web analytics

Category: Liberalism

Categories
Christendom Communism Democracy Liberalism Swastika Third Reich Universalism

Aryan thoughts, white thoughts (2)

Excerpted from an article in Spanish:

In this time of loss, in this interregnum, in this night we suffer it is not prudent or wise, from our ranks, to throw the slightest criticism at the Nazi period (we should not pass ammunition to the enemy). Moreover, it is the only relevant event of our people in the last thousands of years I would say…

The swastika, our standard, not only was raised against liberalism and communism. Only today we are starting to comprehend the greatness and scope of its mission—our mission.

Villa_Romana_La_Olmeda

Ancient Roman mosaics of La Olmeda, Spain

You have to know the work related to the hardness and cruelty with which the German people were treated before, during, and after the war. And also all the lies spread by the “victors”, all anti-Nazi (anti-Aryan) propaganda circulating since then. All such History will have to be rewritten at some time, and show it to the entire world. But this will not be before our final victory. Until then we have a lot of work, especially the spiritual unity of the peoples of both Aryan Europe and Magna Europe.

Reclaiming, rehabilitate, and restore honor. The Nazi period, and its previous years, has to be taken up with unction. We must claim their achievements, their figures, their heroes, science, and art, its thought… Lost badges, flags and banners—all the iconography of the period. The first Aryan Reich in history, the first Aryan nation. We shall vindicate the figure of Hitler, his primary role in our early history, our first outing in the world. Hitler was the creator of the first Aryan State. To him we owe the idea and its realization.

The fight, which was a fight of one, is now “our struggle” (unser Kampf). Hitler opens a period that has not yet begun. He was the first. We are in the beginnings of the Aryan nation in its dawn.

Our story has just begun.

The Aryan order had not, nor it has, a universal reach but one purely ethnic. That first experience remains as a perfectible model of racial and cultural community. And even as a model for other ethnic groups, to other peoples; towards a community not of nations, but of peoples: a turnaround, a subversion, a revolution, a return to the particular and what is our own.

That ambition was excessive: that new order which Hitler announced. It came into collision with all universalisms and religious internationalisms or political internationalisms. It was a war against the old religious, economic, political and cultural order in the broad sense. It was a war declared on the dominant culture: the Judeo-Messianic religious world and its secular, political and economic correlates (universal democracy and communist internationalism).

He was condemned, he and his project, from the time he reached power. He was the destroyer, the livelier threat that the Jews and their freakish spawn—religious, political, psychological—could hear about their worlds. Someone was openly declaring war to them all!

It was less a territorial than a culture kampf what they feared: an ideological confrontation; that the Aryan message coming from Hitler could spread—his ethnic and cultural revolution; his spirit, his struggle (ihr Kampf).

Hitler and the New Germany embodied a new moral, political, cultural, spiritual order… The way of the peoples. It was the most powerful alternative to the prevailing, almighty universalisms (of Semitic origin). It continues to be. National Socialism was (and is) certainly the “third way” between economic liberalism and communist internationalism. It demonstrated in the years of peace their success against each other. The dignity and prosperity provided to the people ruined the prestige of despicable capitalism (and its consumer society), as well as the proletarian internationalism: whose domain area was plunged into spiritual and material miseries. And it was precisely this social, economic and cultural success which could have won the hearts and minds of white nations, achieving an extension of this “third way” throughout Europe, and around the white world. And this is what had to be prevented at all costs.

He had to be slain and his example (his victories, successes) at any price. They had to destroy and stigmatize him. Make him the embodiment of evil, absolute evil. And they succeeded. They defeated our first Reich, and sullied her memory.

The horrible public image of Hitler (and the Nazi period) developed by the enemy is also our image, the image of the Aryan nation—of each and every one of us. Hitler’s enemy is the enemy of our people: the one who fights him. The one who insults him insults us.

The military defeat suffered has not even weakened our “faith” and our loyalty to our people. Neither has the perverse propaganda taken its toll on us. Our genius is indestructible. Sooner or later we will rewrite History. In the end, whites, the Aryans, shall win.

Until the next time,

Manu

Categories
Liberalism Mainstream media

On body-snatched pods




I never, ever read the newspapers or columns written by Body-snatched Pods but yesterday I broke my rule and read a piece, “El asesino en la puerta de al lado” in the grotesquely called “rightist” Mexican paper Reforma.

