Click here
Categories
Category: Eduardo Velasco
Categories
Backup of Evropa Soberana
It seems like December last year, about a year ago, when Blogger cancelled the account of the Spaniard who used to blog under the pen name Evropa Soberana.
The previous month I had an article published in The Occidental Observer about a Spanish-speaking intellectual of Jewish descent whose work has had considerable influence in Mexico and Spain. It upsets me that this writer is currently travelling to several Spanish-speaking countries to promote his latest book, and that the most valuable writings in Spanish from the pen of a Spaniard have been vaporised by the System!
Fortunately, I have long since made a backup of Evropa Soberana’s site, and every Sunday I will upload to this site a PDF of each of his articles, starting with this PDF of what the site’s homepage looked like before his account was cancelled.
As my regular visitors know, a few years ago one of Evropa Soberana’s essays represented a sort of eureka moment in my spiritual development. Reading it, I realised that the Christian problem and the Jewish problem are one and the same (something Nietzsche had already glimpsed since the 1880s). Not only does that long essay appear in the first of our books that can be accessed in the Featured Post; it has also been translated into French (click here).
Given that, after a year, Evropa Soberana has not re-uploaded the content of his site using another platform, nor has he answered my emails since 2018, I fear the worst. Of course: I cannot know, but if a sudden death has surprised him, I would suggest that visitors who value The West’s Darkest Hour content not only save the PDFs of the Evropa Soberana backup that I will be uploading every Sunday, but the PDFs of our books that can be accessed in the Featured Post (remember, this Friday I added the revised edition of Christianity’s Criminal History authored by a German scholar). While I am healthy at the moment, an unexpected death can surprise anyone. Only by saving the most valuable content on our hard drives and DVDs will we have the elements to survive intellectually if the System decides, in the future, to cancel all our platforms.
By the way, the day before yesterday I wanted to change the Daybreak image that was the emblem of this new incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour for another image by the same artist, Maxfield Parrish. The idea was to put up all the Parrish paintings I know of, changing them every Sunday so that you wouldn’t always see the monotony of the same image.
But the WordPress software got stuck and no longer allows me to upload images to the main page. And as I never edit the code directly, I couldn’t fix it. But it doesn’t matter: I moved Daybreak to the Featured Post and it will stay there.
I’ve been disgusted by what the racial right has been saying about Kanye ‘Ye’ West these days, after his pro-Hitler pronouncements. Interestingly, Greg Johnson has said kind things about Ye, which prompted me to comment on his forum yesterday. But many so-called racists, by which I mean commenters on forums like The Unz Review and others, are throwing dirt on Hitler’s memory because of Ye’s comments.
These people just don’t get it. If there is one thing I like about Evropa Soberana, it is that he admired the Third Reich’s transvaluation of values. Soberana was able to get to the other side of what we have been calling the psychological Rubicon because he had already rejected Christian ethics. As I told Johnson, the Christian Matt Walsh was one of those who joined the chorus in defaming for the Nth time the memory of the Führer in a way that seems indistinguishable from the pronouncements of the ADL or the SPLC.
It disgusts me that a large percentage of commentators on the new right feel such hostility towards the most admirable man History has ever produced. Such a disgusting situation motivates me that the next book to be in the Featured Post is Savitri Devi’s Souvenirs et Réflexions d’une Aryenne: most of whose chapters we have already translated from French. This is the best of her books as far as an introduction to Savitri’s thought is concerned: the greatest European admirer of Hitler after 1945.
If anyone wishes to face a very different pro-white thinking from that of many anti-Nazi commentators on the new right, you can use one of the online translators to start reading the articles of Evropa Soberana, another European, that I will be uploading from next Sunday onwards. The litmus test for he who has crossed the Rubicon is not, as many of these imbecile commenters say, to believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The real test is to admire Hitler—the real Hitler, not the Hitler of the allied propaganda that subsists in the minds of the so-called new right.
When I finish proofreading Savitri’s book, I will resume the new translation of the Führer’s after-dinner talks. Only then will I be able to shake off some of the crap I have recently read in the English-speaking world about Hitler.
Categories
David Skrbina’s book
David Skrbina published his book The Jesus Hoax in 2019. Evropa Soberana re-published Rome v. Judea; Judea v. Rome in 2013 (it seems that his previous site, where he first published it, was suspended). The similarities between the two books are striking (remember that Soberana’s is the most recommended essay in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour), although Soberana wrote his book in Spanish and Skrbina in English.
