Category: Correspondence

The tragedy of Friedrich Nietzsche’s life was that it happened to be a one-man show, a monodrama wherein no other actor entered upon the stage: not a soul is at his side to succour him; no woman is there to soften by her ever-present sympathy the stresses of the atmosphere. Every action takes its birth in him, and its repercussions are felt by him alone. Not one person ventures to enter wholeheartedly into the innermost sanctum of Nietzsche’s destiny; the poet-philosopher is doomed to speak, to struggle, to suffer alone. He converses with no one, and no one has anything to say to him. What is even more terrible is that none hearken to his voice. —Stefan Zweig

Today, Benjamin sent me an email containing this paragraph: “I’m disappointed no one else even seems to have clicked my link to the page though (or if they have, from my analytics they haven’t stayed more than two minutes—odd with an easy-access layout one-page site containing many hours of content). Bar the psychiatry focus, and the veganism, I thought I was basically covering topics we talk about all the time on WDH. I don’t understand (my perennial problem: trying to analyse the apathetic) why they’re not interested. Maybe they haven’t got 6 quid. I hope not, or our movement is screwed”.

This is something that, in the past, has seemed like an extraordinary phenomenon to me, and I would like to respond to Benjamin in the second person singular:

As I’ve told you several times, even years before you found my site, when I posted quite insightful entries and thought some of them would have a large quorum, no one said a peep, and over time I invented a saying that I used to say to myself in soliloquies: “Here come the silent ones…!” in the sense that they left me talking to myself, over and over again.

It was so exasperating that, occasionally, as I’ve also confessed to you, I let the insulting trolls’ comments slide because I preferred the insults to have the racialists apply what the Germans call “death by silence” tactic. (My family, relatives, friends, therapist and acquaintances “killed me with silence”. No one wanted to know anything about what was happening at home, and it was precisely because no one wanted to listen that I dedicated myself to writing about the family tragedy.)

As I told you by email, the silence of the visitors began several years ago, when it became clear that my criticisms of white nationalism were going to be incisive, constant, and persistent. That scared everyone away. And they are fundamental criticisms: I was trying, and am trying, to shift the paradigm from the JQ to the CQ. And I do this not because I side with the Jews: I believe they should be expelled to Madagascar, Hitler’s original idea (or to Israel, although that country has already become a precarious place, and the war with Iran could evolve into a regional war).

I suspect that the relative silence in the comments section is due to what Thomas Kuhn said about a paradigm shift. The old guard first ignores the new paradigm (admirably summarised in yesterday’s post, citing your book!). When it’s no longer possible to ignore the new paradigm, let’s say if voices like yours were to multiply (obviously, we’re not there yet), the old guard fiercely opposes the new paradigm. Finally, the new paradigm is accepted as the most natural thing, although that only happens with the biological death of the old guard who controlled the boundaries of discourse. The new generations are seeing that the old paradigm was wrong or at least incomplete: something that, to preserve their egos, the older generations were reluctant to concede.

It’s similar to what Scott Peck says about narcissistic parents who never admit that they might have made a mistake with one of their children. It also reminds me of the case of a girl diagnosed as schizophrenic in one of Ronald Laing’s books. Laing wrote that it was precisely because the mother was incapable of accepting an ounce of guilt that her daughter was so disturbed.

The same thing happens with white nationalists: they are incapable of accepting that our civilisation took the wrong path many centuries ago. These nationalists maintain a working hypothesis that resembles a religious dogma: Jewry is responsible for our misfortunes. We say: Jewry is very powerful in the West and very subversive: but whites empowered them by destroying the religion whose Gods represented the Aryan collective unconscious, replacing it with the Judeo-Christian collective unconscious. As Emperor Julian saw when the transition from one collective unconscious to another was underway, “Why were you so ungrateful to our Gods as to desert them for the Jews?”

Contrary to what Hitler privately confessed to his closest friends, today’s nationalists are like the mother of the schizophrenic woman: they don’t accept an iota of blame. Compared to intelligent people like William Pierce, who wrote Who We Are, or scholars like Revilo Oliver, the ideology of today’s nationalists, besides being simplistic, represents a giant step backwards. If we follow the Rubicon metaphor it’s as if, after two solid steps toward the other side of the river—racial realism and becoming aware of JQ—instead of moving forward, these racialists panic about what they begin to glimpse through the fog on the other side. Transvaluing implies genocidal actions against our enemies and, like a magnet pulling them toward Normieland due to their Christian programming, they begin to take steps backwards instead of forward to finally cross the river toward National Socialism.

We can’t do anything with these cowards. We must be very patient. If Kuhn was right, the older generations—in our case, the white nationalists—will have to die. Perhaps those who are now Aryan children, or even unborn minds will have a better chance of seeing things differently: of discovering this site and embracing the post-1945 National Socialist antichristian worldview. But trying to do so with the hundreds of conservatives who comment on, say, The Unz Review and other racialist forums is a fool’s errand.

Since I’m already in my sixties I hope that if death were to surprise me, our work wouldn’t disappear but that I could pass the mantle to someone younger, like you: someone who would maintain the content of this site, especially the PDFs where the vital information is condensed.

And when it comes to the havoc that abusive parents wreak on their offspring, the situation is even worse! The taboo is universal due to the “problem of the attachment with the perp”, a concept explained in my Day of Wrath. However, if it makes you feel better, I received an email today from a Panamanian who asked me to share the link to your site, which I did.