I was appalled by what the über-Pod Jorge Volpi said about Nazis, Jews, “los indígenas y los ladinos” (the Amerinds and the Iberian whites) and the South African apartheid in the context of the recent falling in disgrace of former anti-leftist dictator Efraín Ríos Montt.

In today’s article that Manu Rodríguez sent me about these people, Manu said:

This is for you; for the vain, ignorant, confused and hypocritical leftists and progressives.

You lack shame and truth. Your language is as insidious as the Muslims’ and the Jews’ talk. Like them you use the wildcard “democracy and freedom” to thrive in our free societies; and also like them, to the people who complain about the “progress” and the “intolerant” and intolerable behavior of our enemies, you accuse of racists. You try so to disarm, conceptually, the only defenders of liberty in our lands. You are a disgrace to the fine concept of liberty, as well as to all those who defended it with their own life. They will shudder with horror before your stupidity, and your dangerous behavior. You have chosen our enemies, you have chosen our evil. You are the shame of our world.

You are blind, hypocrites, vain, yea; ignorant, unconscious, unreflecting; clumsy, ill-fated. You are “useful idiots” in the service of Islamic totalitarianism or the Jewish power in our world; and if you dislike this epithet, will you prefer being considered an accomplice of their threats?

What is your stance? Are you afraid of Muslims or Jews if you give the cold shoulder to them? Afraid that you may not to be considered a “democrat” or a “good person”? Are you more concerned about their opinion than the opinion of your own brothers and countrymen? Silly, they only blackmail that morally at you; a trick so old! You are really an idiot.

I don’t know what to think of you, what to say to you about your sad role in the historical circumstances that we live in. Wake up. Stop contributing to our, and your, destruction. You don’t play another role from that of the traitor (conscious or unconscious).

This is the memory that will remain of you.

But of course: once a human turns into a Pod he cannot become human again.

Categories
Axiology Deranged altruism Jesus Liberalism New Testament

New Testament altruism

The “white race” has no one to blame, but themselves.

—Johan Hoeff

jesus

Throughout the latest two millennia most whites have believed in the message of the gospel, and its moral grammar, right? Contrast Hoeff’s quote with the popular mantra in some nationalist circles, “There is nothing inherently wrong with Whites.”

Before jumping angrily to this thread, please take a look at the discussion in the previous thread, preferably by becoming familiar with some of my linked articles there, including my interpretation of the deranged altruism in Wuthering Heights.

Alternatively, see Ben Klassen’s views on Christianity in general and the Sermon on the Mount in particular. Like Hoeff, Klassen maintained that, ultimately, whites are to blame for our current predicaments.

Categories
Blacks Egalitarianism Intelligence quotient (IQ) Liberalism Pseudoscience

Dawkins’ Demon

The True Faith of Liberal Atheists

Liberal atheists don’t believe in heaven, but they do believe that Black women are capable of the same high intellectual achievement as Chinese men. It’s true that no Black woman has ever won a Nobel Prize for Physics or made fundamental contributions to mathematics, but that’s because racism and sexism have held the soul-sisters back. How do we know that? Because the undoubted genetic differences between those two groups have no effect on the brain. That is the central dogma of Neuro-Miraculism, the super-scientific creed of liberal atheists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould.

Read it all at The Occidental Observer!

Categories
Alice Miller Child abuse Emigration / immigration Hojas Susurrantes (book) Infanticide Liberalism Psychohistory Racial studies

My challenge to Alice Miller’s fans

A few years ago I parted ways with my former friends: the fans of the late Alice Miller, who claim to side the abused child during conflicts with their parents. It always bothered me that these people were incapable of honestly discussing my interpretation of Psychohistory, which main finding is that non-western cultures treat their children worse than we westerners do. If my former friends truly sided the child, they would make an effort to approach Psychohistory either to refute my interpretation of it, or, conversely, to use the findings of Psychohistory to expand their worldview.

The do neither. And the question is why.

It is my belief that present-day westerners are plugged in a thought-controlling matrix. It all started right after the Second World War with a barrage of ubiquitous, malicious propaganda directed against Germany. The truth is that, whatever sins the Germans committed during the war, the Allied forces surpassed them in times of peace, from 1945 to 1947 (see e.g., my excerpts of Hellstorm).