In a new series I’ll quote some passages from Skrbina’s The Jesus Hoax. What struck me most about this book, published in Detroit by Creative Fire Press, is that Skrbina quotes Hitler favourably and accuses first-century Jews of mythmakers! Except for the book by Soberana that we translated for The Fair Race, I was unaware of any other recent attempt to blame the Jewish authors of the New Testament (NT) for the brainwashing that their work represented for the West.
Recall that Soberana’s site was cancelled by Blogger last December. I don’t know if this Spaniard died because I haven’t received a reply since that month, when I sent him an email. Be that as it may, I saved his posts and will be uploading PDFs of them, in the original language in which they were written, once a year has passed since the site ‘Evropa Soberana’ was cancelled.
But not even this Spaniard was the first to discover that the gospel message was a psyop of Jewry to corrupt the Greco-Roman world. The first to say so in the modern world was Nietzsche, whom both Soberana and Skrbina quote (we ignore whether Celsus or Porphyry also said so because Constantine had their books burned).
While I agree with both of them that the NT has been a psyop to tame us, I disagree with both of them on the existence of Jesus. Until November 2018 (I was very influenced by NT scholar Morton Smith) I believed there was a historical Jesus if only we ignore the miracles the evangelists tell us about. I had to make an effort to digest Richard Carrier’s work to realise that even that human Jesus didn’t exist (watch this lecture by Carrier, though I studied his thick treatise on the non-existence of Jesus).
The issue is important because, as we saw in my Daybreak’s featured essay, it is not the same thing for a human Jesus to have existed as for the tale about his life to have been a hundred per cent the literary fiction of the Jew Mark, who was extremely pissed off about the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Romans.
The other big difference between me and Skrbina is that, since now I don’t believe Jesus existed, I give more weight to the one who penned the elaborate tale—Mark the evangelist—than to St Paul. While potentially subversive, Paul’s theology, the first Christian author, is too esoteric and only the literary genius of Mark could paint for us a flesh-and-blood Jesus who spoke in parables and sat down to eat with publicans and sinners. Paul’s cryptic theology wouldn’t have conquered the white man’s soul unless it was transformed into an entertaining story, which is what the first evangelist did (the Jews Matthew and Luke only added verses of their own inventiveness to Mark’s original gospel).
I also disagree with Skrbina in that, unlike Nietzsche and Soberana, he doesn’t seem to realise that the egalitarian and pro-poor ideas of the NT were poison to the ancient Romans. Although Skrbina is white he doesn’t seem to be a racialist, and has barely glimpsed what his predecessors, Nietzsche and Soberana, saw more clearly.
But as I said, I am impressed that someone has published a book whose thesis is analogous to Soberana’s, which I have called the ‘masthead’ of The West’s Darkest Hour. Next week I’ll start posting excerpts from The Jesus Hoax.
Categories
Embryonic idea
How did Christianity become liberalism? At the core of liberal thought we encounter individualism, egalitarianism and universalism. When European civilisation reached its peak before the decline of ancient Greece and Rome—think of the paradigms of Sparta and Republican Rome—values were not individualistic but social; not egalitarian but aristocratic, not universalistic but ethnocentric.
Christianity transvalued such values. By introducing spiritual terror with the doctrine of eternal damnation, it inverted social values into individualistic values (as it obsessed us in medieval times with the idea of personal salvation). Through the catholicism of the Church of Rome (‘catholic’ means ‘universal’), Christianity broke down ethnic barriers to the extent of turning the so-called Second Rome, Constantinople, into a hodgepodge of ethnicities very similar to what the globalists are trying to do today in the West.
When I was a teenager and read Nietzsche for the first time (Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist by the way), I didn’t understand why Nietzsche would put a constellation of notable, more or less secular people, side by side with Christians and fulminate them all equally. It took me decades to come across the reason for all this in a text we christened here ‘The Red Giant’, to the effect that Christianity is in its most destructive phase, the secular phase, after burning its religious phase. But it was only by studying Evropa Soberana’s article on the wars between Judea and Rome that I connected the dots between the JQ and the CQ.
Both the red giant essay and Evropa Soberana’s essay were written for the internet. In the wake of last month’s accident, I recently said that I shuddered that a website could be so fragile. Now that Blogger has taken down Evropa Soberana’s site since last year, I am more aware than ever that these post-Nietzschean ideas are more fragile than I thought. Given that the Spanish author who blogged under the pen name Evropa Soberana has not uploaded his site since it was taken down (as I did after WordPress took mine down last month), I have come to think that, perhaps, this Spaniard has died.
