web analytics

Category: Mexico

Categories
Judeo-reductionism Mexico

Morelos

José María Morelos (1765-1815) used to wear a bandana to hide his frizzy hair, a legacy of black heritage in Chilpancingo (present-day Guerrero State in Mexico).

I have written about the Mexican-Jewish intellectual Enrique Krauze both in The Occidental Observer and on this site. But I have never quoted him at length and would like to do so now, although I will have to translate one of his articles into English (the article in Spanish can be read here). Originally published in the newspaper Reforma on 25 September 2016, the following text is an excerpt from Krauze’s speech delivered that same month when he received an award from the Congress of the state of Guerrero:

The good shadow of Morelos

Guerrero is an open wound in the feelings of our nation.

Already in the first sentence, Krauze omits to talk about the Afro-mestizo population on the Mexican coast of Guerrero: the ethnic reality behind the violence that has afflicted that state for a long time. As a topic, race and IQ is as taboo in Latin America as it is in the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia (see the latest article by Ron Unz and Mike Whitney on the ferocity of this taboo). Krauze continues:

The incuriousness of the governments condemned this state to a condition that only now, in the 21st century, can we see in all its drama. Guerrero shows the cruel face of abandonment: crime, drugs, poverty, malnutrition, emigration, social disintegration, discord. How to reverse the situation?

I do not, of course, have the magic wand, nor do I believe it exists. And I am not naïve. I know the numbers and I have seen the Dantesque crime scenes in Guerrero. I know that blood calls for blood. Nor am I unaware that today’s violence is not linked to ideas or ideals (as in Independence and the revolution) but to vast, dark, despicable economic interests, and that it is expressed day after day, with unprecedented cruelty, in the streets, the squares, the roads, the beaches of Guerrero.

But we cannot be satisfied with this terrible reality being permanent. If the country turns southwards to reach out to the wagon left behind, it may not be too late to move closer to the essential fraternity envisioned by Morelos in the ‘Sentimientos de la Nación’ (Sentiments of the Nation). Luis González y González called that document ‘the moral primer of Mexico.’ It was read here, in this church in Chilpancingo, 203 years ago. Let us listen to his words, each one, in all their gravity: ‘I want us to make the declaration that there is no other nobility than that of virtue, knowledge, patriotism and charity; that we are all equal…’

The emphasis in bold above and below is mine. It is at this point that the strength of The West’s Darkest Hour comes into full view, especially if we consider a PDF abridgement of Tom Holland’s book on how Christian morality infected, to the marrow, the soul of the West. Krauze’s hero, Morelos, waged the war of independence against Spain. He is considered the most important leader of the second stage of the Mexican War of Independence. Morelos’ ideas of equality were rooted in liberal ideas which are ultimately Christian-inspired (those who haven’t read the excerpts from Holland’s book should read them now). Let’s continue reading Krauze’s quote from the document by Morelos:

‘…for from the same origin we come; that there be no privileges or ancient lineages, that it is not rational, nor humane that there should be slaves, for the colour of the face does not change that of the heart nor that of the thought; that the children of the husbandman and the sweeper be educated as those of the richest landowner; that all who complain for justice have a court to hear them, protect them and defend them against the strong and the arbitrary… let it be declared that what is ours is already ours and for our children, let them have a faith, a cause and a flag, under which we all swear to die, rather than see it oppressed, as it is now, and when it is free, let us be ready to defend it.’ [end of Morelos’ quote]

Morelos—let it be noted—was not moved by hatred. Nor was he driven by intolerance, ideological fanaticism or a thirst for revenge.

This is false. Morelos killed many Iberian white civilians, even entire families, during his war of independence. The American equivalent would have been for a mulatto to order the killing of a good many English families during the American Revolutionary War: something that didn’t happen. Krauze’s eulogy follows:

Morelos was driven by love, but not romantic, mystical or abstract love. He was moved by fraternal, egalitarian, free love, and love that is reflected in practical works. In the middle of Tierra Caliente (one of the scenes of today’s horror) that modest parish priest built the church of his parish with his own hands, helped the needy and even recreated, in his letters, the dreams and fantasies of his parishioners. But that same priest (merciful, active, humble, sympathetic) conceived, organised and sheltered—in times of war and in that same area—the promulgation of a Constitution that would be the mould of Mexico that never quite came to fruition: a liberal and democratic republic.

Those ‘Sentiments of the Nation’ are those of today: the ancient moral philosophy of Christian equality and natural liberty which—in the lucid analysis of Don Silvio Zavala—founded Mexico. We must consolidate the modern republican institutions founded and respected by Morelos.

