“Democracy is a false idol, a mere catchword and illusion of inferior classes, visionaries and dying civilizations.”
—H. P. Lovecraft
Category: Democracy
Categories
Hitler on democracy
‘This is the expression of an authoritarian state –not of a weak, babbling democracy [like the American one]–, of an authoritarian state where everyone is proud to obey, because he knows: I will likewise be obeyed when I must take command’.
—Speech at Nuremberg, September 14, 1935 (see Savitri’s Memoirs pages 172-177 to fully grasp this point).
Categories
Might is right, 12
Reverting, however, to Chicago’s reverend Utopia-constructor, thus waileth he with cajoling crudity:
The laws of social evolution, far from being the blind, barbarous, and brutal struggle for organic existence, consists in the physical, intellectual and moral wellbeing of all the members of society, so constituted that the politico-ethical principles of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity shall have the largest possible realization throughout the social organism. The main features of the condition of progress are Christian churches, Christian schools, Christian governments, Christian ethics and economics.
Another seductive but most malignant State Socialist (Henry George) roundly proclaims that ‘The salvation of society, the hope of the free, and full development of humanity, is in the gospel of brotherhood, the gospel of Christ,’ and thereupon he proposes to make politicians the national rent-tax collectors, administrators of everything in general, and all-round distributors of state pensions to ‘the poor and needy.’
Has not mankind had sufficient experience of what politicians are?—Those black-hearted creeping thieves and frauds. Their sting is deadlier than the bite of a cobra, and in the breath of their mouth there is—death. Curses be upon ye, O! ye politicians, and upon all who advocate increasing your prerogatives!
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Emphasis added in bold. What Arthur Desmond wrote above reminds me of people like Nick Fuentes, and what he says below reminds me of the racialists who are currently talking about the upcoming elections in their country. Remember that a true priest of the holy words repudiates democracy as the worst of all possible political systems.
______ 卐 ______
Presidential candidates, from Jefferson, to Lincoln, (also their apish imitators) have generally indulged in equally shallow rhodomontade, because it means votes, and for votes, office-seekers would dress up in glowing language, and ray forth any devilish deception.
For two thousand years these effeminate superlatives have been trumpeted to the remotest corner of every Christian land, and yet (while enervating the morale of people) they have dismally failed to inaugurate the much foretold earthly paradise. They were preached by bare-foot monks at the inauguration of the Dark Ages, in order that those saintly lovers of the common people might creep into the administration of co-operative wealth and power. Now, the same general ideas are revived and dressed up (this time in politico- economic garb) by the eloquent agitator, in order that he may rule and plunder in the future, through the agency of the State; just as the priest once ruled and plundered through the equally rapacious agency of the Church.
When the Church triumphed, the Dark Ages began, and when it is finally rooted out (together with all its social antenæ) the Heroic Age dawns once more. True heroes shall be born again as of old, for our women may yet be something more than rickety perambulating dolls and drug-stores in spectacles.
The ‘Church’ is the idol of the priestly parasite—the ‘State’ is the idol of the political parasite. Beware, O, America! that in escaping from the holy trickery of the monk, you fall not an easy prey to ‘the loving kindness’ of the politician. Even if the ‘reformer’ succeeds in re-establishing upon majority-votes, the dark tyranny of the ‘greatest number;’ we have this consolation to fall back upon, such organisation must ultimately tumble down of its own weight, and then re-divide up into warring fragments. Nothing that is unnatural can last for long.
The Universal Church is no more; all we see of it now is jealous remnants. And the Universal State, the Social Democracy, the Economic Republic, the Brotherhood of Man, should they take practical form, are pre-ordained to similar failure. All they could do, would be to postpone the operation of the survival of the fittest—drugging nations in temporary sedatives.
