Category: Exterminationism

Siege, 51

When as it happens

Tricky, introverted and myopic “comparisons” between the sick U.S. and Western societies of today, and the “sick” Weimar society of Germany in the 1920’s have been some of the favorite stand-by’s of the Right Wing in this country since the end of the War. Clearly, something isn’t exactly jelling.

Revolutionaries can see and know the realities of both situations and can’t be kidded, nor do they kid themselves. They haven’t got the patience. The question that remains is whether a revolutionary movement will arise from out of the older, more reactionary movement that we have known, or whether it will arise literally from out of nowhere, from among those who have had no experience with the tired and dreary old ways of the past. Perhaps what follows will provide some of the answer.

Between living in the past—be it either Reconstruction South or Weimar Germany—and harping on a “Jewish Conspiracy”, the traditional Movement has no other leg to stand on, ideologically or strategically. What’s been happening, and what’s still happening as a result, has been the creation of a magnetic force attracting kooks and cranks; producing something that is, and appears for all the world to be ridiculous; thus making sure that no solid and worthwhile types will be recruited or stay for very long; and winds up by scapegoating its failures rather than engaging in serious and intelligent re-evaluation of its overview and position.

Latching onto the past as a profession begs for the System and the media to heap all their many smears and epithets onto us; is an open invitation for the System to pass and enforce such things as “Genocide Treaties”, etc.; and because it pretends to work within the System to change the System, it leaves room for doubt about those vast numbers of “System-entrenched” Whites and opens the way for Movement people to write “Dear Mr. President” letters and tell their members to “write their Congressmen” and to frantically urge “America” to “wake up!”. In reality it’s a dead-end street.

One thing we all received in our years with the old Movement was a thorough education on the Jewish Question. It’s all quite true. There is and always has been a Jewish Conspiracy ever since contact has existed between Jews and Europeans. I will say that no professional revolutionary can hope to be real unless he is fully familiar with each aspect of the Jewish Question. It is only part of his basic education. Again, it is but one factor among many and this is where the Movement has been failing for so long. The fact is that what happened to our people and our culture would probably have happened anyway. Maybe not so soon, maybe not so drastically. But it would have happened.

Going back to the close of the Renaissance period, the Jews never could have gotten their foot in the door of Western Civilization unless something had not already been amiss in the basic structure and outlook of things. One can point an accusing finger at “democracy” as being responsible for aliens entering into our affairs, but never forget that “democracy” in practice, in law, is a most recent development and only came about after the Jews and their allies got the upper hand in government matters. When the Jews made their entrance upon the scene, they were allowed in by the very leaders themselves—the kings and emperors, the upper classes. For who else had the power and decision-making ability to control this back then, before “democracy”?

The Jews are aiders and abetters in this. They are specialists when it comes to alien corruption and they are certainly reaping their share of the profits from it all. And though the number of them directly involved in it condemns them by proportion to their total population, the Beast System is still basically manned and operated by renegade, sold-out Whites. What we are fighting has always been, and will always be, a sickness from within [italics in the original].

Blame? The cause and the well-spring for all of this can be located but it would be a mistake to seek merely to place a blame. It’s been going on for too long now, it is too deeply entrenched in today’s lives to try to isolate things and individuals. But if we were to identify where it all comes from, what sustains it, and who profits most from it at the expense of the race itself, then where else and who else could we look to other than the ruling, upper classes of society? Those that let the Jews in in the first place, those that took them to their bosom, those that always set the newest “trends” for perversion and degeneracy, those that get richer while we get poorer, those who in their vilest, foulest depths of anti-life numbness find their final kicks in drugs and consorting with racial aliens. And with their government in one hand and their Hollywood in the other, seek to reduce the rest of the population to their own level of decadence. I might add that their success in this isn’t far enough away from completion to merit any discussion of just “how far”.

The final word, the last comparison between here and now and there and then with regard to repeating Hitler’s miracle in Germany would involve a statement made by Albert Speer in later years as he sought to further acquit himself, further glorify himself, and further condemn Hitler in his highly lucrative written and televised accounts of life in the Third Reich. Speer said, quite correctly, that the reason Hitler’s rise in Germany was so fast and so certain was because the very BEST in German society were behind him. This explains why the entire German nation had to be incinerated in the course of the War, why their entire government had to be murdered. It wasn’t just a man or a party, it was the whole country, or at least those elements that counted most. And so Hitler’s Movement was not the kooky, funny thing we see here in America today. It was truly representative of the will of the German people.

If you haven’t caught onto the secret yet, then I will spell out for you why any such comparison between then and now is a totally lame one. True, the Weimar society was a sick one. But it was a sickness suddenly and forcibly attached to Germany at the highest levels. The people themselves saw it and hated it and were ready for Hitler when he made his appearance. In all, Weimar lasted fifteen years. Here the sickness has been coming along, unabated, for at least three generations and probably more. It’s their own baby and they love it. They wouldn’t be parted from it. It’s part of “Americanism”. This sickness is home-grown and it is from the inside out.

What sort of Movement would it take to represent the will of the American people today? With some variations, several are already on the scene and, I might add, none of them remotely resemble anything National Socialist. Then too, there is no “American People”, only Whites who, for the most part, have lost all racial pride and identity. But they are only reflections of what their rulers, the upper classes, have made themselves into. In a plutocracy, which this is, the wealthy decide and control the mould of the society, how the future generations will take shape. And, like any god, they can predictably be expected to fashion the people of the future in their own image. Meet the future today as it was envisioned forty and fifty years ago! And tomorrow?

When we speak of the best we have no choice but to speak in very real and very practical terms. Yes, racially best, of course. But best when it comes to profession. Best when it comes to training and education. Best when it actually comes to shouldering and maintaining the country and the economy. Best in practice and performance. These were the people who supported Hitler in Germany. But who are they, where are they, WHAT are they here, today?

In terms of American and Western societies in the present day, what I described in the above paragraph, collectively, can only be referred to as Pigs of the System and Establishment. And there, in a nutshell you have the chances of repeating what Hitler accomplished in the 1920’s and ’30’s. These people went gladly off to kill Germany.

The White upper classes—which, make no mistake, rule this land—have long since been alienated from their own people, their own past; the great struggles and causes of White history are forgotten; today these people are merely managers and custodians, albeit damned well-paid ones at that; the West is no longer in competition against any coloreds; it has become the “White Man’s Burden” run amok there is no longer any “them” or “us” for all are “happy” together in “democracy” (at least in theory); all is liberalism; all is materialism. Jews are only a minority in this but they do manage to swim so very well in this open sewer they have helped to create. But the sick Whites are vying each to out-do the other in order to catch up and be the most “in” of the “in crowd”.

We’re talking about a very large body of people who have sold out, or, perhaps better put, have burnt out. With no vital signs left. Yet, to remove them would be to see the U.S. at an end. Not to remove them will be to see another Africa arise on the North American Continent. It is not so much a conspiracy as it is a head being out of touch with its body but yet striving to make certain that the body becomes as vile and perverse as the head, thus spelling doom for the entire organism. A ruling body with its own, peculiar world view in which they believe, for they are quite sincere. The Whites of this country and indeed most of the West have been betrayed by their own rotten leaders. Yes, their natural leaders, the nation’s elite! That is why no renaissance can be possible here. Only revolution.

It must be DEATH to an entire strata of the population… and a new, fresh ruling elite established from the ranks of the natural peasantry or yeomanry, before that too has been eaten away from the inside out and nothing remains of it.

Volume XV, #3 – March, 1986.

____________

Note of the Ed.: So the good guys were exterminated, not the bad ones!

Instead of the bold-type, Mason’s letters are normal. The link to Hellstorm’s review is mine too.