The same goes with the Jews and their holocaust. When Hitler became chancellor a Jew named Yagoda, the chief of the Soviet Union’s intelligence agency, killed more civilians than the later killings attributed to Himmler, and precisely for ethnic reasons. Never before had an entire white nation been ruled mostly by Jewry, and just see what happened in Russia. Hitler and the Nazis merely reacted against such killing.

These historical facts move me to think that Germany continues to be dishonestly demonized by an ongoing, twenty-four hours a day campaign of enumeration of her crimes. Demonized I say because the comparatively larger crimes of the Allies have been hidden from the public view in the soft totalitarian System we are living in.

I call this socio-political scheme a mind-controlling matrix, a prison for the white mind. Not only the crimes committed by the Allies are taboo. As an unwritten law, after the Second World War race studies also became forbidden in the mainstream media and the academia—with the exception of the continuing demonization of the Reich and, through intellectual fads of “historical grievances,” even the entire West. And not only the previous, perfectly respectable field of racial studies is now considered beyond the pale. An entire school of charlatanic thought, Boasian anthropology, has become axiomatic in the academia. Presently it is considered heretical to state the obvious: that there are cultures more primitive than others. Just one example: academicians are not even allowed to condemn the Amazonian tribes that still bury their children alive.

For the sake of using a handy word, let us call “liberalism” the religion that the leftist elites have been imposing on us after the Second World War. It is the perspective that comes after this knowledge—the exposé of a new civil religion that has been imposed upon the white psyche—what explains why I have distanced myself from my former friends. Consciously or unconsciously, these people are liberals first and child advocates second. Their true religion is liberalism, and egalitarianism, not child advocacy. If they prioritized child interests, they would side the children in cases of parental abuse among non-Caucasian immigrants, who, according to the data collected by Psychohistory, are more serious abusers than white families.

They do nothing of the sort. The sole mention of “race,” “inferior cultures” or “psychoclasses” freaks them out they and shun any frank discussion on the subject.

In other words, the followers of the late Alice Miller are deceiving themselves. Despite claims to the contrary they do not always side the children against their surrounding culture, even in cases of mind-destroying parental abuse (think of the surviving offspring after watching how their parents buried their little sister alive…).

If you are a Miller fan and believe I am wrong, you are invited to challenge my interpretation of Psychohistory.

I predict that this challenge will fall on deaf ears. By experience I know that Miller’s fans are no men of honor. They are too coward, and dishonest, to discuss Psychohistory’s most relevant finding: the grim consequences for child interests after the ongoing, massive non-white immigration in their respective countries—at the same time that the peoples of European origin, including my former friends, are refusing to breed.

Categories
Francis Parker Yockey Heinrich Himmler Liberalism Philosophy of history William Pierce

On Himmler

Cited in my last post:

The decline of a people’s culture is always the result of race mixing and a decline in racial quality…

While reading Heinrich Himmler’s insightful text the thought came to my mind that American white nationalists have been trying to reinvent the wheel. Why so many of them haven’t studied the literary output of the National Socialists, starting with the Reichsführer?

I tell you why: Liberals have produced a virus for the white mind so strong that we just can’t say that, as Himmler did in the text I reproduced yesterday, “destroying Jewry will remove the final cause that led to the decline and fall of Europe and its culture.”

My italics and I would add that, as a vaccine for the white mind against the liberal morality, we have been recommending the transvaluation of values. Himmler said:

It is equally false to think that cultures, like individual organisms, follow the laws of growth and decline; that every culture must eventually perish. History provides many examples of peoples that endure for millennia, reaching ever new levels, as long as they maintain their racial purity.

This passage says something that William Pierce and Arthur Kemp would say decades later in their histories of the white race (talking about reinventing the wheel…!).

Heinrich_HimmlerI find it amazing that a German politician in the 1940s got it right while Oswald Spengler and Francis Parker Yockey—idealized intellectuals in the white nationalist scene—got it all wrong.

The message of Himmler, Pierce and Kemp is that, if you keep you gene pool intact through a very strong group surviving strategy, your people won’t decline even with millennia.

