies in the streets. The only reference was to children accompanying their mothers begging. This certainly makes me question the veracity of other statements in this article.

Ark angrily replied that she could not accept the reality of infanticide because it was very uncomfortable for her. Julie responded:

No, Ark—I am fully aware that we live in a society where people do horrible things to children. I am also aware that this has long been the case. There are plenty of records out there for at least the Victorian area on things like the treatment of children in workhouses, and they clearly indicate widespread abuse of minors and women. I removed what I did [from the Wikipedia article] because I reread Swift and the deMause article you used as sources. Unfortunately, there seems to have been a lot of stuff quoted out of context. Some of the sources, like Philippe Ariès, I’ve read. If you want things to stay unchallenged, you’ve got to make sure they have recognizable merit. This is why I think we need to look beyond deMause. DeMause is only one of thousands of people writing on child abuse and infanticide. As a historian, I can see great gaping holes in deMause’s use of sources. It doesn’t make him wrong, but it certainly sets off warning bells—if the scholarship doesn’t stand up, then are the conclusions he draws really proven?

After further critical responses from other editors, quite reasonable and civic, Ark quit editing Wikipedia, and this time definitely, on my birthday of 2002. I agree that the way deMause has used the sources lacks academic rigor. However, if as Julie and others advised, it could be possible to source deMause’s model with non-deMausean references, the psychohistorical structure would be supported upon a new sort of column.
That is exactly what I did. In March and April of 2008 I massively edited “Infanticide,” the same article where years before Julie and Ark had discussed, adding a hundred references that I did not read in deMausean texts, but in a voluminous treatise of Larry S. Milner published in 2000. The model of the breakdown of the bicameral mind by surpassing the infanticidal psychoclass, is the cornerstone on which rests what remained of the psychohistorical building after my critique. Therefore, I will reproduce here what I added to that article, which I also translated for Wikipedia in Spanish. In my second book the critique of psychiatry contained such incredible facts that, unlike the other books, I was forced to include bibliographical notes. For the same reasons here I will do the same.
 
___________
The objective of Day of Wrath is to present to the racialist community my philosophy of The Four Words on how to eliminate all unnecessary suffering. If life allows, next month I will reproduce another chapter. Day of Wrath is available: here.

Categories
Americanism Civilisation (TV series) Evropa Soberana (webzine) Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) Francis Parker Yockey Kenneth Clark New Testament

Against the City upon a Hill

After Lulu Press deplatformed me last month, I became tempted to open an account in Amazon’s Create Space so that my Day of Wrath and the other volume I complied, The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, may be easily available as softcover books.
If Amazon doesn’t deplatform me, in the 2018 edition of the latter I’ll remove my introductory remarks for each chapter (remarks that still can be seen as a PDF here) and also thirteen essays (PDF here). This does not mean that the removed essays from several authors are unimportant. It means that only the texts that caused a huge impact on my worldview will remain.
However, since the 2018 edition will include the long essay that I’m presently translating the weekdays, ‘Apocalypse for whites’, I won’t be able to assemble it until I finish the translation:
 

CONTENTS [revised February 2018]:

Our 14 words 3
Preface: The ultimate conclusion 5
The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour
Part I Basics 9

Worst generation ever! – B.P.S. 10
The depth of evil – Andrew Hamilton 14

Part II The Judeo-Christian problem 16

Seeing the forest – William Pierce 17
Rome contra Judaea; Judaea
contra Rome – Evropa Soberana 26
Arrows and comments – Jack Frost 115
Burn them all! – Albus 134

Part III On the need to undemonize Hitler 135

Hellstorm – J. A. Sexton 136
Manu Rodríguez’s first letter 146

Part IV The Aryan problem: Gold over blood 149

Heroic materialism – Kenneth Clark 150
History of the white race – William Pierce 153

Part V Nordicism 261

March of the titans – Arthur Kemp 271
The black man’s gift to Portugal – Ray Smith 273
What race were the Greeks and Romans? – J. H. Sims 279

Part VI Translated texts of Evropa Soberana 289

Were the Greeks and Romans blond
and blue-eyed? 290
The new racial classification 310
Sparta and its law 371