Tags Genuine spirituality, United States

Autobiography Child abuse Exterminationism Hojas Susurrantes (book)

Nobody wanted to listen, 2

‘Normal people’

Not all my close friends are as primitive as a pastry chef who, like a balm, tries to spread whipped cream to his existential pain. In my adolescence there was a time when Hector Covarrubias and my father commented on the wonders of 2001: A Space Odyssey at the house in Palenque. As I said in the narrative section, the film culminates with the return to Earth of a man turned into an overman to eradicate Neanderthalism. Arthur Clarke himself suggests this at the end of the novel, which Hector had read. Of my relatives, Hector was considered the most intelligent in the family and as a teenager I visited him, being impressed by his clear and transparent rationalism. The lectures on physics he gave me individually in 1977 had moments as lucid as I would later hear on Carl Sagan’s shows. But Hector was blinded about the conflict with my parents. He didn’t see the dysfunction in our family even when, because of the seventh circle of hell at home, he saw me completely broken. His house was an Enlightenment room as long as we touched on the topics of science, rationalism, and the criticism of magical thinking. The problems of the soul were forbidden. Instead of seeing my family problem, he repressed the whole thing and looked me down. He disowned the nephew who most admired him…

Hector was already a married man with daughters when I stopped visiting him in the early 1980s. But I have also been offended by relatives younger than myself. When my first cousin Octavio read my Epistle to the mother in 1990 he commented to me: ‘My view of your parents is changing!’ I remember those words very well while, sitting and reading it absorbed, he had the manuscript on the desk. However, some months later he spread the gossip with my father that I could publish it. Octavio had been the closest of my intelligent cousins, but like years later with Pablo, I felt very hurt by his behaviour and I distanced myself permanently from him. Something not so grotesque happened with my cousin Carmina when I visited her at her house, next to Hector, our uncle. When I made a sheepishly critical comment on parental abuse, my cousin jumped, ‘You think your parents are demons’. I don’t know why she reacted like this. I suppose that from other relatives she was familiar with my ideas. It was the last time I visited her. Hector, Octavio and Carmina are sophisticated people. But their reactions were typical cases of extreme dissociation before the most elemental psychological reality.

Gerardo Tort filmed De la Calle, a film about homeless children in Mexico City. He is one of the two cousins Korina referred to in her letter of advice and scolding. Surely my cousin Gerardo could hear me, I thought. I had read an approximation of the script for his film before the script reached its final elaboration, and I gave him my opinion. What would be my surprise when Gerardo didn’t comment on a draft of my first two books, nor would he do so in subsequent years. And he didn’t tell me anything even though, on one occasion when I ran into him on the street, I brought up the subject of the manuscript I had given him. Not even a filmmaker my age, with whom I had talked about so many things against the established order in the past, could hear my story. Gerardo can bring his guts to the camera into the sewers where street children live. But he doesn’t have them to listen to his cousin about what happened in one of the Tort families. My sister would say that those who act like this ‘are normal people who run away from problems; they are not interested and cannot do anything about it’. I’d say they are Neanderthals—exterminable Neanderthals indeed, as I will argue elsewhere.

Exterminationism Film

On Barton Fink fans

There is something I want to say about the recent discussion thread of Savitri Devi’s article.

Some things can be told rhetorically on a blog and other things cannot be said rhetorically. Exterminationism, ‘the religion of the 4 words’, is one of the things that cannot be said rhetorically. It is a subject that requires a new Bible, the Bible of the exterminating angel.

A thick novel cannot be read online either, and I dare say that even classics in the pro-white movement, such as the MacDonald trilogy, must be bought and read on paper to make footnotes with our pencils.

I’m going to be honest with my post from yesterday. There are literary styles that I tolerate and styles that I don’t tolerate. Years ago I said that there are books that I throw away if they are written in opaque prose. I also don’t like esoteric literature. When Jez Turner asked me in London if I had read Miguel Serrano, along with Devi the most famous Hitler esoterist, he was surprised when I answered no, although Serrano (1917-2009) wrote in my native language.

Sometimes I make exceptions, as I did with a book by Michel Foucault critical of psychiatry, written in opaque prose. I also made an exception with Devi’s book on animal welfare, written in esoteric prose.

But I am rambling. The reason that exterminationism cannot be blogged rhetorically is that there is no way to create a bridge of empathy in which the normie reader can sympathise with such an apparently extreme stance. (Apparent, I say, because from the POV of the Star Child what is extreme is that there are so many Neanderthals who are causing countless unnecessary suffering.)

I recently made a list of 50 movies that can be viewed in covid-19 quarantine. In two films on my list, 2001: A Space Odyssey and A.I., in one humanity is about to be metamorphosed when the Star Child returns on the clouds with great power and glory, and in the other no human is left over the planet. That is the limit that a normie can access when talking about exterminationism: movies, fiction. But inviting a normie to reason like the Star Child will only result in something that happened here.

Franklin Ryckaert used to comment here. He stopped doing it when I talked about exterminationism. In many ways Ryckaert, a white nationalist, subscribes, like the vast majority of white nationalists, to Christian standards of morality even though he is a secular man.

Well, it is virtually impossible to convey post-Christian ethics to neo-Christians like Ryckaert and most white nationalists. Regarding exterminationism the limit of their Overton Window, or window of discourse, would be precisely the two films cited. Nothing else. Only if someone like Ryckaert read my From Jesus to Hitler would he realise the spiritual odyssey that led me to exterminationism.

I insist: some things can be said in blogs and others can’t. A series of thick books like George R.R. Martin’s saga would not be able to transmit on a blog either. You have to buy at least the first of his books to enter his universe.

It is so difficult to think in exterminationist terms that even people like Andrew Hamilton, and Alex Linder himself, felt some reservations the first time they read The Turner Diaries. On the other hand, when I listened to the novel for the first time (as I listened to the audiobook with Pierce’s own voice) it seemed to me that the author was developing ideas that I had harboured for decades! I was already prepared for such a novel. Axiologically speaking, a normie like Greg Johnson even felt tremendous rejection when he read the Diaries. And a lot of white nationalists, actually neochristians, feel the same revulsion that Johnson felt.

Exterminationism is for very mature men, aged old men in the tree of the human past so to speak, especially those who have suffered the unspeakable and have assimilated that mountain of pain in a long process. Pain is something that cannot be transmitted in blogs, only in long texts. Most white nationalists cannot even face a book whose author suffered horrors in writing, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany. We can already imagine the resistance they would place in order not to face the odyssey of a single individual.

They remind me of the movie Barton Fink, in which a fat Aryan wrestler told a slim kike writer in Hollywood that nobody is interested in hearing about a tortured soul; what the public wants to see is freestyle wrestling.

Barton Fink is for the Judaised white trash of today. A.I. is a stepping-stone for those who were abandoned in the woods as children and now need to heal. Remember: only revenge heals the wounded soul. And the ultimate revenge is extermination.

I would like to finish this post with some words from another of the 50 films I recommend. I refer to Mitchell Garabedian in Spotlight: ‘This city, these people [Bostonians who didn’t give a damn about the priests who molested kids] making the rest of us feel like we don’t belong. But they’re no better than us. Look at how they treat their children. Mark my words, Mr. Rezendes: If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one’ .

Tags 4 words

Child abuse Exterminationism Pandemics Third Reich Welfare of animals

My rider friends

‘Either Aryans will overcome their prejudice against genocide or self-exterminate’. —Tito Perdue

Today I woke up with a dream in which I mentioned to Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson my idea of dispatching the vast majority of mankind for ethical and aesthetic purposes. We were walking on a street in another country and in the end I got to fly, but when I was awake I realised that I didn’t see either of them in the dream: I was talking to them but they were not actually physically there.

Several times I have been told in this blog that I am not talking to myself. But obviously I am, as no one feels the four words as vehemently as I do.

‘Eliminate all unnecessary suffering’ is a call for exterminationism, as the misnamed Homo sapiens is causing hell in many species not only of animals but among themselves, even from parents to children (the subject of my eleven books).

The vast majority of my visitors have not been through hell. And those who have crossed there dissociate everything and do not write a single post about their experiences (I could mention three of them by real name, but I won’t).

Speaking of the four words this day I leafed through two articles, one from Occidental Dissent and the other from Unz Review, which touch on the subject of unnecessary animal torment. I was disgusted in the latter by some things I read in the comments section, and I can only think of the chasm between these Neanderthals and the Third Reich regarding eliminating unnecessary suffering.

Even if the coronavirus kills the same number of humans of the 1918-1920 influenza, that would only represent a very small fraction of the number that must die this century for survivors to understand the need to implement the four words on earth. Fortunately the four horsemen alluded to in my previous posts will help me in this purpose, even if I also die.