People who are perfectly aware of the Christian question could be counted on the fingers of one hand. The CQ, as the ultimate diagnosis of white man’s disease, is for the moment an embryonic idea. None of us is wealthy enough to set up a publishing house to guard these ideas for posterity precisely because it is an embryonic idea of which Nietzsche was its precursor. My only hope is that death doesn’t surprise me and I can continue blogging for another two or three decades…
As I have said countless times, I have called the translation of a Spaniard’s essay on Judea and Rome the ‘masthead’ of this site, in the sense that it is a sort of combination of NS and Nietzsche’s thought (something the Nazis never dared to do openly).
Not only that, The Fair Race (see sidebar), which is a sort of extensive manifesto for the Aryan to wake up, contains other fundamental essays from Evropa Soberana such as the essay on Sparta and a new racial classification.
But Blogger has taken down his site!
Fortunately, I saved all his articles on a DVD. Yesterday I sent an email to the Spaniard we call here Evropa Soberana, but have had no reply.
I hope his site will be restored elsewhere.
New visitors to The West’s Darkest Hour who haven’t read his ‘Rome v. Judea; Judea v. Rome’—our masthead—should do so now.
Categories
Basic intro to eugenics
Without my editorial note, I’ll probably add Evropa Soberana’s ‘Introduction to eugenics’ as second essay in the 2020 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. Some would say that the essay is for normies, but then why folks in the Alt-Right have produced babies with non-Aryan Caucasoids (just compare the nymphs on the pic with Richard Spencer’s former wife)?
Categories
Introduction to eugenics
by Evropa Soberana
‘All people can be Gods people now through the New Covenant… all peoples have a right to exist and continue to exist, but no race is superior in the sight of God. Each people has been given specific attributes and responsibilities but to God every soul is valuable’ —Matt Heimbach.
Editor’s Note: Is race a social construct? This is what liberals believe—and apparently Christian white nationalists like Heimbach believe that, for God, race is a mere human construct. (No wonder why people say that liberalism is the bastard son of Christianity…)
Below, my abbreviated translation of ‘Intro a la eugenesia’, published six years ago by the Spaniard blogger Evropa Soberana:
______ 卐 ______
It is undeniable that in the species and in any human group there are diversity of qualities.
Some individuals are intelligent and others are stupid; even there are morons. Some individuals have health of steel and others are sickly. Some individuals are tall, others are short. Some individuals are strong, others are weak. Some individuals are brave, others are cowards. Some individuals are disciplined and hardworking, others are lazy and slothful. Some individuals are honest, noble, righteous and loyal, others have a clear inclination towards lying, falsehood, disloyalty and betrayal.
It is also undeniable that almost all these qualities are hereditary and depend on genetics to a greater or lesser extent (usually more greater than lesser).
The question that arises is: what qualities, from those listed above, seem more desirable to us and which ones would we like they end up prevailing in the future world if we want the Earth to be a better place?
If you are a logical person I address the following question: in the path that, as a species, we have been going through the last millennia, what qualities, of those listed above, tend to be selected?
The current mentality, produced by a civilisation isolated in its technological bubble, ignores a hundred percent the laws of Nature, of blood, of selection and of the inequality of men; laws that, necessarily, place the best ones above and the worst ones below. The modern world is, then, the perfect example of a diabolical selection in reverse, or dysgenics. Many people of inferior genetics have been perpetuated, and many people of superior genetics have not done so (for example, in medieval times because of fratricidal wars, witch hunts and celibacy of very large social sectors at the hands of the Church). That hurts the race. When the number of biological waste increases and that of bodily monuments to the gods decreases, we can be sure without any doubt that we are moving towards a future of biological trash.
Today, the individual is sacred and untouchable, while concepts such as ‘race’ and ‘homeland’ are considered abstractions, when the only abstraction is the individual who is born and dies fleetingly and while only human groups are solid and lasting realities.
In harder and more authentic times, the birth rate was vigorous, but the harshness of environmental conditions cut off the lives of the weakest. Thus, in a family of ten children, it was possible that they reached reproductive age only five. Each of these five would have, in turn, ten children, of which five would survive, the fittest. The result was that, in several generations, the defectives were virtually eradicated and the only ones left standing were the fittest. Thus, fighting against the elements, in wars, epidemics and catastrophes, the population of the planet remained stable but, nevertheless, as a species, we tended to improve generation after generation. Each ‘litter’ tended to be better than the previous one.
Humanity was not spiritually prepared for the advent of the modern industrial revolution, technology and health services. Obviously, the technology turned out to be in many ways salvation for Man, but he forgot to foresee that the immense population growth that would inevitably take place would have to be compensated in other ways. Instead of foreseeing measures that would continue to maintain a selection of the best ones to regulate the population, the uncontrolled proliferation of human beings was allowed, at the expense of Nature and of the biological quality of the population.