No matter how eagerly madmen may try to do it, there is no known process whereby they can jump out of their own skins. Christian or socialist churches, paternalisms, schools, governments, administrations, ethics, and moralisms (even if genuinely Christian and fraternal) would be wholly impotent to change the natural course of things and therefore powerless to command the survival of mental and physical cripples; even although those cripples were as canonized saints for ‘goodness,’ and as the sands of the sea shore for number. Shrieking sentimentalism is indeed a feeble lever wherewith to overturn the immutable order of the universe. It cannot do it. No! not if it were whooped till the crack of doom! Not even if it had a Lamb of God in every city, ready to be butchered each Friday afternoon, in order to make a Christian holiday.
Hitler rejected the ‘purely economic way of looking at things’, which he called the ‘greatest mistake of German policy in the past decades’. ‘The hoped-for peaceful seizure of [world] power through our economy,’ he continued, ‘has been a failure.’ ‘Industrialization [and] the peaceful capture of the world,’ Hitler claimed, were doomed to fail, because one ‘did not consider that there can be no economic policy without the sword [and] no industrialization without power’. ‘The economy,’ he explained, ‘is only of secondary importance.’ ‘The main thing,’ Hitler stressed, ‘is national pride, [and] love of country.’ The primacy of politics in Hitler’s thinking could not have been more clearly expressed.
Calvin Coolidge was born in Massachusetts, a state founded by English Puritans. Compare the above quote with that famous phrase by Coolidge, the 30th president of the US: ‘The business of America is business’ in the sense that his was the nation of pure materialism. I remember, when I lived in California in the 1980s, the words of President Ronald Reagan, who wanted a globalised world where ‘the market reigned supreme’.
The key question, Hitler stated, was not the state form itself, but what arrangement served the German people best in its quest to escape external subjection. Here there was remarkably little shift in his views throughout the early 1920s. The issue was not, he argued in April 1920, whether Germany should be ‘a monarchy or a Republic’, but rather ‘which state form was best for the people’. ‘We need a dictator of pure genius if we want to rise again.’ ‘We do not fetishize forms of government,’ he explained in November 1921, ‘the only thing that is decisive is the spirit which sustains it. The only consideration must be the welfare of the entire German people.
Compare this with the forums of American white nationalism, which endorse democracy and in recent years have suggested that their visitors vote for this or that candidate. And the racialists on the other side of the Atlantic are no better. At the only BNP rally I have attended I spoke to a couple of senior members, who informed me that their aims were strictly democratic, not fascist.
He called for the nationalization of the entire banking and financial system, and thus the ‘breaking of interest slavery’, a term he had borrowed from Gottfried Feder. His aim here was not so much public ownership in the Marxist sense, as national control over the levers of international financial manipulation. Hitler had not yet called for the physical destruction of world Jewry, but the elimination of German Jewry was already implicit, at least in the context of a future war, in case they might once again act as fifth columnists. In the Gemlich letter of September 1919, he had already called for the ‘complete removal of the Jews’, and in a letter of August 1920, one correspondent reports that Hitler believed that ‘the bacillus’ must be ‘exterminated’ in order to ensure the survival of the German people. One way or the other, his domestic policy was essentially foreign policy.
Compare this with the first American president, who stated that it would be bigoted, in the new nation, to discriminate against Jewry. So who caused their empowerment in today’s world?
Unlike the Judeo-reductionism in vogue in white nationalism and even the Gemlich letter of September 1919, the conceptual framework for understanding the West’s dark hour can already be gleaned from texts by Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill.
In On Liberty Mill concludes that in former times, when it was proposed to burn atheists, charitable people used to suggest their confinement in a madhouse. Mill said that he wouldn’t be surprised if they saw that in his day because of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ that Jefferson and Madison so feared: a tyranny that doesn’t tolerate eccentricity.
And this is the central problem, since egalitarian tyranny is based on the feelings of the majority, and that feeling was programmed in the Aryan collective unconscious since the time of Constantine, with those Pauline words that there is no longer a Jew or a Greek, etc.