Tags 4 words

Exterminationism Welfare of animals

On serving two masters

The problem with white nationalists is their damn Christian ethics: a set of moral values shared by even those atheists who live under the illusion of having abandoned our parents’ religion.

Christianity not only has a dogmatic facet but an axiological one as we have said so many times.

Last week Ramzpaul said in one of his videos that ‘they literally take a bat, I think he is alive, and they throw it in the fryers, seems really cruel’. But a minute later he added that he didn’t condemn the Chinese but that he admired them. Typical Christian ethics: compulsory universal love by obeying what the son of Yahweh commands us in the New Testament.

Compare Ramzpaul’s words with the novel that I most recommend to every visitor to this site, The Turner Diaries, which culminates when the Aryan ethnostate exterminates the Chinese through a combination of nuclear, chemical and biological attacks on their continent.

It is impossible to serve two masters because one will always end up loving one and abhorring the other. It is impossible to love your neighbour and at the same time the 14 words. What white nationalists have chosen is to love their neighbour as themselves, even those bastards who torture animals. In other words, these apprentices of racists have barely taken a few steps to cross the psychological Rubicon and imagine they already crossed it.

Loving those who torment animals is what in my soliloquies I call ‘un quebranto psicótico marca diablo’ (literally, a psychotic breakdown of the devil brand): a huge voluntary surrender to evil, self-deceivingly believing that that by subscribing universal love you’re doing good.

Since the times of Greece and Rome the moral compass of the White Man has been shifted from North to South by the religion of our parents, and these poor devils who believe they defend the white race haven’t even noticed it.

Tags China, Transvaluation of all values

Eugenics Exterminationism Winston Churchill

Great personalities defend eugenics, 5

Post author By C .T.
Post date August 9, 2019
1 Comment on Great personalities defend eugenics, 5

by Evropa Soberana

H.G. Wells (1866-1946) was an English writer and philosopher, particularly notable for his prolific science-fiction novels. Member of the Fabian Society, he followed a pseudo-leftist line.

And the ethical system of these men of the New Republic, the ethical system which will dominate the world state, will be shaped primarily to favour the procreation of what is fine and efficient and beautiful in humanity—beautiful and strong bodies, clear and powerful minds, and a growing body of knowledge—and to check the procreation of base and servile types, of fear-driven and cowardly souls, of all that is mean and ugly and bestial in the souls, bodies, or habits of men. (Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought, final chapter.)

I believe that if a canvass of the entire civilized world were put to the vote in this matter, the proposition that it is desirable that the better sort of people should intermarry and have plentiful children, and that the inferior sort of people should abstain from multiplication, would be carried by an overwhelming majority. They might disagree with Plato’s methods [The Republic, Book V], but they would certainly agree to his principle… Mr. Galton has drawn up certain definite proposals. He has suggested that ‘noble families’ should collect ‘fine specimens of humanity’ around them, employing these fine specimens in menial occupations of a light and comfortable sort, that will leave a sufficient portion of their energies free for the multiplication of their superior type. (Mankind in the Making, Chapter II).

Luther Burbank (1849-1926), botanist, horticulturist and American farmer who patented legislation for plant breeders of food plants such as potatoes, peaches, plums, nectarines, walnuts, strawberries and a long etcetera. By his knowledge of the techniques of production of varieties, he also supported eugenics, not only in the botanical field, but also in the human to prevent criminals and the weak from reproducing.

It would, if possible, be best absolutely to prohibit in every State in the Union the marriage of the physically, mentally and morally unfit. If we take a plant which we recognize as poisonous and cross it with another which is not poisonous and thus make the wholesome plant evil, so that it menaces all who come in contact with it, this is criminal enough. But suppose we blend together two poisonous plants and make a third even more virulent, a vegetable degenerate, and set their evil descendants adrift to multiply over the earth, are we not distinct foes to the race?

What, then, shall we say of two people of absolutely defined physical impairment who are allowed to marry and rear children? It is a crime against the state and every individual in the state. And if these physically degenerate are also morally degenerate, the crime becomes all the more appalling. (The Training of the Human Plant, Chapter VI, ‘Marriage of the Physically Unfit’.)

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Irish writer awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1925, a supporter of that ‘other socialism’, more fascist and more Nazi, which led him to defend the Nietzschean concept of overman in his work Man and Superman. Bernard Shaw literally appealed to chemists to invent a gas that killed quickly and painlessly to dispose of the wastes of Western society. He was convinced that the only thing that could save civilisation was a eugenic religion and a socialist political system.

A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them. (Address to the Eugenics Education Society, cited in The Daily Telegraph, March 4, 1910.)

Being cowards, we defeat natural selection under cover of philanthropy: being sluggards, we neglect artificial selection under cover of delicacy and morality (Man and Superman: A Comedy and a Philosophy).

David S. Jordan (1851-1931), naturalist, educator, taxonomist, zoologist and American ichthyologist, president of the Indiana and Stanford universities and the London Zoological Society, professor of zoology and notorious pacifist who tried to avoid the unleashing of the First World War and that defined eugenics as ‘the art and science of being well born’. It was this man who, precisely during the First World War, invented the word ‘dysgenesic’ referring to the dysgenic effect of the war, where the country’s best young men died, leaving no offspring.

No doubt poverty, dirt and crime are bad assets in one’s early environment. No doubt these elements cause the ruin of thousands who, by heredity, were good material of civilization. But again, poverty, dirt, and crime are the products of those, in general, who are not good material. It is not the strength of the strong, but the weakness of the weak which engenders exploitation and tyranny. The slums are at once symptom, effect and cause of evil. Every vice stands in this same threefold relation. (The Heredity of Richard Roe: A Discussion of the Principles of Eugenics.)

Leonard Darwin (1850-1943), the youngest son of Charles Darwin, as well as a military and political man, economist and eugenicist. He was president of the Royal Geographical Society and directed the British Eugenics Society.

As an agency making for progress conscious selection must replace the blind forces of natural selection; and men must utilise all the knowledge acquired by studying the process of evolution in the past in order to promote moral and physical progress in the future. The nation which first takes this great work thoroughly in hand will surely not only win in all matters of international competition, but will be given a place of honour in the history of the world. (Presidential Address, First Eugenics Congress, 1912.)

Charles Davenport (1866-1944), American biologist, geneticist and anti-communist professor at Harvard University and then Chicago. In 1902 he met Galton and Pearson with the intention of establishing a eugenic research laboratory in the US. In 1904 he succeeded in persuading the Carnegie Institute to donate $10 million to establish an ‘experimental evolution station’ in Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York. In 1918 he founded, together with Grant, the Galton Society.

Davenport was concerned about the influence in America of elements from the South and East of Europe, which he considered inferior to those of the North and, especially, to the first English settlers, founding fathers and revolutionaries that in the world of eugenic America were considered the best lineage available to the country.

For having treated in a statistical and rigorous way the degeneration produced by the mixture of races (for example, in his book Race Crossing in Jamaica, 1929), he is considered today simply a representative of the ‘scientific racism’, as if this man would not have been, first of all, a scientist and also widely respected in his time. In the words of James Watson, the genius of modern genetics and controversial Nobel Prize, Davenport ‘wanted to prevent fit families from having unfit children’.

The general program of the eugenicist is clear. It is to improve the race by inducing young people to make a more reasonable selection of marriage mates; to fall in love intelligently. It also includes the control by the state of the propagation of the mentally incompetent (Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, 1911).

Alexander Graham Bell (1827-1922), Scottish inventor, speech therapist and scientist, the famous and acclaimed father of the telephone, pioneer of telecommunication technologies, co-founder of the National Geographic Association and also responsible for important advances in Aeronautics.

An enthusiast of eugenics, he was on the committee of the first International Eugenic Congress in 1911, and would be honorary president of the second in 1921. Organisations such as these advocated for the passage of laws that would establish forced sterilisation of persons considered, Bell called them, a ‘defective variety of the human race’.

Winston Churchill (1874-1965). As Home Secretary he circulated a eugenic pamphlet entitled ‘The Feeble-minded: A Social Danger’. In 1910, he wrote to Prime Minister Herbert Asquith to defend a motion on the sterilisation of genetic inferiors. In 1912 he agreed to be vice-president of the First International Eugenics Congress in London.