Part VII Our New religion: Hitlerism 469

For the Hitler Youth – Helmut Stellrecht 470
National Socialist worldview – SS pamphlet 471
Rockwell – William Pierce 481
Faith of the future – Matt Koehl 514

Part VIII Transvaluation of values 525

Polarities – Francis Parker Yockey 527
Manu Rodríguez’s second letter 529
New tablets of stone 531

 
You will notice that the table of contents includes the text of Civilisation’s chapter, ‘Heroic materialism’ by Lord Kenneth Clark. Yesterday I said that, culturally, the US has been inferior to Germany (at least before the Germans betrayed themselves). I’ll illustrate it with today’s article at Occidental Dissent, ‘Techno-Traditionalism is Feasible’. The author argues that traditionalism is compatible with modern technology because some very modern cities thrive even under Sharia.
This is the wrong paradigm. The right paradigm would be to compare—and here’s why I include Lord Clark’s text on New York—an unhealthy Aryan city with a healthy Aryan city. Francis Parker Yockey summarised this view with crystal-clear prose in his essay about the enemy of Europe (Americanism).
I won’t elaborate much in a single post except saying that in the 1990s I worked in Houston downtown, which reminds me the picture that the author chose for the Occidental Dissent article. We only have to contrast the soulless edifices we see when going to work with Raphael’s town square and see how anti-Aryan, and Judaized, our large cities have become. This is what the Spanish blogger says in my previous post:

All these quotes point to a stubborn ideological as well as military confrontation, in which both Rome and Judea were going to think a lot for a final solution: a conflict that would influence History in a huge way and, therefore, cannot be ignored under any pretext. This article tries to give an idea of what the old clash of the East against the West meant.

Today’s Americans are clueless that they lost the cultural war since the pilgrims considered themselves Israelites that would found a City upon a Hill: a phrase from the parable of Salt and Light in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:14.
Hopefully, my translations of Evropa Soberana in the next weeks will throw some light into the subject of why we must reject any sort of Judaization of the West, especially the religion of our parents.

Categories
Celsus Christendom Civilisation (TV series) Friedrich Nietzsche Julian (novel) Kali Yuga Liberalism Name of the Rose (novel) New Testament Porphyry of Tyre St Francis St Paul Tom Sunic Women

Christmas gift

If, historically, the One Ring (greed) was the primary weakness for Western man, Christianity is also a major culprit. It is race-blind and compels us to navigate our passages favoring universalism. Based on theism, the belief in a personal, Hebraic god, it is hostile to “pagan” (Christian Newspeak for folkish) bonds for the supposed benefit of the “soul.” Our parents’ religion commands us to love our enemy (even Jews) and worship human weakness (including low-IQ negroes). Catholic and Protestant moral grammar goes at the very heart in today’s untamed equality: what Nietzsche called slave morality.

As Manu Rodríguez, a Nietzschean from Spain, said yesterday (my translation), “Christianity is the art of making wolves and bears into kids and lambs. It is the art of weakening, neutralizing and undermining the morale of the population, making even defense impossible.” Earlier this year another visitor of this blog sent me an email containing this paragraph:

Because of your blog I have ordered tons of books that you have read and thus gain the same insights that you do. I have Hellstorm on my shelf now; I have not read it yet. I am about to commence reading Porphyry’s Against the Christians. I can’t wait. The Bible is a book that has plagued me all my life. It is nice to finally read one of the original refutations of this Jewish nonsense.

A year ago I reposted excerpts of a chapter about the Gospels’ nativity fictions that I typed directly from a book authored by a secular scholar on the Bible. Porphyry (234-305 C.E.) was the forgotten pioneer in this field of research.

The reason white nationalists are uninterested in secular studies of the New Testament is the same they are so reluctant to assess the data about the subject that the dollar will crash. The double-helix of the US was precisely a structure intertweaving capitalism with Christianity. But American white nationalists want to save their race without destroying the One Ring wielded by the Kwa* and without dismissing their parents’ religion. They ignore that the nation of their founding fathers was hard-wired to become New Zion (click on the picture of Mammon on the sidebar).