In On Liberty Mill didn’t so much propose to defend the rights of the eccentric individual—an atheist in Victorian England for example—against the state. He proposed to defend his rights against society itself: a giant Leviathan. That is why the First Amendment has failed utterly, in the US, to defend us. The majority society, even without the arm of the state, can cancel the dissenter (as it cancelled the previous incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour when it was hosted elsewhere).
For Mill, his great mission was to say what he thought of modern society, especially of the power of public opinion over the outsider. As in Christendom, the collectivist solution proposed by Rousseau and post-French Revolution Europe fears the Other and allows no edges. However, a homogeneous construct determined to establish a norm of equality is a form of despotism. Liberal collectivism is opposed not only to National Socialism but to Pindar’s ideal Become what you are!, realise yourself; and it is also opposed to the Romantic ideal of the individual’s right to unfold his full potential, exemplified in Goethe.
On social pressure (which, if we use the parable of the sower, prevents the National Socialist seed that Rockwell wanted to sow in the US from blossoming) Tocqueville wrote that the kind of oppression by which democratic nations are threatened is very different from what has ever existed. He added that we shall find no prototype of this in historical memory; that he sought in vain for an expression to convey the idea of this new socio-political animal, and that the old words ‘despotism’ and ‘tyranny’ were inappropriate. ‘We are faced with something new’, he wrote.
Tocqueville’s remarks left a deep imprint on the thinking that Mill would express later in On Liberty, who confessed that he had noticed that the aim of democracy wasn’t, as claimed, to protect the interests of everyone but simply the interests of the majority (what Voltaire called canaille, and I call Neanderthals).
Tocqueville and Mill noticed some unintended consequences of modern democracy. In democratic nations the political force of the majority, the canaille, has become a force that surpasses that of the old tyrannies; though the manner of exercising such force is far more subtle, and infinitely more difficult to detect than that of a classical tyranny. The reason for this is that the values of the majority surround us as much as the ocean surrounds the fish. The invisibility of this soft totalitarianism is the corollary of democracy, the rule of the demos: the omnipresent people or mass.
The mass, the ‘Neanderthals’, form their opinion through the school and the Jew-controlled media. Mill believed that the self-educated individual was the antidote to this new form of mass control. For example, no organisation denounced the Inquisition over the centuries of its existence. It was individuals, often isolated individuals, who saw the crimes of the Imperial Church; and from Mill’s century to ours only individuals like Solzhenitsyn have been able to expose, in a big way, other kinds of crimes. That’s why Mill loved the distinct individual so much and feared the blind masses, and he was suspicious of democracy as potentially the most oppressive form of government.
The predominant note in Mill’s writings is not utilitarianism. On Liberty is the clearest exposition of the views of those who desire a tolerant society for the different individual; for example, he who advocates race realism. Mill was the intellectual answer to Rousseau. What he came to value most was the spark of individual genius, the human anomaly; and in On Liberty, which he began writing in 1855, he loved the independent thinker, the solitary worker; the dissident, the eternal questioner of established values, the one who questions the dogmas of the masses and their prejudices; in a word, the outsider who today is personified in he who doesn’t subscribe to the dogma of egalitarianism of race, gender and sexual orientation.
I would like to end this comment with the words I addressed to Gaedhal on Monday: ‘One of the things that white nationalists have never understood is that Europe should already be under one German Reich. Neither the Europeans nor the Americans nor the Australians are capable of governing themselves without a good Führer, as seen with this triumph of democracy and Judeo-liberal values after WW2. Savitri taught me to see an inverted world like the inverted pyramids, which I even illustrated in her book with triangles on pages 172 and 177’.
Categories
Slope
Or:
Why is ‘white nationalism’ doomed to failure?
Simply put, it is a slippery slope that leads to miscegenation.