Subsequently, he praised both Hitler and Mussolini and then, placing himself under the Masonic umbrella, turned the United Kingdom into an anti-European stronghold. His later life, soaked in gin, is far from having the splendour that some try to attribute to him.

The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate. I am convinced that the multiplication of the Feeble-Minded, which is proceeding now at an artificial rate, unchecked by any of the old restraints of nature, and actually fostered by civilised conditions, is a terrible danger to the race (December of 1910).

Karl Pearson (1857-1936), English mathematician, historian and philosopher, as well as Galton’s disciple. Known for founding biostatistics, mathematical statistics and biometrics.

Gentlemen, I venture to think it is an antinomy, and will remain one until the nation at large recognises as a fundamental doctrine the principle that everyone, being born, has the right to live, but the right to live does not in itself convey the right to everyone to reproduce their kind. (Darwinism, Medical Progress and Eugenics, 1912.)

The garden of humanity is very full of weeds, nurture will never transform them into flowers; the eugenist calls upon the rulers of mankind to see that there shall be space in the garden, freed of weeds, for individuals and races of finer growth to develop with the full bloom possible to their species. I believe I am justified in the interpretation I have placed on Galton’s address… (Life and letters of Francis Galton, Volume III).

Tags United Kingdom, United States

Charles Darwin Eugenics Exterminationism French Revolution Friedrich Nietzsche Industrial Revolution Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Great personalities defend eugenics, 4

Post author By C .T.
Post date August 8, 2019
2 Comments on Great personalities defend eugenics, 4

by Evropa Soberana

Eugenics is born

From the racial point of view, the effects of the French Revolution are detestable. With the aristocracy traditionally associated with the Nordic aspect, it was common for many individuals to be executed only because they had very Nordish features, even if they were not aristocrats!

Although the Revolution boasted of being a popular reaction against absolutism, sixty percent of the guillotined were simple French peasants. Such level of revolutionary hysteria was reached by the hand of unbalanced and decadent pseudo-intellectuals, belonging precisely to the high social classes, such as Rousseau, alienated and with illuminist pretensions, dazzled by the symbology of their lodges and financed by strange financial circles. A famished and illiterate plebs, elevated to the status of supreme judge, did the rest of the work.

In addition to the French Revolution and Napoleon, other processes marked the end of Christian hegemony: the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the rise of Germany, Great Britain and the United States as great powers, with Russia waiting at the side.

This did not imply, in any way, an improvement of the European race. On the contrary: the race continued to degenerate because of wars and the assistance to the useless. It simply implied that this generation had fewer taboos when it came to expressing itself. Above all, it was the scientific advances and the recovery of the Greco-Roman legacy (as well as the translation of certain Eastern sacred texts of Indo-European origin) what started a more scientific worldview.

Eugenics, which was born in England, really became a mainstream issue and commonsense, fully supported by most of the scientific community that at that time was not coerced by politically correct interests.

It was also supported and by such notable characters as Harvard professor and famous scientist Louis Agassiz, the English philosopher Herbert Spencer [1], the French F.A. Gobineau, American President Woodrow Wilson, British economist J.M. Keynes, French writer Émile Zola, American tycoon W.K. Kellogg, Scottish anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith, British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, famous American aviator Charles Lindberg, the Swedish composer Hugo Alfven and the British politician Sidney Webb.

All or almost all of the men that will be mentioned in this section—mostly English and American—were considered geniuses, laid the foundations of many modern scientific disciplines and were highly respected by the society of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Moreover, eugenics really was put into practice in countries considered advanced in the industrial, cultural, economic, technological and military sense, such as several states of the USA, Canada, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Switzerland and Japan.

We should not feel excessive sympathy for the social system of this era, dominated by voracious and heartless capitalism. The Industrial Revolution, which began in England spreading to Belgium, northern Germany, France, the United States and the entire West, uprooted millions of good-natured farmers from the healthy and quiet countryside, who were crowded into filthy working-class neighbourhoods, where they gradually degenerated and they became burned-out proletarians, resentful and without identity.

On top of it, the ruling class that benefited from the misery of these individuals allowed themselves the luxury of considering them inferior, while having tea with speculators and usurers. To a certain extent it is necessary to understand that this was the perfect breeding ground for the emergence of Bolshevism, and that the ruling classes of the time did not know how to provide it properly. Only the German Nazis, which I will deal with in the next section, finally had the keenness to reverse this process in a truly socialist way with their doctrine of Blut und Boden.

Another reason why I am partly glad that the eugenicists did not fully apply their policy is that the individuals mentioned here often based their selection on economic, social, cultural and productive criteria. Thus, they would not have hesitated to sterilise a tramp, perhaps even if such a tramp was not a ‘genetic homeless man’, but a worker who had bad luck and ended up in the street.

In short, they did not attempt to apply a biological criterion for the creation of a superior man, but a social criterion for the creation of a productive citizen. And the mass production of exemplary sheep without noble blood is something that does not inspire sympathy, as the goal of a true bio-policy should be the production of free and perfect human specimens physically, mentally and spiritually.

Even considering these unpleasant issues, it is unquestionable that thanks to the conditions enjoyed by the upper classes, a taste for classical literature and the absence of politically correct obstacles, science and philosophy advanced hand in hand thanks to very prepared and creative individuals who had all the time in the world to do some research.

The most alarming factor found by the first eugenicists was that, in the modern world, intelligence and fertility are inversely proportional to each other. That is to say, intelligent people have few children; they do not mate, which is a calamity. Conversely, stupid and weak folks tend to procreate prolifically, which doubles the calamity. This trend, already observable in the 19th century, continues to this day magnified as never before.

Sir Charles Darwin (1809-1882), English naturalist, explorer, rigorous and thorough scientist, and also a good writer and family man, famous for postulating the theory of evolution and natural selection.

I find funny the Darwin case. Today, liberals quote him and mention him as if Darwin’s sole objective had been to stagger the Church, trying to make it ‘progressive’, when the only archetype that Darwin embodies is that of the scientist without prejudice.

Progressives who trash Darwin’s name should know that both Darwin and natural selection are anti-progressives. Darwin, like Nature, advocated the selection and survival of the most gifted. That beauty is the outcome of sexual selection is a phrase that largely offers us the quintessence of his mentality. His book On the Origin of Species has a revealing subtitle, very politically incorrect and very little known: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin, like every good scientist, did not care about the moral dilemmas and the taboos around the ‘art of looking good’. Darwin applauded the ‘fascist’, ‘anti-Semitic’ and ‘racist’ ideas of his cousin Galton as soon as he read them, while Galton was also decisively influenced by Darwin. We can conclude, therefore, that the current PC progressive-socio-democrats who try to put Darwin in their same bag have not read Darwin:

It is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing off the lower races. In 500 years how the Anglo-Saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the Human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank. (Charles Darwin to Charles Kingsley, 6 February 1862).

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised race will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world… The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla. (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871).

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world. (Charles Darwin to William Graham, 3 July 1881).

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) barely needs an introduction. One of the most read philosophers of all time, and demonstrator of ‘how to philosophise by hammering’, there are many idiot nihilists, leftists or individualists who have tried to appropriate his legacy while a reading of Nietzsche reveals, without any doubt, a pre-Nazi, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-democratic, anti-anarchist and anti-communist mentality.

1.- My demand of the philosopher is well known: that he take his stand beyond good and evil and treat the illusion of moral judgment as beneath him.

2.- A first, tentative example: at all times morality has aimed to ‘improve’ men—this aim is above all what was called morality.

To call the taming of an animal its ‘improvement’ sounds almost like a joke to our ears. Whoever knows what goes on in kennels doubts that dogs are ‘improved’ there. They are weakened, they are made less harmful, and through the depressive effect of fear, through pain, through wounds, and through hunger, they become sickly beasts. It is no different with the tamed man whom the priest has ‘improved’.

In the early Middle Ages, when the church was indeed, above all, a kennel, the most perfect specimens of the ‘blond beast’ were hunted down everywhere; and the noble Teutons, for example, were ‘improved’.