Since this month we will celebrate Christmas with our families, I must say that an intellectual among those who blame Mammon also blames the other big factor. This is a translated quotation from “Rasse und Gestalt: unsere Identität,” a September 2013 speech by Tom Sunic:

The Christian teaching of equality and its contemporary offsprings, liberalism and Marxism is the main cause of so-called anti-racism and self-hatred as well as today’s mongrelized multicultural society. It’s futile to inspirit race consciousness or folk consciousness and to oppose mass immigration of non-Europeans, without first fighting and eliminating the legacy of Christianity.

I would go further and claim that the word “Christian” was 4th century Newspeak of the time. Translated back to Greco-Roman Oldspeak, we could say that Christian is a codeword for artificial Jew. What most significant can be that in this darkest hour of the West, on June 13 of this year in fact, Pope Francis said: “Inside every Christian is a Jew.”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose mother language is Spanish, is the first one in history who has adopted the name of St Francis (Francisco I) when nominated Pope. In my compilation of several authors, The Fair Race, you’ll find much support of Sunic’s quote: a deranged Christian sense of compassion à la St Francis did transmute into secular, runaway liberalism.

Elsewhere I have mentioned the image that Kenneth Clark chose to depict St Francis in the 1969 TV series Civilisation: Hesdin’s The Fool. I added that in Erasmus’ most famous book, The Praise of Folly, women, “admittedly stupid and foolish creatures,” are Folly’s pride. Erasmus took a surprisingly modern, “liberal” position about the role of women in society. Since Folly praises ignorance and lunacy, Erasmus reasoned, women must be instrumental for the Christian cause. In his book Folly is only interested in following the steps of Jesus, the exemplar of charitable simplicity against the budding intellectualism of the 16th century. The fact that Erasmus took St Paul’s (a Jew) “praise of folly” against the best minds St Paul encountered in Athens (whites) speaks for itself and needs no further comment.

I must iterate I find it most significant that the current Pope is the first one to use the name of Francis: the feminine, Christian paradigm of charitable simplicity par excellence. Last month, Pope Francis addressed the European Parliament saying that no longer fertile Europe should accept immigrants.

the-name-of-the-roseYes: I’ve put the Pope and all of his Cardinals in my black list for black sorcery

But here I can only say that the saint of Assisi was one of the most venerated religious figures in history and my idol when, at sixteen, I was struggling with my internalized father. Unlike the current Pope, the medieval Church somehow knew that when the purest gospel reached mainstream Christianity it would be the end of civilization. See, for example, Umberto Eco’s depiction of the Fraticelli in The Name of the Rose, which chapter on Jorge de Burgos’ scary sermon about the coming of the Antichrist I reread a couple of days ago.

Online you can also see the final pages of The Antichrist. If Nietzsche were alive, wouldn’t he say that the suicidal folie en masse that in the 20th and 21st centuries affects westerners is but the culmination of the psyop started by St Paul?

 

______________

(*) Kwa means Amerikwa: a negative word used to describe the degenerate, racially destructive, Jewified, niggrified, pussified, and depressing place that America has become.

For the context of Sunic’s point of view see also “The Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem”: perhaps the entry I’ve updated the most in this blog.

Like Sunic I believe that reading literature in traditional, printed books is important to understand the darkest hour. My favorite historical novels are precisely Julian (1964), which depicts 4th century Christianity after the death of Constantine and The Name of the Rose (1980), a complete immersion into the zeitgeist of Christendom a thousand years later. If you prefer non-fiction, remember the above-cited words about Porphyry’s Against the Christians (“It is nice to finally read one of the original refutations of this Jewish nonsense”).

Christmas gifts of Nietzsche’s The Antichrist would probably be a little rude, even though the philosopher tells the plain truth about how the authors behind the gospels inverted our Aryan values. But Julian and The Name of the Rose may appear innocuous enough as gifts for our family, at least at the time of delivering the presents.