I’ve been searching the major American racial right sites these days for an article on Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Putin and, as far as feature articles go, I only found one by David Zsutty in Counter-Currents, ‘In Tucker vs. Putin, Nationalism Wins’. I confess I liked this passage from Zsutty’s article:
Tucker Carlson’s interview of Vladimir Putin illustrates a number of points. Its first approximately 30 minutes consisted of an extensive history lesson going back to Novgorod, up through the Second World War and ending in the present day… Putin spoke articulately, at great length, and in depth about history. This highlights how we in the West are almost exclusively ruled by uncultured imbeciles. This is because democracy, and especially liberal democracy, tends to select for bad leaders.
However, in the comments section of that article, I discovered that the commenters consider Russians to be pure whites. Contrast that not only with Mauricio’s recent quote but with what I say in our featured post:
He who has transvalued his values endorses the Generalplan Ost or General Plan East: a secret Nazi plan of ethnic cleansing, the aim of which was to deport more than thirty million Untermenschen from the western parts of the Soviet Union to Siberia.
Such an exterminationist ideology, which cannot contrast more with the neo-Christian racialism of our day, is based, as can be read in the last words of our featured post, on principles that were taken for granted in the Germany of former times:
Lebensraum is a German concept of expansionism and Völkisch nationalism, whose philosophy and policies were common to German politics from the 1890s to the 1940s (see On Exterminationism, pages 117-129).
What emerges from the echo chamber that is the comments section of Zsutty’s article is that these typical white nationalists have granted racial amnesty to many Slavs who shouldn’t be considered Aryans. In Putin’s own face in his interview with Tucker, one can see Asian features due to the intermarriage that occurred centuries earlier with the Mongol and Tatar invasions (cf. William Pierce’s Who We Are; what I say about the girl Dúrochka of the Russian film Andrei Rublev, and Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans).
But all this, which was common knowledge to American and European eugenicists before the Second World War, vanished like dew with the tale the Establishment has been telling us since 1945, a tale to which the so-called nationalists subscribe: the rejection of Nordicism.
So-called white nationalism is a slippery slope not only because it betrays the legacy of the American eugenicists of yesteryear like Madison Grant, but Hitlerism itself. Once one starts sliding down the slope by calling pure whites a large part of the Slavs, who as Putin conceded coexist with many other peoples and ethnicities within Russia, the ideological foundations are laid for the eventual extinction of the Aryan (compare Putin’s ideology with Pierce’s ‘Extermination or Expulsion’).
But we have already discussed this countless times on this site: the ethno-traitor phobia that white nationalists feel for Nordicism, a Nordicism that includes not only National Socialism but Grant’s legacy. With this post, I am reiterating for the umpteenth time what has already been said.
I find it hard to devote myself one hundred per cent to the Führer’s memory, say reviewing Brendan Simms’ book and awaiting the material I will soon receive from David Irving, when I come across nonsense like what I read today in one of the most prestigious white nationalist webzines.
In the near future I will have to discipline myself not to visit such sites, but to confine myself to trying to better understand the Germany of other times through the programmed bibliography I still have to read…
Yesterday I was shocked when Greg Johnson, the admin of Counter-Currents, banned a commenter for daring to propose a final solution to the JP. We can just imagine an Israeli nationalist these days banning from his online forum another Jew who proposed a final solution to the Palestinian problem!
Johnson’s behaviour represents a perfect paradigm to illustrate the central tenet of The West’s Darkest Hour: Christian ethics are killing us (and have been killing us since Constantine—see some of the books in the featured post). It is not the Jews who force Johnson to think that way: it is the tail end of the Christian education he received that has him trapped in the ethics of positively valuing all human life. I could now use the neo-Christian term I have used in those books. But for new visitors to this site, I think it is better to start using Gaedhal’s term which means the same: hyper-Christian atheist. The most conspicuous feature of neo-Christianity—that is hyper-Christian atheism—is anthropocentrism (see Savitri Devi’s book in the featured post). In his email statement today, Gaedhal told us:
The anthropocentrism of mainstream leftist politics proves to me that mainstream leftist politics is simply a godless version of Hyperchristianity. This is why I say that myself and my compatriots on the radical right should be making political hay with this. The overpopulation of the planet—especially in places like Sub-Saharan Africa—is a menace to this planet’s environment.