Ever since health services, technology, social services and Judeo-Christian morality have spread freely, a whole legion of sick, decrepit, retarded and handicapped people invade the horizon of the species that in a world dominated by Nature would never have seen the light, or they would have lasted a short time. We, who have the technique and the means to quickly and painlessly do what Nature usually does slowly and painfully, are propagating and perpetuating the inferior seeds.
It is argued that technology in itself is not good or bad, but depends on the use that is given. Today, it is being used diabolically, oriented to make us sick, to weaken us and to get away from the Earth and our own nature. In the future, when the imbecility of this civilisation has been overcome, the application of technology must take a 180-degree turn.
But then there would be a selection: we would choose the types to prevail, we would discriminate, and that is unfair (for me, of course: because I want to perpetuate my genes, and with them, the associated declines)!
It will be unfair to you, but it is fair to the race, which is more important than you. On the other hand, it is unfair for the species that your hereditary rubbish spread like the plague, no matter how much that offends you.
And yes: it sounds to me like selection. It’s like in the exams. He who gets more than a 5, approves, and he who gets 5 or less stays out… a ‘selection’ in full rule. How monstrously unfair! What ominous discrimination towards those who did not pass! How politically incorrect!
Just like those places where they do not let you pass if you do not wear shoes, or if you wear piggy pints, or if you don’t go with female company, or if you dislike the Romanian gatekeeper.
Or those expensive restaurants where you cannot go if you’re not with tie and well dressed. Or those clubs where they only accept Latin bitches. Or those 5-star hotels where if you lack dosh to pay for a suite they don’t accommodate you. Or those bars where they would crush you if you say, ‘Long Live Spain!’
This is discrimination and pure and hard selection, which surrounds us 24 hours a day, and always in much more unjust and unnatural ways than genetic discrimination.
But then a caste system would be formed and the equality would be destroyed!
Yes, but don’t we have a ‘caste system’ today? Is not that capitalist caste system based on money? Doesn’t that destroy the sacrosanct ‘equality’? Is such an economic criterion of social stratification not infinitely lower, unnatural, unjust and petty than the genetic one? Don’t it tend to enthrone mediocre, vile and malicious individuals?
Nowadays, one can be clown, brat, son of a bitch, depraved, pervert, false, traitor, snake, unfriendly, repellent, drug addict and stupid: but they will open the doors wherever he goes and will bow if he is rotten with money and makes ostentation of it visible.
Likewise, one can be an intelligent, good, healthy, brave, strong and friendly chap that the System will overlook if he is poor.
Today, a chick is ‘good’ if she has a neckline, thong, miniskirt and shows off her body, even if mediocre, while a beautiful gal is not stunning if she goes in tracksuit and shirt. Is not that tremendously unfair?
So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of wiping out all that and selecting the best individuals or genes for higher breeding?
But then we would operate modifications on the individual and force changes in the whole society!
So good! You have a son. Don’t you teach him to behave so that he is more presentable? Don’t you wash him and comb him so he looks better? Won’t you give him a better education to make him wiser? Isn’t that ‘operating modifications’?
Don’t we have a ridiculous and pathetic educational system, as well as a monstrous subliminal propaganda apparatus that ‘forces change’ throughout society, even in public opinion? Are not those changes, by the way, worse?
So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of operating modifications for the better?
But then we would all end up being tall, handsome, blond, strong, gifted, indestructible, immortal, perfect and blue-eyed!
And what’s wrong with that?
Let’s see… taking the genetic range of yours and your partner, they give you to choose how you want your future child to be. How would you ‘ask’ him?
Short, maybe? Dummy? Black, no doubt? Something ugly, perhaps…?
Wouldn’t you ‘ask’ for the best range within your gene pool and that of your partner?
Oh, I don’t care how he looks like, and I’ll love him anyway.
I’m proud of you. Look, I’m going to shed a little tear with so much solidarity, so much progressivism, so much equality, so much tolerance and so many rainbows. But tell me: If the look doesn’t matter, then why the hell do you dye your hair or blow it?
Why do you brush or shave? Being a man, wouldn’t you ignore an ugly gal, fat and with a goatee? Why do you buy clothes designed to enhance your virtues and hide your shortcomings? Why do you make up? Why do you wear heels? Silicone? Implants? Operation of breast augmentation? Rhinoplasty? Lifting? Skin creams? Several liposuctions? Insulin for diabetes? Extirpation of the appendix? Gadgets for asthma? Barbiturates? Sleeping pills? Glasses or contact lenses? Anabolics?