Categories
Art Civilisation (TV series) Kenneth Clark Philosophy of history

Clark’s personal view

Civilisation_cover
My commented excerpts of Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation can now be read orderly, starting with chapter 1 (here). Keep in mind that when I typed those excerpts last year Civilisation was still unavailable online. Typos are my fault, not of Clark’s editors.

Categories
Art Aryan beauty Beauty Child abuse Christendom Christian art Civilisation (TV series) Crusades Kenneth Clark Marriage Metaphysics of race / sex St Francis

Civilisation’s “Romance and Reality”

For an introduction to these series, see here.

Below, some indented excerpts of “Romance and Reality,” the third chapter of Civilisation by Kenneth Clark, after which I offer my comments.

Originally I posted this entry on April 15 of the last year, but now that I posted another entry about Spain’s Teresa of Ávila I would like to see some feedback in the comments section about my thoughts on St. Francis from those interested in child abuse as a subject.

Ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages:

I am in the Gothic world, the world of chivalry, courtesy and romance; a world in which serious things were done with a sense of play—where even war and theology could become a sort of game; and when architecture reached a point of extravagance unequalled in history. After all the great unifying convictions of the twelfth century, High Gothic art can look fantastic and luxurious—what Marxists call conspicuous waste. And yet these centuries produced some of the greatest spirits in the human history of man, amongst them St Francis and Dante.

A couple of pages later, Clark says:

Several of the stories depicted in the [Chartres Cathedral] arches concern Old Testament heroines; and at the corner of the portico is one of the first consciously graceful women in western art. Only a very few years before, women were thought of as the squat, bad-tempered viragos that we see on the front of Winchester Cathedral: these were the women who accompanied the Norsemen to Iceland.

Now look at this embodiment of chastity, lifting her mantle, raising her hand, turning her head with a movement of self-conscious refinement that was to become mannered but here is genuinely modest. She might be Dante’s Beatrice.

There, for almost the first time in visual art, one gets a sense of human rapport between man and woman.

About the sentiment of courtly love, on the next page Clark adds that it was entirely unknown to antiquity, and that to the Romans and the Vikings it would have seemed not only absurd but unbelievable.

A ‘love match’ is almost an invention of the late eighteenth century. Medieval marriages were entirely a matter of property, and, as everybody knows, marriage without love means love without marriage.

Then I suppose one must admit that the cult of the Virgin had something to do with it. In this context it sounds rather blasphemous, but the fact remains that one often hardly knows if a medieval love lyric is addresses to the poet’s mistress or to the Virgin Mary.

For all these reasons I think it is permissible to associate the cult of ideal love with the ravishing beauty and delicacy that one finds in the madonnas of the thirteenth century. Were there ever more delicate creatures than the ladies on Gothic ivories? How gross, compared to them, are the great beauties of other woman-worshiping epochs.

When I read these pages for the first time I was surprised to discover that my tastes of women have always been, literally, medieval; especially when I studied closely the face of the woman at the right in the tapestry known as The Lady with the Unicorn, reproduced on a whole page in Clark’s book with more detail than the illustration I’ve just downloaded. I have never fancied the aggressive, Hollywood females whose images are bombarded everywhere through our degenerate media. In fact, what moves me to write are precisely David Lane’s 14 words to preserve the beauty and delicacy of the most spiritual females of the white race.

Alas, it seems that the parents did not treat their delicate daughters well enough during the Middle Ages. Clark said:

So it is all the more surprising to learn that these exquisite creatures got terribly knocked about. It must be true, because there is a manual of how to treat women—actually how to bring up daughters—by a character called the Knight of the Tower of Landry, written in 1370 and so successful that it went on being read as a sort of textbook right up to the sixteenth century—in fact and edition was published with illustrations by Dürer. In it the knight, who is known to have been an exceptionally kind man, describes how disobedient women must be beaten and starved and dragged around by the hair of the head.

And six pages later Clark speaks about the most famous Saint in the High Middle Ages, whose live I would also consider the result of parental abuse:

In the years when the portal of Chartres was being built, a rich young man named Francesco Bernadone suffered a change of heart.