In a serious state, nincompoops with non-solutions like Mary Lou McDonald would not be the leader of the biggest political party in Ireland. This is another criticism I have of democracy: become too intelligent and too refined, and the mob won’t vote for you. As we see with Trump, democracy becomes idiocracy. In a serious country, the government would not be doing what is popular, would not be doing what the unthinking mob wants, would not be doing what will get them elected, but, instead what needs to be done.
What needs to be done to solve the Irish Housing crisis is simply to pursue global depopulation—especially in the third world—and to nationalise all empty properties. I am not anthropocentric. I say that Irish wild animals do have a right to their habitat, and that this right is superior to anthropoids needing even more housing. In my view, the rights of Irish wildlife to their habitat beats the supposed rights of foreigners and migrants to housing.
In his comment today in this forum, Gaedhal added:
As Alex Linder points out: evolution proceeds through genocide. The earth is overpopulated. The earth needs to be depopulated. The earth eventually, if left to itself, will depopulate itself of billions of anthropoid vermin… Humanity is a virus with shoes. The only question is who is going to be depopulated? I want the white race to survive the depopulations of the next couple of centuries and hopefully possess the entire planet. As I wrote in that anthology on exterminationism [does he refer to this one?—Ed.]: only a global exterminationist white Imperium counts as victory. I envisage a Globalist White Empire comprising petty vassal national states. Global problems require global solutions. In a technological age, practically all problems are global in scope. Anything short of a Global Exterminationist White Imperium is ultimate failure.
Global problems require global solutions? This reminds me of another of my grandmother’s sayings: ‘Para grandes males grandes remedios’ (For great evils great remedies!). And really: in a world with billions of what I call Neanderthals, and Gaedhal calls anthropoid vermin it should be obvious for every transvalued Aryan how to act.
Yesterday I quoted the first comment from an article in the atheistic but axiologically hyper-Christian racialist webzine Counter-Currents. Now I would like to quote a sentence from the first comment of a post today on the racialist webzine Occidental Dissent:
Our interests are served by preserving our own territory so that animals like this [Palestinians] aren’t able to murder us [Whites]. These brown people will not reciprocate our support or commiseration. They only care about themselves. Why is it so difficult for Western dissidents to understand that this is NATURAL and we should be doing the same [what Netanyahu does]? Is this more of this pervasive Christian guilt?
If one takes note of the response of the Christian admin of that webzine, ‘Israel has long wielded total control over our government’, one sees the lack of insight of the American racial right. Compare Wallace’s words, which represent what most white nationalists believe by using the acronym ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government), with what an American closer to our POV said: ‘There is not such a thing as Jewish domination, there is only white submissiveness’.
The amount of comments I get here, compared to what both the hyper-Christian atheist webzine Counter-Currents and the Christian Occidental Dissent get, is minuscule. Significantly, the post where I put the above quote in big letters received no comments except my own.
Let there be no doubt: racialists who have transvalued their values to the extent of embracing pro-Aryan exterminationism can be counted on the fingers of one hand! Nonetheless, I will still keep blogging as I believe that The West’s Darkest Hour is the only authentically post-Christian site among the racialist forums. I don’t mind not having so many commenters: just one who can receive the mantle after Time is done with my body will be enough…
What I am saying here about the decline of the Aryan isn’t confined to India. It is a fact observable in any country with a multiracial population, in which the State opposes the promotion of superior ethnic elements instead of encouraging it at all costs and by all means. This is particularly evident in any country with a multiracial population in which the state clings to democratic rule, where power rests with the majority.[1]
___________
[1] Editor’s note: Democracy is the worst of political systems, as Plato saw in his Republic. Already in modern times, John Stuart Mill came to discover that when it is society itself that is the tyrant—society collectively—it exercises a more formidable social tyranny because it leaves fewer means of escape from it. And Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that the kind of oppression that democratic nations use is altogether different from anything that has ever existed in the world. The French aristocrat added that his contemporaries will find no prototype of this in recorded history.