But how did such an ‘improved’ Teuton look after he had been drawn into a monastery? Like a caricature of man, a miscarriage: he had become a ‘sinner’, he was stuck in a cage, tormented with all sorts of painful concepts. And there he lay, sick, miserable, hateful to himself, full of evil feelings against the impulses of his own life, full of suspicion against all that was still strong and happy. In short, a ‘Christian’…

3.- Let us consider the other method for ‘improving’ mankind, the method of breeding a particular race or type of man. The most magnificent example of this is furnished by Indian [Aryan] morality, sanctioned as religion in the form of ‘the law of Manu’. Here the objective is to breed no less than four races within the same society: one priestly, one warlike, one for trade and agriculture, and finally a race of servants, the Sudras.

Obviously, we are no longer dealing with animal tamers: a man that is a hundred times milder and more reasonable is the only one who could even conceive such a plan of breeding. One breathes a sigh of relief at leaving the Christian atmosphere of disease and dungeons for this healthier, higher, and wider world. How wretched is the New Testament compared to Manu, how foul it smells!

Yet this method also found it necessary to be terrible—not in the struggle against beasts, but against their equivalent—the ill-bred man, the mongrel man, the chandala. And again the breeder had no other means to fight against this large group of mongrel men than by making them sick and weak. Perhaps there is nothing that goes against our feelings more than these protective measures of Indian [Aryan] morality.

Manu himself says: ‘The chandalas are the fruit of adultery, incest, and rape (crimes that follow from the fundamental concept of breeding)’.

4.- These regulations are instructive enough: we encounter Aryan humanity at its purest and most primordial; we learn that the concept of ‘pure blood’ is very far from being a harmless concept. On the other hand, it becomes obvious in which people the chandala hatred against this Aryan ‘humaneness’ has become a religion, eternalized itself, and become genius—primarily in the Gospels, even more so in the Book of Enoch.

Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favoured, against ‘race’: the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love. (Twilight of the Idols, section ‘The “Improvers” of Mankind’).

Clémence Royer (1830-1902), self-taught and French anarchist who wrote and lectured on feminism, economics, politics and science. She is best known for her translation of On the Origin of Species in French.

The data of the theory of natural selection leave us no doubt that the higher races have appeared gradually and that, therefore, under the law of progress, they are destined to replace the inferior races still in development, and do not mix or merge with them, at the risk of being absorbed by them by miscegenation, reducing the middle level of the species.

In short, human races are not separate species, but rather well marked and of very uneven varieties, and it must be thought twice before promoting political and civil equality in a country with a minority of Indo-Europeans and a majority of blacks or Mongols. (Preface to her translation of On the Origin of Species, 1862.)

Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), Darwin’s cousin, anthropologist, geographer, explorer, inventor, meteorologist, statistician and English psychologist. Galton, impressed by the theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest observed by his cousin, was the one who coined the word Eugenics (‘good birth’, or ‘birth of the good’) around 1884.

Galton advocated the prevention of the reproduction of morons, the mentally retarded and the insane—calling these measures ‘negative eugenics’ or limiting the growth of the worst—and granting certificates and economic funds to young men and women who were ‘suitable for civilisation’ so they could marry young and procreate an abundant offspring—‘positive eugenics’ or favouring the best.

Galton, a representative of a ruling Anglo-Saxon class that would remain healthy until 1939, wrote that blacks were inferior to whites and incapable of any civilisation, while Jews could only aspire to ‘parasitism’ within more gifted and capable nations.

Galton intended that eugenics (‘being well born’) become a religion, which would eventually replace Christianity. He accused Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire; for having seriously damaged Western Civilisation by preaching pity and charity towards the useless and that ‘the weak will inherit the Earth’. He carried out an exhaustive, rigorous and scientific study of entire genealogies of illustrious characters, elaborating detailed statistics and finding—unsurprisingly—that genius is derived by inheritance and, therefore, from family.

Under his patronage the British Eugenics Society was founded in 1908, which would soon strengthen ties with similar groups in the United States.

I propose to show in this book that a man’s natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations. (Hereditary Genius, opening statement of the introductory chapter.)

What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction. The improvement of our stock seems to me one of the highest objects that we can reasonably attempt. (‘Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims’, 1904).

[Eugenics] must be recognized as a subject whose practical development deserves serious consideration. It must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious, tenet of the future, for eugenics co-operate with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races (Ibid).

It is neither more nor less than that the development of our nature, under Darwin’s law of Natural Selection, has not yet over-taken the development of our religious civilisation (Memories of my Life).

I take Eugenics very seriously, feeling that its principles ought to become one of the dominant motives in a civilised nation, much as if they were one of its religious tenets. I have often expressed myself in this sense, and will conclude this book by briefly reiterating my views (Ibid.).

Jack London (1876-1903), famous American writer of socialist tendency but racist, patriot, an apologist of the Anglo-Saxon and Nietzschean civilisation.

For a time he operated a cattle farm, where he became convinced that the farmers had been practicing eugenics since immemorial times.

I believe that the future human world belongs to eugenics, and will be determined by the practice of eugenics. (Letters, 376).

________

Note

[1] Herbert Spencer coined the famous phrase survival of the fittest in addition to launching the current of thought that posterity knows as ‘social Darwinism’.

Ancient Greece Ancient Rome Aristotle Aryan beauty Classical sculpture Destruction of Greco-Roman world Eugenics Exterminationism Horace Indo-European heritage Leonidas Miscegenation Plato

Great personalities defend eugenics, 2

Post author By C .T.
Post date August 6, 2019
2 Comments on Great personalities defend eugenics, 2

by Evropa Soberana

Antiquity

With the de-barbarization that ensued after the emergence of a sedentary lifestyle, the people soon realised that a society uprooted from Nature immediately degenerates. In short, humanity woke up to the dangers of civilisation.

To compensate for it, the leaders of these societies set up processes aimed at counteracting the pernicious effects of the greatest cancer that humanity has suffered: dysgenics, that is, the degeneration of the race that results from the absence of natural selection.

Here we will see that, in many civilised societies of antiquity, the laws of Nature were automatically followed. Its leaders intervened consciously and voluntarily to stop human reproduction and allow reproduction only to the best, so that the species did not degenerate. As Madison Grant wrote, where the environment is too soft and luxurious and it is not necessary to fight to survive, not only weak individuals are allowed to live. Strong types also gain weight mentally and physically!

The most illustrative examples of this era are Hindus, Greeks (among these the Spartans) and Romans. The Hellenic ideal of the kalokagathia, that is to say, an association of goodness-beauty—achieved by maintaining the purity of blood within the framework of a process of selection of the best—laid the foundations to everything that in the West has been considered ‘classical’ and ‘beautiful’ since then until recently.

In another long essay we have seen that the art that has come to us from European antiquity is perhaps only two percent of what existed and, to top it off, probably the least interesting and sublime: primitive Christians destroyed almost every legacy Greco-Roman civilisation. No one can know how many philosophers and authors suffered total destruction of their works, without anyone knowing again who they were or what they thought; and many other classic writings were censored, adulterated, corrected or mutilated.

However, we have at least some spoils of the pre-Christian era. Although ninety-eight percent of classical art was destroyed by the early Christians, what survived speaks for itself as a tribute to the selection, balance, health and excellence of all human qualities.

The Hindus. The Indo-European (i.e., Nordic) invaders arrived in India around 1400 BCE and immediately placed measures to favour high birth rates of the best elements of the population, identified with the Aryan invaders, and the decline of the worst, identified with the Negroid-Dravidic stratum.

The entire caste system was a great eugenics process in which the chandala (a term also used by Nietzsche to define the morals of Jews and Christians), the outcast, the untouchable, the sinful caste, the one considered inferior, was subjected to a horrendous lifestyle: using only the clothes of the dead bodies, drink only water from stagnant areas or animal tracks, not allow their women to be attended during childbirth, prohibition of washing, work as executioners, burials and latrine cleaners, and an unpleasant etcetera. Such impositions favoured that diseases were endemic among them; they fell like flies so that their numbers never constituted a danger for the best.

We are therefore faced with an example of negative eugenics: limiting the procreation of the worst. These measures are included in the Laws of Manu, the legendary Indo-Aryan legislator who laid the foundations for caste hierarchy. According to scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky, a renowned Ukrainian geneticist, ‘The caste system of India has been the greatest genetic experiment ever conducted by man’ (Genetic Diversity and Human Equality).