Why, in short, do you try to pretend? Isn’t it because you are aware that this is a treasure? And isn’t all that a thousand times more unnatural than being born with privileged genes?
The problem is that people work on the phenotype, disguising their defects with money, paints, patches, amendments, accessories and harmful chemicals (and expensive, which is a lucrative and convenient business for the System). Perhaps, O hypocrites, wouldn’t you kill for good genetics, for health of steel, for beauty of birth and for not needing all those ridiculous complements to disguise your superficial miseries?
Don’t you spend (you and the State) bunch of monies in such patches and globs to hide your defects and your diseases, cash that could be saved if such defects were eradicated by tuning up certain genes harmlessly? Doesn’t all the waste of keeping the retarded, terminally ill, be cut off in a single generation with a little common sense, for God’s sake?
Oh, I wouldn’t choose the looks of my son, I’d just let him be born without messing with his genes.
Once again I’m shedding a tear. Sniff.
But when you see that all your little friends go through life begetting beautiful super-babes, healthy, responsible, intelligent, strong, loving, I have the vague feeling that you don’t want to stay behind, be the less coolest mother and condemn you to have to listen to your asthmatic, diabetic or simply mediocre child, without asking yourself how you were such a scumbag as not to give him a better birth having the means to do so.
But then babies born through genetic engineering will be unnatural beings!
Those babies wouldn’t be any more unnatural than a bourgeois obese with toad face; drinker, sedentary, dressed up to the neck and spending five hours a day on TV, or taking his BMW even to go shit.
Nor would it be more unnatural than a 50-year-old fat woman, unlookable, ramshackled, wrinkled, materialistic, smoker, varicosed, sterile, without children—but yes: a progressive, activist, sponsor of children of alien races in foreign countries, with her hair dyed blond, with lots of make up, with a purse, talking on her cell phone and stuffed with gelatinous muffin tops and flabs that none wants to see.
And, of course, they won’t be more unnatural than the troop of the sick, deviant, criminals, whores, parasites, inverted and degenerates who parade through our civilisation and to whom, on the other hand, no one deprived of their right to be born.
You yourself, don’t you take the bus or go by car? Don’t you get into noisy bars to get drunk and distract your will? Don’t you have sex with a condom or with an anti-baby device? Don’t you watch TV? Isn’t all that also ‘unnatural’? So what are you telling me, fucking piece of plastic with legs? I will accept the word ‘unnatural’ as valid only and exclusively if they come from the mouth of someone like Tarzan or Mowgli.
Why, then, almost perfect children, born out of the cross-breeding of the best of the species, should be unnatural and abominable beings? Couldn’t they be ordinary people, and have the same privileges as, for example, a homosexual mestizo, obese, diabetic, squatter and carrier of various venereal diseases?
Well, that seems discrimination to me. Who decides who is perfect? Isn’t that playing to be God?
Maybe it is playing God, but since no one is going to come down from heaven to give us instructions, and since we are not going to sit and watch the species degenerate until we become sickly Tinkiwinkies fused with TV, the bag and the car at the same time, someone with judgment has to fill that void.
Bearing in mind, moreover, that the species is on the verge of catastrophe we must favour an exacerbately high birth rate among the best specimens, and prevent the worst from multiplying. Modern Western civilisation is the only civilisation in the history of humanity that does not conceive of sex, marriage, family and birth-rate as biological weapons destined to propitiate ‘the victory of the cradles’—without which ‘the victory of the soldier’ is incomplete.
It will be necessary to cross-breed keeping in mind the selection of qualities such as Nordic blood, good constitution, intelligence, strength, stature, courage, leadership ability, health, resistance, discipline and a very long etcetera, which are the qualities selected by Nature itself when the suicidal and insane Judeo-Christian morality does not interpose between Her and man. It would not be necessary to ‘force’ things in this sense (‘you two are good specimens, let’s mate’), but to encourage their desire to emerge naturally and spontaneously.
If this type of policy was supported by the techniques and means that exist today, we would have, in a matter of generations, an almost perfect race, and all the defects—together with the expenses and miseries they cause—eradicated forever.
‘Good’ is everything that improves the race; ‘bad’ is everything that makes the race worse.
From this point of view, it could be necessary to resort to artificial methods (genetic engineering, state intervention, selective crossings) to correct the indescribable nonsense caused by 2000 years of artificial dementia.
Your urban brothel lifestyle, contaminated, uprooted, unhealthy, asphalted, greasy, degenerated, drunk and immoral harm the species and that is unnatural.