In vain did Tocqueville search for an expression that would adequately convey the idea he had of this new socio-political animal, and said that the old words ‘despotism’ and ‘tyranny’ were inappropriate. We are dealing with a new form of social control. Tocqueville’s observations left a deep imprint on the thinking that Mill would express a little later in On Liberty. Mill observed that despite claims of the contrary democracy doesn’t protect the interests of all but simply for the interests of the majority (‘two legged mammals’ is Savitri’s pejorative term of what I simply call ‘Neanderthals’).
Categories
Midterm election
‘If voting mattered it would
be illegal.’ —Mark Twain.
Editor’s note:
The American racial right is made up of normies and semi-normies.
He who has already left Normieland and passed to the other side of the psychological Rubicon (NS) no longer believes in democracy. But the semi-normies of the racial right continue to vote for the Republican party! What a shame that a mestizo thinks better than these pretenders (see Gonzalo Lira’s latest video).
Americans: If you don’t want to listen to Lira, at least listen to another American. The following are a few excerpts from Francis Parker Yockey’s chapter about his country, the United States, in Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics:
______ 卐 ______
In the 20th century, when the Rationalist type of ideology had been discarded by the advancing Western Civilization, the American universalizing of ideology turned into messianism — the idea that America must save the world. The vehicle of the salvation is to be a materialistic religion with “democracy” taking the place of God, “Constitution” the place of the Church, “principles of government” the place of religious dogmas, and the idea of economic freedom the place of God’s Grace. The technic of salvation is to embrace the dollar, or failing that, to submit to American high-explosives and bayonets…
The central-motive of the new cult is “democracy.” In the propaganda-picture, this concept takes the place of God, as the center and ultimate reality. Thus, a Supreme Court Justice, speaking to the graduating class of a Jewish college, said in 1939: “In a larger sense there is something more important than religion, and that is the actualization of the ideals of democracy.”
The word has been endowed with religious force, and has in fact attained to the status of a religion. It has become a numen, and cannot be the subject of critical treatment. Apostasy or heresy bring immediate response in the form of a criminal prosecution for sedition, treason, income tax evasion, or other allegation. The saints of this cult are the “Founding Fathers” of the War for Independence, particularly Jefferson — despite the fact that they uniformly detested the idea of democracy, and were nearly all slave-owners — and also Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt. Its prophets are journalists, propagandists, film stars, labor-leaders, and party-politicians. The fact that the word “democracy” cannot be defined is the surest evidence that it has ceased to be descriptive, and has become the object of a mass-faith. All other ideas and dogmas of the propaganda-picture are referred to “democracy” for their ultimate justification.
Immediately below “democracy” in importance is “tolerance.” This is obviously fundamental to a Culturally-alien regime. Tolerance means primarily tolerance of Jews and Negroes, but it can mean the cruelest persecution of Europeans or other persons with a viewpoint differing fundamentally from the prevailing mass-idea. This persecution is social, economic, and, if necessary, legal…
Far more important to Europe than the propaganda about domestic affairs in America is that about foreign affairs.
The numen “democracy” is used also in this realm as the essence of reality. A foreign development sought to be brought about is called “spreading democracy”; a development sought to be hindered is “against democracy,” or “fascistic.” “Fascism” is the numen corresponding to evil in theology, and in fact they are directly equated in American propaganda.