A woman always gives the world a child endowed with the same qualities as the one who has fathered him… A man of abject birth takes the natural evil of his father or his mother, or both at the same time, and can never hide its origin (Law of Manu, Book X).

Lycurgus (8th century BCE), a regent of Sparta, travelled through Spain, Egypt and India accumulating wisdom and, later, carrying out a revolution in Sparta after which the polis would militarize and establish a social system based on eugenics. The measures of this program highlight the infanticides of deformed, ugly or stupid newborns. Broadly speaking, Lycurgus’s policy was based on training perfect human beings that gave birth to perfect human beings, and there was no place for genetic engenders in that plan. On the other hand, the crypteia, carried out by the Spartan authorities on the helots (the submissive plebs) can perfectly be considered a very brutal and primitive example of negative eugenics.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: Having helots as slaves was a fatal flaw for Spartan civilisation. The laws of Lycurgus did not foresee that eugenic customs would fatally relax after a catastrophic war (as would happen after the Peloponnesian War). A real solution would have been, as William Pierce saw in his study on Greece, to exterminate the non-Nordic Mediterraneans of Sparta and extend such policy to all Greece, and eventually to all Europe.

______ 卐 ______

As for the Spartan policies of positive eugenics—favouring the multiplication of the best—we see popular rituals such as the coronation of a male champion and a female champion in a sports competition, or a king and queen in a beauty pageant, or tax exemption to the citizens who left four children. The best were expected to marry the best. Single people over twenty-five years old were extremely frowned upon and punished with fines and humiliating acts.

If the parents are strong, the children will be strong (Fr. 7).

Heraclitus (535-484 BCE), a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher known for his aphorisms in the style of the Oracle of Delphi. He established that wisdom was much more than a mere accumulation of knowledge and intelligence, also valuing intuition, instinct and will. He said: ‘I ask all mortals to father well-born children of noble parents’.

Leonidas (dies in 480 BCE), King of Sparta and supreme commander of the Greek troops in the Battle of Thermopylae. He fought in numerical inferiority against the Persians until the end, giving time for the evacuation of Greek cities, granting margin for an Athenian victory in the battle of Salamis and laying the foundations of the definitive Persian defeat in Plataea. Leonidas and his Spartans are an example of heroism, dedication to their people, a spirit of sacrifice, training and honour for all Western armies of all time.

Marry the capable and give birth to the capable! (exhortation to the Spartan people before leaving for the Thermopylae according to Plutarch, On the Malice of Herodotus, 32).

Theognis of Megara (6th century BCE) was one of the great Greek poets. He has bequeathed us in his Theognidea a series of interesting reflections and advice to his disciple Cyrnus. Among other things, Theognis divides the population into ‘good’—the nobility, identified with the Hellenic invaders—and ‘bad’—the native plebeian population of Greece, which progressively accumulated money and rights:

In rams and asses and horses, Cyrnus, we seek
the thoroughbred, and a man is concerned therein
to get him offspring of good stock;

Yet in marriage a good man thinketh not twice of wedding
the bad daughter of a bad sire if the father give him many possessions;

Nor doth a woman disdain the bed of a bad man if he be wealthy,
but is fain rather to be rich than to be good.

For ’tis possessions they prize;
and a good man weddeth of bad stock and a bad man of good;
race is confounded of riches.

In like manner, son of Polypaus,
marvel thou not that the race of thy townsmen is made obscure;
’tis because bad things are mingled with good.

Even he that knoweth her to be such, weddeth a low-born woman for pelf,
albeit he be of good repute and she of ill;
for he is urged by strong Necessity, who giveth a man hardihood.

Critias (460-403 BCE), Athenian philosopher, speaker, teacher, poet and uncle of Plato. He is known for being part of the Spartan occupation government known as the thirty tyrants. We will appreciate the importance that this man attached not only to inheritance, but to sports training without which a human being will never be complete.

I begin with the birth of a man, demonstrating how he can be the best and strongest in the body if his father trains and endures hardness, and if his future mother is strong and also trains.

Plato (428-347 BCE), probably the most famous philosopher of all time, was inspired by Sparta to propose the measures of Greek regeneration in his work The Republic, plagued with values of both positive eugenics—promoting the best—as negative eugenics—limit the worst—, especially with regard to the caste of the ‘guardians’. Plato, like most Greek philosophers, was in favour of exposing defective children to the weather so that they died.

It is necessary, according to our principles, that the relationships of the most outstanding individuals of one sex or the other are very frequent, and those of the lower individuals very rare. In addition, it is necessary to raise the children of the first and not of the second, if you want the flock to not degenerate (The Republic).

Based on what was agreed, it is necessary for the best men to join the best women as often as possible, and on the contrary, the worst with the worst; and the offspring of the best and not the worst should be raised, so our flock will become excellent (Statesman, 459).

That even better children are born from elite men, and from useful men to the country, even more useful children (Statesman, 461).

Xenophon (430-354), soldier, accomplished horseman during the Peloponnesian war, mercenary in the heart of Persia during the expedition of the ten thousand, philosopher, pro-Spartan and historian. Notorious anti-democrat who abhorred the Athenian government, he longed for fairer forms of government such as those he met in Persia and Sparta, where he sent his children to be educated. Together with Plutarch, Xenophon is the greatest source of information about Sparta, admiring the eugenic practices established by Lycurgus.

[Lycurgus] considered that the production of children was the noblest duty of free citizens (Constitution of the Lacedaemonians).

An old man had to introduce his wife to a young man in the prime of life whom he admired for his qualities, to have children with him (Constitution of the Lacedaemonians).

Isocrates (436-338 BCE), politician, philosopher and Greek teacher, was one of the famous ten Attic speakers and probably the most influential rhetorician of his time. He founded a public speaking school that became famous for its effectiveness and criticised the politics of many Greek cities, which instead of stimulating their birth rate inflated their numbers through the mass immigration of slaves, which he considered inferior to the Hellenic population. In this quotation it is verified to what extent Isocrates valued quality versus quantity:

It should not be said as happy that city which, from all extremes, randomly accumulates many citizens; but the one that best preserves the race of the settled since the beginning.

Euripides (480-406 BCE), playwright, a friend of Socrates and undoubtedly one of the greatest poets of all antiquity; his stain was an excessive machismo that led him to criticise the greater freedom enjoyed by women in Sparta. Disappointed and disgusted by the policies of a decadent Greece he retired to Macedonia, a place where Hellenic traditions were still pure, where he finally died.

There is no more precious treasure for children than to be born of a noble and virtuous father and to marry among noble families. Curse to the reckless who, defeated by passion, joins the unworthy and leaves his children to dishonour in return for guilty pleasures (Heracleidae).

Aristotle (384-322 BCE), the famous philosopher who educated Alexander the Great and laid the western foundations of Hellenism, logic and sciences such as biology, taxonomy and zoology. Aristotle extends extensively in his work Politeia on the problems posed by eugenics, birth control, childhood feeding and education (books VII and VIII). He generally admired the ancient Spartan system, with some reservations—in my opinion unfounded as Sparta was not decadent—because the ephorate was tyrannical.

(Left, a Patrician bust.) The Patricians were the Roman leaders in the early days, when Rome was a Republic. These men were the patriarchs or clan chiefs of each of the thirty noble families descended from Italic invaders, and they ran all Roman institutions including the legions, the courts and the Senate. Sober, pure, ascetic and hard, their people held them in high regard as repositories of the highest wisdom and Roman posterity honoured them as gods.

Their descendants formed the Patricians, the later Roman aristocracy, which gradually decayed throughout the Empire until almost completely dissolving, turning Rome into a disgusting decadent monster that deserved to be razed. After the Punic wars and Julius Caesar, Rome largely lost its Indo-European spirit.

In the IV of the XII tablets of the law, it was established that deformed children must be killed at birth. It was also left to the patriarchs of the patrician clans to decide which were the unfit children. They were usually drowned in the waters of the Tiber River, and other times abandoned, exposing them to wild animals and elements in a process called exposure. Apparently, the Romans did not fare so badly with this purifying tactic as we see in their conquering history.

Distorium vultum sequitur distortio morum, ‘A crooked face follows a crooked moral’—Roman proverb.

Meleager of Gadara (1st century BCE), Greek epigram compiler within the Hellenistic stage, who wrote: ‘If one mixes good with bad, a good progeny would not be born, but if both parents are good, they will beget noble children’ (Fr. 9).