But there is one more sentiment that is not only current but urgent: that of a sovereign country. To our problems, we must add the threat of an economic and diplomatic war of enormous proportions, provoked by the United States if Trump (that despicable tyrant candidate) becomes president. That is why we must reclaim our love for our homeland. But—once again—I am not talking about an operatic love that is reduced to singing the national anthem, shouting ‘viva Mexico’ or waving our flag. I am talking about defending, with all the diplomatic, legal, political, economic and media resources at our disposal, the millions of Mexicans at home and abroad who could suffer the consequences of this unjust war.

If those men who surrounded Morelos did not falter in his hostile and merciless time, it is cowardly for us Mexicans of the 21st century to falter, given to discouragement or cynical selfishness. We live, wrote Luis González, under ‘the good shadow of Morelos.’ Let us be worthy of it.

In another of his Reforma articles, Krauze lets us know: ‘Every Friday, at twilight, my maternal grandmother sanctified the coming of Saturday; she lit her candles…’ However, one of the reasons I don’t inhabit the white nationalist Judeo-reductionist paradigm is that, if you listen to Mexican intellectuals who aren’t ethnically Jewish, they say the same thing Krauze says above about Morelos. And I mean both mestizos and ‘Mexican Criollos’ (those born in Latin America but of European origin, without Jewish blood). In today’s Mexico all mestizo, Criollo and Jewish intellectuals subscribe to the official story about Morelos (the exception was a great Mexican intellectual, José Vasconcelos, but he died in 1959).

Categories
Film Mexico

Pancho Sánchez

Before continuing the routine of Deschner’s series on the criminal history of Christianity, I would like to say a few things about what I said yesterday in the last instalment of the book Calígula. I refer to the film Advise & Consent which, by the way, I watched again yesterday after many years since I saw it for the first time.

In my peripatetic walk today it occurred to me that the best way to criticise American cinema is to first critique Mexican cinema and then look at the parallels. The only book by an author I know personally who has inscribed a few words on the first page for me* is Luz en la Oscuridad: Crónica del Cine Méxicano (Light in the Dark: A Chronicle of Mexican Cinema).

Francisco (‘Pancho’) Sánchez, a film critic and screenwriter, gave it to me in his own home in front of his wife. I met Pancho, who died ten years ago, at a gathering of film critics that met on Saturdays and that I used to go. Pancho’s book, a man with a good sense of humour by the way, reviews Mexican films from the 1930s to 2002, the year it was published. Well into the book, on page 112, Pancho writes: ‘In 1968 private production was still cloistered in its outdated but successful formulas, of imaginary and chaste young people, charritos [Mexican horse riders with traditional dress] and simplistic comedies’ (the translations are mine).

I hardly ever watch Mexican cinema, but the very little I have seen betrays a world that is completely unreal compared to Mexican reality. My maternal grandmother loved to listen to intimacies told by service people, who were generally indigenous, and it was more than obvious that the family dynamics from which those families came were extremely abusive. (This is not to say that white family dynamics in Western countries aren’t abusive, as Gaedhal tells us in his commentary on this site today.) But what Pancho says is true. Except for Luis Buñuel’s films, the idyllic way in which old Mexican films presented Mexican culture had nothing to do with the reality of the country.

Fifty pages later Pancho writes: ‘In 1975, the penultimate year of [President Luis Echeverría’s] six-year term in office, films of a high realist level such as Canoa were already being made, in a country where until then the divorce between cinema and reality had been almost absolute.’ Ten pages later Pancho adds about that same film, which I have not yet seen:

Indeed, Canoa does not present a bucolic rural reality, with charritos dressed as mariachis, nor an indigenous reality of immobile faces against a backdrop of nopales and pyramids. Its Catholic priest is neither Domingo Soler nor Cantinflas nor the Arturo de Córdova of La Ciudad de los Niños. He is not a canonizable priest. He is simply a scoundrel who manipulates religious fanaticism to his own advantage.

Almost ninety pages later, and already talking about Mexican films made in this century, Pancho writes about a film I did get to see:

Although it doesn’t help digestion, as they say, the film soon grabs the attention of its viewers because its dramatic weight is based on a good question: Do we parents know what are the real problems that affect our children? This question, already asked so many times by the archaic conventional cinema (that of Sara García and Marga López), a world of lies in which the answer was invariably an edifying moral, is now proposed from that possibility of realism which is total crudeness… Comfortable solutions and optimistic endings are out. Here we are treading—forgive the long journey back in time—the circumspect territories of Bicycle Thieves.