The prime enemy in the propaganda picture was always Europe, and especially the Prussian-European spirit which rose with such self-evident force in the European Revolution of 1933 against the negative view of life, with its materialism, money-obsession, and democratic corruption. The more surely it appeared that this Revolution was not a superficial political phenomenon, a mere transfer of one party-regime for another, that it was a deep spiritual, total revolution, of a new, vital spirit against a dead spirit, the more violent became the hate propaganda directed against Europe. By 1938, this propaganda had reached an intensity, both in volume and in emotional frenzy, that could not be surpassed. Ceaselessly the American was bombarded with the message that Europe was attacking everything worthwhile in the world, “God,” “religion,” “democracy,” “freedom,” “peace,” “America.”
by Gaedhal
I get the ‘Hell Planet’ idea from Dr. Robert Morgan who is an explicit atheist and an explicit determinist and an explicit ‘eliminative materialist’. I on the other hand am a bit more of a Sheldrakean, on these points. Morgan has read Sheldrake and rejects him, which is his right so to do. He has also read the antinatalist pessimist atheists Benatar and Schoppenhauer more in-depthly than I have.
Pine Creek Doug once was asked that if an asteroid were inbound that would destroy the Earth, and if he could press a button to restart abiogenesis and evolution on another planet he would do so. He initially said: ‘yes’ but then said ‘no’. I would say ‘yes’… However, in so doing, I will be fully cognizant of my calling into being all manner of evils: plagues, famines, paedophilia etc.
However, I would hope, that at the end of it all, intelligent sentient beings might find a way to solve the problem of evil. Instead of antinatalism, solving the problem of evil is a better use of our time because, for all we know, the Cosmos might call forth the phenomenon of life somewhere else. Antinatalism doesn’t actually solve the problem of evil. It just turns this small corner of the Cosmos into a sterile place devoid of life. Benatar wants eventually for mankind to nuke itself out of existence. I hope that I am not misrepresenting his position. Type in ‘Alex O Connor / antinatalism’ into YouTube for a discussion between Benatar and O Connor. I would link to it but I don’t want to. Antinatalism terrifies me. I want to give it a wide berth.
I am not a classically theistic God, which is why it is okay for me to press the abiogenesis button on an Earth 2 somewhere in the Cosmos.
However, as Dr. Robert Morgan correctly points out: a classically theistic God who would use evolution to bring about life would be a sadist. Robert Morgan links people to videos of animals being eaten alive. This truly is a Hell Planet, and if a classically theistic God created it then He is evil by our reckoning; he is a sadist and a voyeur by our reckoning. With the misotheists, we should hate such a God.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note:
Sharp theological thoughts by Gaedhal! Regarding what he says, ‘Instead of antinatalism, solving the problem of evil is a better use of our time…’, I can’t help but remember how my religion of the four words, that dovetails perfectly with Hitler’s panentheism, is the solution to the problem of evil.
These days, as I said, I have been very lightly revising my Daybreak Press books to publish them as PDFs. But I will make an exception for most of what I have written in my mother tongue. For that, it will be necessary to obtain the printed volumes (fortunately they have not been censored, and I plan to translate them into English). It is the only way to understand how, in the end, we plan to solve the problem of evil, at least on Earth.
‘However, in so doing, I will be fully cognizant of my calling into being all manner of evils… I would hope, that at the end of it all, intelligent sentient beings might find a way to solve the problem of evil’, said Gaedhal above. I would add that, if there is one word that defines my religion, it is exterminationism but obviously we do not mean all creatures on Earth. Hence I prefer the term ‘panentheism’ to the term ‘pantheism’ that Weikart used in his books on Hitler.
Gaedhal now changes the subject to more mundane matters:
______ 卐 ______
Jordan Peterson is a peculiar fellow. He is too intelligent to believe in the supernatural claims of Christianity himself; however it is extremely lucrative for him to give the impression that one day he might very well get down on his knees and start pleasing Jesus.