Horace (65 BCE-8 CE) said: ‘The virtue of parents is a great dowry’ and ‘’The good and the brave descend from the good and the brave’ (Odes, IV, 4, 29).

Seneca (4 BCE-65 CE), Roman philosopher of the Stoic school (the same school that Marcus Aurelius and Julian the Apostate belonged), of Hispanic-Celtic origin and teacher of Emperor Nero.

We exterminate hydrophobic dogs; we kill the indomitable bulls; we slaughter sick sheep for fear that they infest the flock; we suffocate the monstrous foetuses and even drown the children if they are weak and deformed. It is not passion, but reason, to separate healthy parts from those that can corrupt them (Of Anger, XV).

Plutarch (45-120 CE). Philosopher, mathematician, historian, speaker and priest of Apollo at the Oracle of Delphi. It is also one of the important sources of information about Sparta in his books Ancient Customs of the Lacedaemonians and Life of Lycurgus.

Leaving a being who is not healthy and strong from the beginning is not beneficial for the State or for the individual himself (Ancient Customs of the Lacedaemonians).

When a baby was born he was taken to a council of elders to be examined. If the baby was defective in some way the elders threw him down a ravine. Such a baby, in the opinion of the Spartans, should not be allowed to live (Life of Lycurgus).

Tags Genuine spirituality

Autobiography Exterminationism Racial right

Open thread:

Is Charles Manson good for Hitler’s 88 words?

Below I’ve cut and pasted my response to Joseph Walsh in the previous thread, whom I met in London five years ago. He said:

On Charles Manson, I remember you quoting Jake F. saying Atomwaffen Division members were “unhinged, to say the least” but at the same time you are a Mexican who wants the genocide of 99% of humans including all Mexicans so society would of course see you as “unhinged, to say the least”.

I am not a Mexican. Click on my avatar and you’ll see me as a baby. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans don’t look like that as babies. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans are Christians. I am not. Mexicans of the upper class are liberals, even the Catholics. I am not a liberal. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans eat meat. I do not, nor do I like football as they do.

I come from parents who in the early 1960s were premiering orchestra pieces at Utica, New York with my father as the composer and my mother as the piano interpreter of my dad’s symphonic music. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans are not heirs of classical music, not even remotely.

As to ‘unhinged’, my philosophy is as unhinged as that declaration of Schopenhauer that it’s better that suffering mankind should be called home, or as Bertrand Russell’s statements that all of mankind should be exterminated. Unlike pessimist Russell, I am only saying that the most beautiful whites, with empathy toward the animals, must be spared from such exterminationist fantasies. That still may sound unhinged to the majority of ears, but could it be common sense from the POV of an ET mind? (cf. Arthur C. Clarke’s last words in Report on Planet Three).

I think you tend to overestimate your importance. Most of what you publish on your blog is writings from other people, you have not really said anything too original but rather summarized modern Aryan ideology. If the Aryan race does become extinct it won’t be because it didn’t read the blog of a Mexican!

True. But my really original stuff is my 1,600-page book trilogy that, after I finish my backup PDFs, I may start to translate.

Sometimes you come across as pompous and it wouldn’t surprise me if you eventually shut down comments altogether and just talk to yourself.

I only reject those comments that, as Mauricio says above, demoralise the true Aryan; those silly pro-Christian comments after they’re told repeatedly to stop their preaching; those Meds who openly resort to insult because of my Nordicism (Dr. Morales), and a troll from Florida who uses many sockpuppets and who I believe was also banned in other racialist forums.

I notice you are friendly to people when you like what they’re saying but then you cast them off as soon as they’ve outlived their usefulness.

Examples please? As Evropa Soberana does in his site, I could have not allowed a single comment since 2011. But I’ve allowed thousands of them. I now believe that Vig was right: time matters. Sometimes I even suspect that the pessimists like Devan are not ethnically Aryans and just come here to demoralize the would-be soldiers. Other times I find out that they are mudbloods that hate me because of my Nordicism.

Though you portray yourself as some inheritor to the National Socialist legacy this is nonsense as non-Aryans can have nothing to do with National Socialism.

I portray myself as an admirer of NS, not as a National Socialist. Even the real Nazis admitted some Spaniards from the Franco regime to fight in a battle, right? What’s wrong with that?

Moreover what you endorse (The Turner Diaries solution) was not something Hitler would endorse. National Socialism and C.T.’s ideology are two different things.

Of course. NS thrived before the West’s darkest hour. Now that the darkest time has already come, and that the age of treason is everywhere, it’s time for a scorched-Earth policy.

And while you talk about kooks who believe in conspiracy theories I believe you followed cults and paranormal nonsense up until your 40’s.

Until the early 1990s to be precise, when I was in my early thirties. I did not believe in parapsychology for character flaws, but because, as I’ve explained elsewhere, I was tortured at seventeen and needed a defence mechanism.

But the real point is that, in times before the internet, it was virtually impossible to obtain the right information. I mentioned above November 1989. Major CSI figures visited Mexico City in that month. Finally, I could read the sceptical books they brought here from the US.

Unlike you I awoke when I was 13 and…

How can Neo unplug himself from the Matrix if no Morpheus contacts him through the internet? Did you awake thanks to the internet? If not, even in London pro-white info used to be far more reachable than in Mexico before the age of the internet! Yours is reasoning under a false analogy.

I have been interested in the white race since I was 17. I’m now 31.

So you were born in the late 1980s. I was interested in the white race since Second Grammar School, that is 1966, when I was 8/9-years-old, as I confess in the last book of my trilogy.

That means much more time to develop my thoughts unlike you who only awoke in 2008 when you were 50.

By ‘awakening at fifty’ I meant that before that year I did not even know that white nationalism existed or any website defending the West. I started to awake by the end of 2008, as soon as I discovered that info on the internet. Before I started to use the internet, the germane info I used to get in Mexico was almost zilch compared to the info an average American gets in the US. The main pro-white figures are not mentioned, ever, in the Mexican media. Conversely, the Phil Donahue Show at least interviewed Jared Taylor in the 1990s; 60 Minutes also interviewed William Pierce long ago, etc.

And you can put down the Charles Manson… but the future belongs to the white youth and those whites being born at present, not old Mexican boomers.

I’ve never claimed that any Mexican (a real Mexican I mean) should or will inherit the Earth. Rather, my point is that none of the Charles Manson fans—not one of them—has ever provided in this site, or in the book Siege, any rational argument as to why Manson is good for the 14 words. The only thing I hear from them is a blind admiration with no rationale for such admiration.

Perhaps I should add a new post with the title: ‘Open thread: Why is Manson good for Hitler’s 88 words?’ I bet none will advance a single compelling argument, even if I add no further post tomorrow to give critics a chance to focus on the hatnote question above…

Tags Mexico

Christian art Exterminationism Friedrich Nietzsche Matthias Grünewald New Testament Old Testament Racial right Technology

Prostrated anti-Semites

Sometimes it is important to focus on a detail of a masterpiece of Christian art; for example, close-ups of Jesus’ feet and hands nailed to the cross. Here we see the contorted feet of Grünewald: a painter of the badly named ‘German Renaissance’. Grünewald ignored the Greco-Roman world of the Italian Renaissance to continue the style of late Central European medieval art.

In the Gates of Vienna discussion forum, ten years ago a Swede commented that all Westerners are now either Christians or liberals. I would paraphrase that statement by saying that every white is either Christian or neo-Christian. This includes the alt-right atheists, unable to let Christian ethics go. Even most anti-Semites remain prostrated before the contorted feet of the crucified Jew.

For that reason I do not even comment on The Occidental Observer anymore. But I am very amused that a few who have broken away with such ethics try to argue with Christians and neo-Christians on The Occidental Observer and Unz Review. In this site I have collected many comments from Robert Morgan, but I have also expressed my differences with him regarding technology.

Well: a regular visitor to The West’s Darkest Hour has been discussing technology with Morgan (here). Morgan is anti-Christian. Adunai, another anti-Christian, has also discussed with others in that webzine. What Adunai replied to one of these Christians reminds me of something that caught my attention from the first time I read Nietzsche, more than forty years ago.