What Pancho says about Mexican cinema applies to the cinema of the neighbouring country to the north (Pancho, by the way, in one of those get-togethers we used to go to, said he liked Spielberg’s Jaws). When I was a kid I used to imagine, watching Hollywood films from the 1950s and 60s, that Americans were so proud of their race that I once told a friend that the US was like ‘a big Germany’ in a territorial sense. Little did I know that Hollywood had always been in enemy hands, or that the positive messages I saw in those films, some still in black and white, were divorced from American reality.

There were moments when 1962’s Advise & Consent, which I re-watched yesterday after a couple of decades, reminded me of the 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington which also takes place on Capitol Hill. Watching this American cinema, which predates the cinema of patently subversive visual messages of our days, provides a false impression on a child’s mentality: I was programmed with the idea that the US was a country of noble principles and the noblest Constitution (as one of the actors in Advise & Consent fervently puts it).

In reality, the child and adolescent that I was never suspected that the cinema I then saw in elegant theatres that looked like opera houses was as unreal as those films of Mexican charros in fancy clothes singing their way into small towns to woo young mestizas: the films that my grandmothers and perhaps my mother watched long ago. On page 76 of his book Pancho writes, when talking about Mexican cinema: ‘Golden age of cinema? Pure age of churritos!’ (churro, not to be confused with charro above, is a bad film of very little artistic value).

Advise & Consent may have some artistic value, like the novel that inspired it, but it is a churro in another sense of the word: churro dough is easy to produce and fry on an open fire, like the thousands of movies in the film industry on both sides of the Rio Grande.

__________

(*) “Para César Tort, con la amistad de Francisco Sánchez. 14 Nov 2003, Culhuacán, D.F.” (‘For César Tort, with the friendship of Francisco Sánchez. 14 November 2003, Culhuacán, Mexico City’).

Categories
Biography Cicero Judea v. Rome (masthead of this site) Literature Mexico

Krauze and the JQ

Last Friday I added a short piece on Spinoza in Mexico Park: a book by the Mexican-Jewish Enrique Krauze that I had just bought. Now that I’ve been reading it, I couldn’t resist the urge to write a critical review of it for The Occidental Observer (TOO). My book review has just been published in that webzine for JQ connoisseurs—click: here!

The following is a passage (my translation) of Spinoza in Mexico Park that I could have quoted in my TOO article:

José María Lassalle: In our last conversation we had covered a decade in your intellectual life: that of your integration into Mexican culture as a historian and as editorial secretary of the magazine Vuelta… The one you described in the first conversation with great detail and love: your culture of origin, Jewish culture. I was very surprised by everything you said. I didn’t know that this root was so deep. It almost covered everything… I understand that you wanted to belong to Mexico and to the Hispanic world, and all your life you have worked to achieve it. But secretly you were driven by that initial impulse, by that root. That root is Judaism: the tree grew in Mexico, in Mexican soil, and bore Mexican fruit, but the root and the trunk were Jewish.

Enrique Krauze: What I did was to build that Jewish compound in Amsterdam [obliquely, Krauze is referring to Spinoza, who was born in Amsterdam]… And I began to build a library of Jewish subjects from all eras. A library, above all, of characters and ideas. [pages 419-420]

Latin Americans idolise their intellectuals and writers, so there are a couple of things I’d like to add to what I wrote in the TOO review.

Besides having enormous fame in the Spanish-speaking world, Krauze is one of those serene-speaking ethnic Jews with subtle but toxic messages for the white world. For example, he hasn’t only translated Susan Sontag for the cultural magazines in Spanish he has edited (I have read Krauze since 1990). In Spinoza in Mexico Park, where he talks a lot about WW2, the historian Krauze doesn’t mention David Irving once. Moreover, Krauze writes ‘Holocaust’ in a capital letter and ‘gulag’ in a lowercase in spite of the fact that far more Gentiles died in the Gulag than Jews in the so-called holocaust!

In the TOO piece I only mentioned a few names of the Jewish authors that influenced Krauze, but Spinoza in Mexico Park is replete with other names of historical Jews, from cover to cover. (There is no notable writer in the Spanish-speaking world to point these things out. That’s why I have been calling Latin America the ‘blue pill’ subcontinent.)