One day when he had fitted himself up in his best clothes in preparation for some chivalrous campaign, he met a poor gentleman whose need seemed to be greater than his own, and gave him his cloak. That night he dreamed that he should rebuild the Celestial City. Later he gave away his possessions so liberally that his father, who was a rich businessman in the Italian town of Assisi, was moved to disown him; whereupon Francesco took off his remaining clothes and said he would possess nothing, absolutely nothing. The Bishop of Assisi hid his nakedness, and afterwards gave him a cloak; and Francesco went off the woods, singing a French song.

The next three years he spent in abject poverty, looking after lepers, who were very much in evidence in the Middle Ages, and rebuilding with his own hands (for he had taken his dream literally) abandoned churches.

He threw away his staff and his sandals and went out bare-foot onto the hills. He said that he had taken poverty for his Lady, partly because he felt that it was discourteous to be in company of anyone poorer than oneself.

From the first everyone recognised that St Francis (as we may now call him) was a religious genius—the greatest, I believe, that Europe has ever produced.

Francis died in 1226 at the age of forty-three worn out by his austerities. On his deathbed he asked forgiveness of ‘poor brother donkey, my body’ for the hardships he had made it suffer.

Those of Francis’s disciples, called Fraticelli, who clung to his doctrine of poverty were denounced as heretics and burnt at the stake. And for seven hundred years capitalism has continued to grow to its present monstrous proportions. It may seem that St Francis has had no influence at all, because even the humane reformers of the nineteenth century who sometimes invoked him did not wish to exalt or sanctify poverty but to abolish it.

St Francis is a figure of the pure Gothic time—the time of crusades and castles and of the great cathedrals. But already during the lifetime of St Francis another world was growing up, which, for better or worse, is the ancestor of our own, the world of trade and of banking, of cities full of hard-headed men whose aim in life was to grow rich without ceasing to appear respectable.

Of course, Clark could not say that Francesco’s life was a classic case of battered child. Profound studies about child abuse would only start years after the Civilisation series. Today I would say that, since Francesco never wrote a vindictive text—something unthinkable in the Middle Ages that would not appear until Kafka’s letter to his father—, he internalized the parental abuse with such violence that his asceticism took his life prematurely.

What is missing in Clark’s account is that Francesco’s father whipped him in front of all the town people after Francesco stole from his shop several rolls of cloth. After the scourging inflicted by his father, with his own hands, and public humiliation, a citizen of Assisi reminded him that the town statutes allowed the father to incarcerate the rebellious son at home. Pedro shut Francesco in a sweltering, dark warehouse where “Francesco languished without seeing the light except when his father opened the door for Pica [the mother] taking a bowl of soup and a piece of bread.” After several weeks of being locked Francesco escaped and, always fearful of his father, hid in a cave. The earliest texts add that in the cave he often wept with great fear.

Francesco then embarked on a spectacular acting out of his emotional issues with his father. He made a big scene by returning to Assisi, undressing in the town’s square in front of Bishop Guido and addressing the crowd: “Hear all ye, and understand. Until now have I called Pedro Bernadone ‘my father’. But I now give back unto him the money, over which he was vexed, and all the clothes that I have had of him, desiring to say only, ‘Our Father, which art in Heaven,’ instead of ‘My father, Pedro Bernadone.’”

To everyone’s surprise Francesco broke with his wealthy parents forever, thus renouncing any possible reconciliation. So resolute was his parental repudiation, writes a Catholic biographer, that from that day on Pedro and Pica disappear from all the biographies of their son. There is no historical evidence of reconciliation, and no information about his parents or the circumstances of their death. (The pic is taken from Zeffirelli’s adaptation of the life​ of St Francis.)

But I don’t want to diminish the figure of St Francis. Quite the contrary: in my middle teens I wanted to emulate him—and precisely as a result of the abuse inflicted by my father on me. And nowadays our world that has Mammon as its real God—trade, banking and dehumanized cities that are rapidly destroying the white race—, this will always remind me what Clark said about St Francis.

Nevertheless, despite my teenage infatuation with the saintly young man of Assisi, I doubt that poor Francesco’s defence mechanism to protect his mind against his father’s betrayal could be of any help now…