Nietzsche said that while he rejected the universal love ethic that the New Testament preached, he loved the Old Testament because, unlike the gospel, the ancient Hebrews fulfilled Darwinian laws.

Obviously I’m rephrasing Nietzsche, but in essence he said that. What now has piqued my attention is that white nationalists who have not broken with the religion of their parents see things the other way around: they accept the New Testament and reject the Old. They do not realise that, with this, they have fallen into the trap that the Semitic authors of the New Testament set up for them: to use the fairness of the fair race to invert the values of that race. I refer to the transit from a culture when handsome Greco-Roman statues were so much admired to Grünewald’s feet.

Next, Adunai’s responses to Morgan and others on Unz Review:

______ 卐 ______

Robert Morgan said: Civilization too is a revolt against Nature.

Adunai responded: How so? The very definition of humans is a bit anti-Nature, but nothing’s wrong with that. Man invented fire and scorched woods with it—like any other form of life, he wants to kill everything around himself. Humans destroy species in Amazonia, they breed out pathetic mutants such as dogs, cows and wheat—all to consume and to enslave, in order to ensure their own survival.

The problem only arises when their super-animal intelligence bugs out and accepts the anti-Nature inside themselves, the anti-human suicide—see Christianity. No other animal would fall for the schizophrenia of a virgin mother of a resurrected corpse, and for a god that gives ‘life’ as a reward for death. But no other animal has invented a space rocket either.

It’s just hard for humans to accept a science-inspired atheist Darwinian worldview. But I believe it to be possible—see the DPR of Korea.

P.S. It’s a shame Laurent Guyénot is a 9/11 truther. How can one see through the madness of Christianity, and yet swallow the lies of truthers?

A commenter said: It is obvious that the OT is just Jew mystical garbage filled with tribal hate.

Adunai responded: You are so Christian, you see the good part of the Bible as the bad one. That tribal hate you speak of is precisely what we need! What we must admire and put into myth! What every single healthy nation has lived with.

Currently, you hate Jews for being racist. That’s insane. No wonder Jews despise Christians—just like a scientist ‘despises’ the poison he has created, he will not drink it himself. Think War—Harm Your Enemies—Produce Children.

Robert Morgan said: ‘Technological innovation tore those barriers down. With the barriers down and races mingling freely, discrete human races and discrete cultures are doomed’.

Adunai responded: I never understood this position. Hadn’t it be for the Christian axiology, the White race would have cleansed all of Africa, Asia and America of the non-White nations as early as in the 1890s. Or for sure in the 1950s, with the advent of atomic weapons.

Why do you focus so firmly on the technologies failing to see it as a tool Whites have used as they have seen fit? The problem is not the technology, it is purely the axiology. Technology only allowed the HIV to transition into the AIDS.

But for all I care, it’s only for the better. Better to deal with this menace sooner than later. Europe had little hope in 317, even less in 732 and 800 (when the Franks failed to kill the Church). The French, industrial and green revolutions do not change that.

In short, I disagree with your pessimism concerning technology.

Robert Morgan said: ‘Further, you seem to be very much in the “free will” / man is a special creation camp (basically a Biblical point of view), and as I said above, I’m a determinist, so I believe free will is an illusion’.

Adunai responded: So, you believe the Whites’ conversion to Christianity to have been unavoidable? That is pessimistic.

Of course, there is something in the Aryan’s psyche that has failed him—see Buddhism in India. There is also the deep contradiction that I see between man as an animal and his newfound intelligence and introspection, his ability to commit suicide, his ability to hate all life. It is in our Nature to destroy Nature, and that is healthy, but can inspire Christianity as a side-effect.

But I am an optimist and I disagree that the White man was born irredeemably defective, that the Jew is our perfect parasite. Because if it is so, or at least cannot be fought against, then all hope is lost, or worse yet, never existed to begin with.

Robert Morgan said: ‘Therefore, when you say something like “whites could have” done this, that, or the other thing, it makes no sense to me. They had what they thought were very good reasons for not doing it, or in effect had no choice’.

Adunai responded: Whites could have made a party that tried to curtail the destruction by technology. Oh wait, they did—namely, the NSDAP. Even the last anti-Christian emperor was born after 317.

What I’m saying is that Whites could have denied Christianity in the 4th, 8th, 16th or 20th century, but chose not to. They could have mastered technology, for with the right axiology, it would have spelled certain doom for all non-White nations on Earth, and not at all led to any race-mixing—but under Christianity, it did provoke suicide. You can only see technology under Christianity, and you think it’s the only way [red emphasis by Ed.].

When you see a car, you see a Negro arriving in Finland. When I see a car, I see Whites arriving in Egypt in 1910 and genociding all the locals. We had the first shot.

A commenter said: ‘Given the US Constitution, Eisenhower’s desegregation orders made sense’.

Adunai responded: Yes… Then why won’t you tear down that stupid White-hating Christian document? Why are you trying to rationalize it?

Desegregation is diametrically opposite of the genocide of blacks. Desegregation = death of Whites. Desegregation makes sense due to the Constitution and its idealist Christian egalitarianism… To hell with the Constitution!

A comemnter said: ‘Congo Rats are rated as repugnant in reliable tests of racial attractiveness’.

Adunai responded: Who cares how attractive Negroes are? Are you a faggot? Because only faggot feminists think in this way.

The real culprit is White men, and White men alone. It is the White men that allow their daughters marry non-Whites. Not women. Not the attractiveness of said non-Whites. It’s the Christian malware in your head.

Robert Morgan said: ‘In the context of your example, what I’ve said is that if the negroes had had no way to get to Finland, they wouldn’t be there, and this seems to me inarguable’.

Adunai responded: It is not. Because a non-Christian technological civilization would not have given Negroes access to their technology to begin with. And would have exterminated them in a short while, as predicted by Darwin.

Robert Morgan said: ‘I agree that in your imaginary world…’

Adunai responded: The world without Christianity. It happened in a localized version in Germany.

Robert Morgan said: ‘The struggle for survival and human nature determine how it will be employed’.

Adunai responded: No, they don’t. The White race does not struggle for survival. The reason is still unclear, but I blame Christianity first and foremost. You don’t have an issue with doing likewise when it’s about the 1860s America, but when it’s about more recent times, it’s suddenly technology. I fail to see the connection.

Robert Morgan said: ‘…and almost never have they been killed off completely, even in non-Christian societies. They have usually been assimilated into the conquering race’.

Adunai responded: There were different kinds of conquest in history. The conquest of Europe by Aryans, by Rome, by Mongols. Some were genocidal, others not. Some were empires, others loose confederations of savages.

What is different now? Science. Knowledge of the world. Materialist philosophy that clearly states the supremacy of genetics in the genesis of culture. The issue is not technology—it would only have helped the extermination. The issue is that the idealist poison of Christianity seeped so deep into the Aryan soul that any hope for the materialist worldview was vanquished in 1945 under the double sign of Christianity and Bolshevism.

Robert Morgan said: ‘The struggle for survival will force this outcome, because if you don’t use slaves in this way, then your enemies that do will become wealthier than you, more powerful, and eventually overwhelm you. This is how, in the real world, human nature and the struggle for survival determine outcomes’.

Adunai responded: I don’t deny it. But how does the industrial civilization relate to it? I say that its advances in sciences would have made race-mixing the highest taboo and race war the noblest goal in any non-Christian society. Industry would only have amplified the desire to healthy life in a population. But in our case, technology has amplified the death wish.

You want to remove industry—then what? A return to pre-industrial society will not bar crude empires from spawning that can and will race-mix anyway. Too rotten to keep healthy values, yet not bright enough to develop racial science and fission weapons. Where’s a good future in that?

Do you put all your hope on the hypothetical barbarians that will burn Rome time and time again? Our pre-industrial Rome ate a good chunk of Europe, mind you—and even all of central Germany might have been romanized and judaized. Mongols and Turks demolished all Aryan culture in Kazakhstan. Vikings interbred with Eskimos in Iceland. What would stop Aryans from perishing in a non-technological world? I posit that only the power of chemical and atomic bonds can assure the existence of the European race once and for all.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note: Morgan is obviously violating Occam’s razor by multiplying entities (technology) when the Xtian inversion of values alone explains the West’s darkest hour beautifully.