On the dilemma that plagues every Westerner—Athens or Jerusalem?—Krauze wrote the following (my translation) about the Greco-Roman world, in the context of Jewish writers of antiquity, such as Josephus and Philo:

[Jewish historian Arnaldo] Momigliano argues that Jerusalem resisted Athens because of the radical religious obstinacy of the people. The Jewish people remained faithful to the priests, the guardians of orthodoxy. For them, Greek culture was synonymous with idolatry, vain pleasures, frivolous comedies, and pagan myths… The Alexandrian Jews tried to persuade the Greek world of the goodness of their faith… One text points to the excesses of a certain Flaccus, the Roman governor in Egypt, who unleashed a veritable pogrom in that city. Even then, this persecution took on the dramatic forms and dimensions that were to be seen many centuries later in the Middle Ages. The profile he [the Jew Momigliano] draws of the delirious Caligula is a jewel worthy of Suetonius [Spinoza in Mexico Park, pages 430-431].

Regular visitors to The West’s Darkest Hour know that this site has a masthead, a guide that allows us to navigate the seas of history. Compare Krauze’s Jewish POV quoted above with the Aryan POV of our ‘masthead’ (pages 33-123 of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, linked in our featured post):

In 62-61 b.c.e., the proconsul Lucius Valerius Flaccus (son of the consul of the same name and brother of the consul Gaius Valerius Flaccus) confiscated the tribute of ‘sacred money’ that the Jews sent to the Temple of Jerusalem. The Jews of Rome raised the populace against Flaccus. The well-known Roman patriot Cicero defended Flaccus against the accuser Laelius (a tribune of the plebs who would later support Pompey against Julius Caesar) and referred to the Jews of Rome in a few sentences of 59 b.c.e., which were reflected in his In Defence of Flaccus, XVIII:

‘The next thing is that charge about the Jewish gold… I will speak in a low voice, just so as to let the judges hear me. For men are not wanting who would be glad to excite those people against me and against every eminent man, and I will not assist them and enable them to do so more easily. As gold, under the pretence of being given to the Jews, was accustomed every year to be exported out of Italy and all the provinces to Jerusalem, Flaccus issued an edict establishing a law that…’

From these phrases, we can deduce that already in the 1st century b.c.e., the Jews had great political power in Rome itself and that they had an important capacity for social mobilization against their political opponents, who lowered their voices out of fear: the pressure of the lobbies.

Thus spake Cicero (brown letters) before the senate. The story of the Flaccus family doesn’t end there. In the masthead we then see what happened to another Flaccus[1] in the section about Caligula: another historical figure maligned by Jews and Christians, including the historian Krauze.

Incidentally, I’m in the final proofreading of the November 2022 edition of On Exterminationism, so I won’t be adding more entries here while I work on it. But I’ll answer any questions I am asked about Krauze, whom I met personally—even shook hands with him in 1993!—when he and Octavio Paz published a book by Cuban dissident Guillermo Cabrera Infante.

________

[1] Aulus Avilius Flaccus was appointed praefectus of Roman Egypt from 33 to 38 c.e.

Categories
Ethnic cleansing Latin America Mexico

Mexico’s independence

Editor’s note: The war of Mexican independence from Spain began on 16 September 1810, when an ethnic Jew, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, uttered the so-called ‘Cry of Dolores’, stirring up the Indians against the Spaniards.

The Breve Historia de México, which José Vasconcelos wrote in 1936, runs on a premise: as long as a civilisation of Spanish, Criollo origin (ethnic Spaniards with no Indian blood born in the American continent), dominates in Mexico, there is prosperity; when native barbarism imposes itself, disasters befall inhabitants of that country. However, as Vasconcelos was a Catholic, he never realised that the ideas of equality weren’t only English ideas, whom he blames for what happened in the War of Independence, but Christian ideas mutated into secular ideology.

Without adding ellipses between unquoted paragraphs, in this post I translate a passage from Vasconcelos’ book. The brackets are mine:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

In Bustamante’s medal we can read: ‘Siempre Fieles – Siempre Unidos – 1838’. And Alamán narrates that in all of Mexico there was rejoicing, when the Argentines triumphed over the English, when Spain rose against the French. And there was an offer of resources or volunteers for war to the common enemy who later suggested to Hidalgo, to Morelos, the criminal war, the disloyal slaughter, precisely of the Spaniards, of our fathers, of our brothers. And there were still loose in our squares and streets, the demagogues with Criollo mezcal eloquence shouting in favour of abstractions: liberty, equality, fraternity.
 