Once again a world of appearances collapsed, which had concealed from our eyes the true nature of humanity… A new epoch is coming, one perhaps even more revolutionary than that resulting from Copernicus’s work. Ideas about humanity and peoples that have endured for millennia are collapsing… The Nordic spirit is struggling to free itself from the chains that the Church and the Jews have imposed on Germandom.

But precisely the moment when the old sky started to fall apart and the Aryan to awaken the Anglo-Saxons, so sinfully committed to the old paradigm, did everything in their power to defend it by means of genociding their awoken ancestors… If their lands now burn with rioting blacks and Muslims after the dollar crashes, shouldn’t we start calling the societal collapse poetic justice?

Let Himmler live at least within our hearts.

Anno Hitleris 68!

Categories
Individualism Liberalism Protestantism

Individualism

by Dominique Venner

Europe since earliest antiquity has always been ruled by the idea that each individual is inseparable from his community, clan, tribe, people, city, empire, to which he is linked by a bond more sacred than life itself. This unquestioned belief, of which the Iliad offers the oldest and most poetic expression, took various forms. Think of the worship of ancestors for whom the city owed its existence, or the loyalty to the prince who was its visible expression.

The first threat was introduced by the individualism of early Christianity. The idea of a personal god emancipated men from the hitherto unquestioned authority of ethnic gods of the city. Yet the Church itself reimposed the idea that the individual will could not order things as it pleased.

Yet the seed of a spiritual revolution had been sown. It reappeared unexpectedly in the religious individualism of the Reformation. In the following century, the rationalist idea of absolute individualism was developed forcefully by Descartes (“I think, therefore, I am”). The philosopher also made central the biblical idea of man as the master and possessor of nature. No doubt, in Cartesian thought, man was subject to the laws of God, but God set a very bad example. Unlike the ancient gods, He was not dependent on a natural order anterior and superior to him. He was the single all-powerful and arbitrary creator of all things, of life and nature itself, according to His sole discretion. If this God was a creator free of all limits, then why not man, who is made his image, as well?

Set in motion by the scientific revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries, this idea has no known limits. In it lies what we call “modernity.” This idea assumes that man is his own creator and he can recreate the world as he pleases. There is no other principle than the will and pleasure of each individual. Consequently, the legitimacy of a society no longer depends on its compliance with the eternal laws of the ethnos. It depends only on the momentary consent of individual wills. In other words, society is legitimate only as a contract resulting from a free agreement between parties who are pursuing their own advantage.

Still, despite this individualistic and materialistic logic, we have long maintained communal ties of birth and fatherland and all the obligations these imply. These ties have been progressively destroyed across Europe in the decades following World War II, while the triumphant consumer society arrived from the United States. Like other European countries, France has gradually ceased to be a nation (based on nationality, common birth) to become an aggregate of individuals united by their pleasures or the ideas they have of their interests. The former obligation to “serve” has been replaced by the general temptation to “serve oneself.” This is the logical consequence of the principle that founds society solely on human rights, thus on each individual’s interests.

And now, before our eyes, this repulsive logic faces a revolt from the depths. We are witnessing the unexpected awakening of all those who, through atavistic reflexes, feel deep down that unquestionable ancestry is what make a clan, a people, or a nation.

(Excerpted from a Counter-Currents article)

Categories
Christendom George Orwell Liberalism

Auster’s principal discovery

Lawrence_Auster

Today during my peripatetic soliloquies in my daily walk, I realized that I have failed to transfer into textual form one of my most recurrent soliloquies about the current totalistic paradigm. But first I would like to drop a few lines about the previous totalistic paradigm for the white peoples.

The original Latin text that Catholics used to listen during the traditional Mass—:

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
factorem cæli et terræ,
visibílium ómnium et invisibílium…

—is called Nicene because it was adopted in the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD (a city that changed its name after the Turkish occupation). The Nicene Creed has been normative not only for the Catholic Church but for the Orthodox Church and many Protestant denominations.

Latin was a language designed for uttermost clarity. When the tenets of Christianity became under direct attack by the end of the 18th century, the Enlightenment philosophers, some of them recently emancipated from the Jesuits’ indoctrination, knew exactly the doctrinaire content of the principles they were taking to task.