Your compassion and diligence towards junkies, the defective, retarded, homosexual, dirty, delinquent, sickly, parasites and judicially sentenced is something that harms the species and that is unnatural.
Your social-economic selection is something that harms the species, that makes it worse and tends to form a type of inferior man, in addition to being a thousand times more immoral than natural-genetic selection.
Your castration of the instinct of aggressiveness is something that worsens the species and leaves us unarmed before more brutal humanities.
Genetic selection, good birth and the selective matching of the best individuals are things that benefit the race and tend to form a type of superior man. Therefore they are good and desirable in themselves.
Conclusion: as long as an intervention in human reproduction is not a reality, mate only with individuals of similar genetic and racial quality of you. Guide yourself through the traits of the body, the soul, health and the tone of skin, eyes and hair.
Categories
On the One Ring (2 of 2)
Note of the Editor: For the first installment of this essay see: here.
Of the dozens of quotes against civilisation in Evropa Soberana’s collection, I will only quote two of them. Since the collection has been done in Spanish, I don’t have the time to search in proper publications the English translations of the bulk of Soberana’s quotations. The two reproduced quotes are enough to convey why the present generation of whites is the worst since prehistory.
Compared to the Aryans of yore, Nietzsche’s quotation reminds me how tamed so-called white nationalists are, internalising Yahweh’s indictment against civilisation in the sense that like the normies, white nationalists are also behaving ‘like lambs to the slaughter’. (One example of such sacrificial lamb is a John Henry Eden who tried today to post a comment on ‘WN is a Club for Women’ that I did not let pass: ‘I’m not an intellectual, nor do I pose as one in comment sections, but The Turner Diaries is the biggest load of hooey I’ve ever read’.)
These are the two quotes that appear as epigraphs in Soberana’s essay:
______ 卐 ______
Babylon was a gold cup in the Lord’s hand;
she made the whole earth drunk.
The nations drank her wine;
therefore they have now gone mad.
I will dry up her sea
and make her springs dry.
Babylon will be a heap of ruins,
a haunt of jackals,
an object of horror and scorn,
a place where no one lives.
But while they are aroused,
I will set out a feast for them
and make them drunk,
so that they shout with laughter—
then sleep forever and not awake,
declares the Lord.
I will bring them down
like lambs to the slaughter,
like rams and goats.
—Jeremiah
To call the taming of an animal its ‘improvement’ sounds almost like a joke to our ears. Whoever knows what goes on in menageries doubts that the beasts are ‘improved’ there.
—Nietzsche
Categories
On the One Ring (1 of 2)
It is not gold all that shines.
The ‘indefinite progress’ is an idea of illuminist origin, which was born in the Near East with the same civilisation and theoretical-rational legitimacy as it was sought during the French enlightenment of the 18th century. It is based on the notion that human beings come from a sick, dirty, ignorant and primitive past, and that little by little they move towards a healthy, clean, cultured and ‘advanced’ future. Archaeology suggests rather the opposite, namely: that civilisation has caused the fall of the human being from the state of grace, making him sick. The idea of religious traditions was similar: there was an Edenic ‘golden age’ (Satya or Kritta Yuga for the Hindus) in which the human being was more perfect, and after which a trauma caused human degeneration and the appearance of misery and disease, culminating in the Iron Age (Kali Yuga for Hindus). Despite this, the industrial spiral in which we are immersed continues to propagate that infinite economic growth is viable, that the Tower of Babel can rise indefinitely, that things are going better and, in short, that the human being ‘has improved’.
Throughout its evolutionary history, man ascended the food pyramid from the archaic frugivorous apes, becoming an increasingly effective predator and crowning the peak when, after the carnivorous revolution, he ceased to be the victim of other predators. However, with the end of the ice age and the advent of the Neolithic Revolution, man and the planet fell under a new form of predation: technology and parasitism of the Earth—two new factors that violated a hitherto harmonious holistic equation, and that forever upset the ecological balance of the planet and the biodiversity and genetic quality of the species.