The perverse doctrine

Father Mier, who is presented to us as the inspirer of the Independence movements, developed his propaganda in London, always in the pay of the British Admiralty. He claimed, in effect the English doctrine, that Mexico was separating from Spain because the pacts of the Conquest [of the Aztec Empire] had been violated. What were these pacts? Who thought they existed, and, if they did, how was it that the phenomenon of Latin American independence gained the most momentum in Argentina, where there were no Indians to enter into such pacts? Why was Mexico, the typically Indian country, precisely the one that showed the least enthusiasm for Independence?

Mier suspected none of this, and propagated the thesis of the traditional interventionists, the hypothesis of the indigenous claims that were then being asserted against the Spaniards and that were later wielded against the Criollos and today are used to dispossess, to persecute those who speak Spanish, with no exceptions for the Indians. Indeed, there is talk of indigenous claims as if at the time of Cortés’ arrival the Indians had been owners, as if property and the Christian concept of the rights of the human person had not appeared precisely with the conquest.

But the truth is that the independence of New Spain was promoted by the Criollos and the Spaniards of New Spain, Mexicans of the most recent generation, and not to recover usurped rights of any kind. On the contrary, the descendants of Moctezuma, as well as those of many other characters of Aztec times, lived in Spain as nobles and opposed the independence that would make them lose their titles and their advantages. But to speak of indigenous demands in the name of a nationalism that never existed is something that could not have been born in the heart of the Mexican people, but was inspired from outside, like a poison destined to poison their future.
 

Mexican loyalty

Alamán rightly observed that ‘it was ungenerous to pretend to turn away from a nation with which Mexico had been linked for three centuries’. Hidalgo himself evoked the name of Ferdinand the Seventh, perhaps thinking that once Spain had been freed from the French invasion, Independence would follow. They did not come to Mexico, as they did to Colombia, with Bolivar, with English battalions and foreign general staffs, no doubt because Spanish sentiment was stronger among us.

Independence—achieved without bastard advisors like those who led Hidalgo and Morelos astray—was already being achieved. But that was not what the British wanted. What they wanted was to drive the Spaniards out of their dominions in America, to dominate the natives at once as one dominates flocks without a shepherd… [The movement] was diverted, by iniquitous foreign pressure, into the ignorant and destructive caudillismo of the Morelos and Guerreros, whose programme in essence went no further than the demand to kill gachupines [Spaniards], the natural slogan of the English.

Independence in Mexico did not fight battles. There have never really been battles on our soil, but bloody hecatombs of civil war. And it has had to resort, as we shall see in another chapter, to the dangerous system of exalting defeats. For all our foreign warlords are, after all, defeated. But to be specific in the case of Independence, it is an auspicious fact that no great battles were fought, that there were no great armies, and that Calleja, as he constantly repeated with all loyalty, was waging war against the warlords of Independence exclusively with Mexican troops. We Mexicans wanted independence but we were loyal. We did not want independence for the benefit of the British, but the benefit of our homeland. That is why the nation, in its conscious sectors, did not follow Hidalgo, did not follow Morelos. Everyone must have been suspicious of that eagerness to kill gachupines and that insistence on recruiting pure Indians and blacks from the coast of Guerrero, to throw them on the populations to plunder, to destroy, which is the only thing that the improvised leader who has no plan and no vision achieves.

To realise the tactics of Hidalgo and Morelos, tactics of the forerunners of the American party, tactics which produced friendships in the United States and promises of aid, such as driving Hidalgo northward, such as moving Morelos to dispose of Texas, let us imagine a similar case in another nation. Suppose that the French who aided American independence, instead of meeting with superior men like Franklin, like Washington, like Hamilton, men who knew how to take advantage of foreign aid, but without submitting to its ends, turned it rather to their service, had had recourse in the United States to the mulatto population, ignorant and degraded, and, therefore, predisposed to treachery. To these half-breeds of black and white the French agent, the enemy of all things English, would have said, and rightly so:

‘You have been ruled for three centuries by an aristocracy of hypocritical Quakers who presume to be righteous, and here they are seizing all the land, all the wealth, keeping millions and millions of blacks in slavery. The battle cry must be “Death to the British”, and every time you occupy a village, shoot all the subjects of England you manage to capture’.

What would the leaders of American Independence have done in the face of such propaganda? They would have taken no more than five minutes to have those who listened to such propaganda shot! What would Washington himself have done if the overseer of the slaves on his farms went into rebellion to kill Englishmen? At that very moment, Washington, who was well-born, would have felt English and would have sought first to beat first the traitors of his blood and then the agents of the oppressive power that was England. Well, that explains why so many did not follow Hidalgo and Morelos but let them be executed, without prejudice to continue working for Independence, without prejudice to consummate independence, but no longer to the cannibalistic cry of ‘Death to the Gachupines!’