The situation today is exactly the opposite, I have told myself during so many soliloquies. One of the reasons why contemporary whites have been unable to challenge the new paradigm that began to be formed after the Enlightenment, called “liberalism” by Lawrence Auster and which reached its peak in our times with the American hegemony over Europe, is that the liberal axiom has never been stated explicitly by its proponents. The situation reminds me the Aristotelian concept of the enthymeme with its unstated assumption that must be true for the premises to lead to a conclusion.

The late Auster discovered that liberals were suppressing a crystal-clear, Nicaean-like statement of their major premise. Their Non-discriminatory principle is unstated and simply taken as axiomatic: something akin to the Orwellian world where the State controlled thought by means of controlling the peoples’ language. In Auster’s own words, “No one in today’s society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it.”

Unlike Latin, Newspeak is a language designed for uttermost unclarity. This means, of course, that in order to reverse the totalistic belief system that presently controls the white psyche, one must first identify the liberal axiom before the dissident, post-Enlightenment philosopher is even able to discuss it.

In other words, if we listened the liberal axiom with the same frequency that, as a child, I listened the Nicene Creed every Sunday during the Mass, the first step to disabuse whites from the paradigm that is destroying the West would have been taken.

Categories
Kevin MacDonald Liberalism Obituaries

Lawrence Auster (1949-2013)

Lawrence_Auster

Larry Auster died today. Although we had strong discrepancies in the past, the West’s Darkest Hour owes Auster some of its central ideas.

MacDonald’s recent article about Auster gives the impression that the good professor also forgave Auster’s gross insults against MacDonald because, just before dying, Auster seemed to disabuse his readership by making known a hidden chapter on the Jewish Question that very well could have been published at The Occidental Observer or The Occidental Quarterly.

Controversies aside, perhaps Auster’s most important discovery was the explicit enunciation of the Non-discriminatory principle that, implicitly, rules the West today: the quintessence of liberalism.

I sincerely believe that every pro-white advocate should be aware of that principle.

Categories
Feminism Friedrich Nietzsche Islam Islamization of Europe Liberalism Sexual "liberation" Twilight of the idols (book)

Atheist scum

Unlike Nietzsche and other nineteenth-century critics of Christianity, today’s atheists are scum. A single example will illustrate my point.

Atheist Richard Dawkins, who has appeared in talk shows arguing that homophobia is bigotry, claims to be an evolutionary biologist. But Dawkins has never dared to take seriously the most elemental biological law of evolution regarding the future of his people: to grow and multiply—not even when whites are flagrantly violating that law and heading toward extinction.

The following is a brief exchange between Dawkins and a Palestinian Muslim. Keep in mind my recent post on Pride & Prejudice and Will Durant’s words, that Nature “sees that a nation with low birth rate shall be periodically chastened by some more virile and fertile group”:

Muslim: Fix your women.

Dawkins: Fix your women! That’s not my business; that’s my women’s business.

Muslim: No, no! It is your business. When you take your women and dress them like whores in…

Dawkins: I don’t dress women! They dress themselves!

Muslim: I know but you allow it as a norm to let women on the street dressed like this. What’s going on with your society? What’s wrong with the…?

See the video of this exchange here. Dawkins could not tolerate more cognitive dissonance and, as you can see in the video, he simply faded out the audio of what the Muslim was trying to tell him.

Unless a white revolution reclaims Europe, the Muslims will teach the feminized western males of Eurabia how to grow a pair again, especially regarding our treatment of women. How sad that the Muslims have to teach us what we already knew when, unlike the atheists of today, we took the laws of biology very seriously.

This is Nietzsche’s critique of licentiousness under the guise of liberty taken from Twilight of the Idols, chapter “Skirmishes of an Untimely Man,” section 41:

Freedom which I do not mean.* In times like these, abandonment to one’s instincts is one calamity more… Today the individual still has to be made possible by being pruned: possible here means whole. The reverse is what happens: the claim for independence, for free development, for laisser aller is pressed most hotly by the very people for whom no reins would be too strict. This is true in politics, this is true in art. But that is a symptom of décadence: our modern conception of “freedom” is one more proof of the degeneration of the instincts.

(*) Adding a “not” Nietzsche is quoting here a popular German verse from a Max von Schenkendorf poem titled Liberty.