The human being, or rather, a type of uprooted human, alienated, mixed and confused, believed that the reason for his discomfort and his fear was that the natural order was poorly designed. The glacial cold penetrates to the marrow, oppresses the heart, demoralises the timorous and does not allow thinking about anything else. The elements and vegetation whip and scratch the skin. The ground abuses the feet. The daily sustenance is only gained with atrocious sacrifice and bloodshed. Women, monopolised by the best hunters and warriors, are hard to come by. Every minute of life is a minute torn from death by struggling against the environment and against oneself. And to top it off, in every corner lurk the jaws of a predator or the sharp flint tips of an enemy tribe that has no qualms about cheerfully devouring whatever miserable falls into their hands. As for the tribe itself, it is a forceful, ruthless, cold and severe organism. It is not a mother in whose tender lap we cry for consolation and charity, but a strict father who imposes obedience, who rejoices with sacrifice and who does not forgive error. As military commanders, the wise elders marginalise the weak of the reproductive life, reward only good hunters and fighters, demand absolute loyalty and devotion and do not hesitate to let the less valuable elements of the community die for the good of the clan. Like it or not, these are the factors that made us rise above the ape-man and who wrote our genome as a novel with letters of ice, stone, blood, semen, flesh and sweat.
‘Evolve or die’, said the world at that time. But that law can be very hard for the victims of the voracious evolutionary machinery: to live like cannon fodder of natural selection is not life. Therefore, it is necessary to question this horrible state of affairs, redesign everything from scratch, reorganise the work of the gods—since they have not been able to organise it to the taste of man—flee from suffering and erect a messianic ‘new order’. The moral of the slave is born. A system (civilisation) must be built within the System (Nature), in which the daily sustenance does not involve so much effort and in which the search for pleasure and comfort prevails over the alchemical virtues of asceticism, sacrifice and willpower. The competitiveness must be attenuated and the ferocity of the predator must be softened to make it fit into the new pseudo-matriarchal social mould. To achieve such a goal, people of diverse backgrounds must be recruited, willing to work for a new common good—by persuasion or by force—and abolish their baggage of ancestral traditions and identity. Where previously there were only the professions of mother, hunter, warrior, fisherman, harvester and shaman, now there will be completely new occupations (potter, farmer, shepherd, merchant, prostitute, priest, miner, servant, slave) that will hierarchise society based to criteria that have nothing to do with the quality of genes. A weak and cowardly man can now be valuable if he is dedicated to moving objects along commercial routes. A promiscuous woman, once cursed by the tribe, can now sell her body. The nascent society must be a mass entity in which the strong pull the car, towing the weak with the sweat of his forehead. The brave ones die in the war while the cowards multiply in the rear. They do not need to hunt anymore; bread replaces meat and wine the blood. There is only one universal god: that of civilisation. All other gods are abominations. Those who belong to this kind of sect are the chosen ones. Those who do not belong to it are the pagans, the barbarians, the profane, the violent: the blind, savage and impure human mass that lives in darkness and that must be enslaved and integrated into the system so that the elect can live without working. This linear, rational and logical thought must grow monstrous until annulling the symbolic and instinctive thought. Civilisation will eventually dominate Nature, deciphering all its secrets, dissecting it and finally subduing it, phagocytizing and domesticating it completely, so that nothing escapes human control and for the system to be predictable, mechanical and mathematical.
This philosophy had to take root very early in the Near East and affected many peoples, among them the Jew—who is currently the human group that has lived the longest under civilised conditions. The Old Testament is dotted with testimonies about the dawn of civilisation, collected throughout the Fertile Crescent, from the Sumerian city of Ur to the Egyptian of Memphis.
It is much studied by eugenics that civilised social environments that preserve the lives of weak and stupid will be unable to perpetuate their ancestry. By throwing the strong and intelligent into fratricidal struggles or aberrant occupations that undermine their fertility rate, this irreparably causes the degradation of the genetic code of the human being. Nature has very twisted ways of taking revenge on those who turn their backs on it or pretend to dominate it. The fossil record shows that once man stopped hunting and embraced agriculture, he paid for it with a tremendous decline in his health and biological quality, as we saw in the article on the Neolithic Revolution.
Currently, the increasing proliferation of degenerative diseases, allergies and mental disorders (‘The investigation of diseases has advanced so much that it is increasingly difficult to find someone who is completely healthy’, said Huxley) is a clear signal that we have not been dominating Nature, but it continues to dominate us as always, only this time it attacks us, because we are not obeying it. Disease and degeneration are Nature’s ways of protesting and making us see that we are not exercising our human functions, that we ignore reproductive wisdom and that we are breathing, drinking and eating things we should not. If civilisation is like a snake that bites its tail, it is because it is the result of genetic quality and depends on it, but like a curse, it turns against the same substance that feeds it, closing the circle of its own perdition. This biological boomerang effect is the true reason why all civilisations collapse sooner or later, and raises a logical and disturbing question: if the next human civilisation will be global, what will come next?