The Bible, which is, as Hector Avalos puts it, an outmoded obsolete worthless document, Peterson constantly pours praise on. I am sure that Peterson is intelligent enough to privately concur with Avalos in his heart as to the utter worthlessness of the Bible. However, heaping laud upon this outmoded and obsolete compendium of tawdry superstition is extremely lucrative. Peterson cynically praises the Bible for shekels. Sam Harris called Peterson out on this in one of his debates with him. What Peterson does for money Trump, Nixon and Reagan—crypto-atheists in my view—do for political power.
This is what makes Christianity so dangerous. Christians are self-avowed ‘fools for Christ’s sake’—and fools and their money are easily parted as Peterson has found out, to his profit. Christians are a self-avowed flock of sheep that cynical demagogues can easily stampede in whatever political direction they want their herd of voters to be stampeded into.
If you believe in democracy—and I don’t—then democracy cannot function properly when you have such a stupefying religion as Christianity poisoning and warping the minds of the electorate.
Categories
Franco, 2
The Spanish Republic was supported by a revolutionary ideology heading towards communism, and during that revolutionary phase the Catholic Church suffered great persecution by the Republic. This prompted the Vatican to make the first timid attempts to break the isolation to which Franco’s Spain had been subjected in the post-war period at the same time as the beginning of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union began to be perceived as the new enemy of the United States. But that was until 1953 because the Falange was anti-clerical, and the Vatican wanted nothing to do with anything that smacked of fascism. Only with Spain’s rapprochement with the United States could we say that Franco had won the war, as his country was thus able to emerge from the isolationist purgatory to which Spain had been subjected in the immediate post-war years.
The consolidation of Francoist Spain in the 1950s must be seen in this light: Franco was never an original ideologue. He never wrote a Mein Kampf. He was first and foremost a soldier, and wanted to organise Spain as if it were military barracks. That is why when he died there was no more Francoism. (Compare it with National Socialism. Despite all the propaganda bullshit that the White traitors and the Jews have been throwing at it, the National Socialist idea still lives on in the hearts of dissidents.)
The degeneration of Spain after the death of the caudillo wouldn’t have happened if the Falange, the single party, had been able to re-educate the young Spaniards with its fascist ideology. But in the late 1950s the Falange lost the internal struggle and the technocrats of Opus Dei gained influence. If Franco had respected the 1956 Falange initiative on who would succeed him after his death, instead of passing the mantle to Prince Juan Carlos, Spain wouldn’t have deteriorated so rapidly after 1975.
Franco’s decision to appoint Juan Carlos as his successor came as a bucket of cold water to the Falangists in 1969. But the real war had already been lost since 1945. Without the world Hitler and Mussolini dreamed of, young Spaniards were beginning to Americanise and Sovietise even while the Generalissimo was still alive. By the end of the 1960s, a university survey showed that more than 70 per cent of students were influenced by philo-Marxist or Christian democratic values, and only 10 per cent embraced the ideals of Francoism. These young people knew nothing of the trauma of the civil war. The American and Western European lifestyle had already seduced them through the great tourism that Spain enjoyed, as well as the degenerate music that tourists brought with them, such as rock music, not to mention the sexual liberation of the late 1960s.
Once crowned, Juan Carlos I of Spain handed over power to parliamentary democracy instead of exercising it as king. He is remembered for this role during the Spanish transition. A 1981 coup attempt failed and Juan Carlos supported the European Union and NATO (the aim of the failed coup was to bring back a Francoist regime in Spain by a group of civil guards). Juan Carlos must be remembered as one of those responsible for the implementation of the immigration laws that opened Spain’s borders to mass immigration. He can be considered an accomplice to the genocide of Iberian whites in Spain.
As in the rest of the western world, in the end the bad guys in our film prevailed. The moral of this story is that only the implementation of National Socialism, in all its purity, could save the Aryan: something the racial right in America is in no way trying to do, at least in an academic way at the moment (as I do in The West’s Darkest Hour).