Civilised man has not experienced the hardness of the real world in his flesh nor has he ever adapted to Nature. On the contrary: his actions are aimed at adapting Nature to him, even if by hammering. Therefore, he tends to have a big ego and a small spirit, and considers that he is the peak of evolution. This new artificial creature, this new domestic animal that is the modern human, for its isolation in the bubble of ‘well-being’, ignores the humility before the Creation, and is therefore the only way of life on the planet capable of deviating from natural laws, reverse the correct order and incur in the sin of rising against the work of the gods. To this sacrilegious and self-destructive pride, the Greeks called hubris or hybris. [1] It is the reason why, despite the fact that civilisation has been totally, absolutely and indisputably catastrophic from a strictly evolutionary, biological, spiritual and environmental point of view, man has become a ‘satisfied gentleman’ of his work.
Is civilisation a war to the death against biology and, therefore, a revolt against life, by the sickly, malignant and antithetical forces of the world, those who are resentful of suffering? Is man running the risk of becoming a slave to his own creation, in a simple productive factor, a number, a statistic? Have we created a system with a life of its own that has subordinated our good to yours? Is technology dehumanising and mechanising the species, exterminating its biodiversity, causing its involution and taking its domestication to chilling levels? Is modern society an immense concentration camp, a mass zoo in whose cages languish, domesticated and castrated, the degenerate mutant descendants of the free man and hunter? What kind of natural selection are we promoting? What human type is most favoured by ‘progress’? What will man become the day he has definitively lost his adaptation to Nature and instead is fully adapted to the industrial, commercial and technological world? Has the human species arrived at senility? Do we suffer from Alzheimer’s? Is the modern world in general and Western Civilisation in particular self-destructing? Is civilisation still that jealous Eastern sect that demands the submission of life and that to achieve that, like every sect, it removes the individual from its ancestral framework, annihilating its identity and dynamiting the loyalties it may have outside the sect (nation, people, race, class, sex, family, religion, guild, etc.)? This is the kind of questions that could be asked by the authors that we shall see in this article.
Civilisation has meant the overwhelming advance of inert matter (technology, commerce, consumerism, comfort), and the absolute regression of living matter (health, body, genetic code, mind, sacrifice), not to mention the fall of spirituality. Until the human power systems do not adopt a biocentric perspective in general and anthropocentric in particular, and while the top of the pyramid of world power remains occupied by the international financial elite (the shepherds who are domesticating us, castrating and poisoning us), the species will continue to degenerate itself, and the planet as well. Cutting down entire forests to print millions of copies of the magazine Telva make people sick so that they have to buy medicines from the pharmaceutical industry, charging maternity and births so that women work in order to earn money to buy completely useless things, or pulling millions of people from the Third World to feed the machinery of multinationals, are things that only in a wrong economic and rotten system could be beneficial—for a few, and only in the short term. As long as the states do not rebel against the free market economy and the stateless international trade, and as long as they do not resolutely and decisively intervene in human reproduction to stop the involution of the species and improve its genetic code, the human being is on the way to becoming an increasingly ridiculous being, uprooted in his lifestyle. The modern world desperately needs a series of popular revolts that overthrow the financial, global and consumer economy, and establish a multipolar, austere and simple economy based on self-sufficiency, the autarchy of each State, local goods that are strictly necessary and in which the State, identified with the working people, controls the merchants, the parasites and the usurious lenders.
The current lifestyle has nothing to do with the needs of the species, but with the demands of an economic system, which is in total contradiction with human nature, its innate instincts and the real role of the free man in the concert of life and the world.
The collection of quotations of the next post should not be understood as an argument against civilisation or against technology, but against a misunderstood civilisation, against misused technology, against the usurious, free-market, parasitic, consumerist and indefinitely growing economy, and in favour of a radically different kind of civilisation, as for example Sparta was in its day: a State, perhaps the only one in history, that with an unprecedented clairvoyance, realised that gold corrupts and that the Civilisation is a distinctly dangerous product that you have to approach with the whip in your hand. For centuries, Sparta was able to keep the nature and tradition of its citizens alive, but it was also able to defend the most vulnerable geopolitical environment in Europe against enemies infinitely more advanced, economically and materially.
Note:
[1] From hubris comes the Latin hybrida, from which comes the word ‘hybridize’, that is, the crossing of two varieties.
I’ve now run a grammar engine to correct the previous translated entries so that I may now offer a syntactically-corrected PDF of Evropa Soberana’s essay. I apologise for the syntactic inaccuracies that may still linger on this PDF but again: my native language is not English.
Now that Facebook has said it will ‘block praise, support and representation of white nationalism and separatism next week’ I would recommend saving the PDF (here) in your hard disk. One never knows when will such deplatforming of our texts spread to other platforms.