I ask the pure Indians of my country, and my compatriots already educated and clear of mind and heart: Was there or was there not oppression, abuse, or slavery of the blacks in the region of America colonised by the English? And yet, what would have happened if the warlords of American Independence, instead of fighting against the English troops, summoned the blacks, called them and told them: ‘Now to kill the British’? Is it true or not true that the United States would have become supper for blacks?

We have just said that the fate of Mexico would have been different if its national leaders at the time of Independence had had the cultural and human stature of the Franklin, the Hamiltons, and the Adamses. We had one or two in that period who can be compared with the best of any country. Bishop Abad y Queipo and the civilian Don Lucas Alamán. A character of constructive stature could perhaps have been developed with the figure of Licenciado Verdad, Mayor of Mexico. But there was a lack of intelligence in the wealthy, enlightened class.

The greatest crime in history is to dress up in tinsel events that have been the cause of the backwardness and decadence of nations. And this is what we have done with the legend of Independence: to erect as a cult and a religion what was a disastrous mistake and the beginning of all our misfortunes. It is better to have no idols than false ones.
 

The precursor movements

From the beginning, Pereyra notes, the purely Spanish Criollismo will carry the banner of Indianism against the Metropolis; it will be called Aztequismo in Mexico, Incaismo in South America, Mosquismo in New Granada, Caribdismo in Venezuela. Each country will find in a remote pre-Columbian glorification the starting point of its national aspirations.

But all this was not only artificial and absurd, it was part of the British programme which, together with wages, taught a lesson to the forerunners and actors of the great insurrectionary movements.

An obscure Indian rebellion aimed at suppressing the work tributes was magnified into a continental banner. It happened that the rebel cacique Condorcanqui was baptised by those who had sold their souls to England with the name of Tupac Amaru, the name of the Inca executed by the Spaniards. And he was presented as the would-be Emperor of all America, when, Pereyra rightly says, his ancestor, the real Tupac Amaru, never had any pretensions to conquer even as far as Bogota. All the new Tupac did before he was soundly defeated was to slit the throats of men, women and children. In Calca he wiped out all the whites. This indicates the trend of the insurrection. And so the question arises again: What would the Americans have done with an uprising which, under the pretext of national independence, would have launched the redskins of the Cañada against the outposts of the thirteen primitive colonies? They would have done what Calleja did when there was no more war cry and no more plan than to kill gachupines: beat them to death.

The documents drafted by the British were no more effective in achieving the purpose that would serve as the basis of the war: the spread of hatred between Criollos and Spaniards. This was the origin of the contemporary imperialist action that stirred up the hatred of the mestizos against the Criollos and of the Indians against the mestizos.

Rather than French egalitarian and liberal, the ideas of the forerunners of Independence were borrowed from the Intelligence Service of the English Admiralty; they were fabricated by the enemies of Spain who coveted our territories. They were ideas of social derangement, useful to produce what would soon define American imperialism, more practical and more outspoken than English imperialism: the extermination of the inferior mixed races that Spain had produced and the conquest of the land without the men, ‘the cage without the bird’. In other words, the tactic that the Americans applied in their territories, ‘A good Indian is a dead Indian’. In our countries, the Spaniard had to be wiped out first because the Spaniard had married the Indian, allied himself with the Indian and had come to form the powerful mestizo bloc. It is by attacking them in the head, by destroying their aristocracies, that the enemy races are best and soonest destroyed. That is why the war cry, a hypocritical and disloyal cry, was from one end of the continent to the other and even there where there were no Indians to claim a single right: ‘Up with the Indians, the Tupac Amaru of operetta and… let the gachupines die!’

Miranda dreamed, as Bolivar dreamed at first, that by simply establishing freedom, all the republics of America would live in peace. He did not see the American danger, added to the English danger. And if Bolivar did see it, it was when, already in decadence and exile, the lucidity of one who has failed in an enterprise he judged noble came to his spirit.

Miranda also fell into the childishness of wanting to give the government of a vast American state to the descendant of the Inca. So we can see how even the men of genius of the movement served the Anglo-Saxon plan to eliminate the Spanish from the territories they were preparing to conquer. And yet Miranda had not a drop of indigenous blood in him. He was merely a soul mediated by the influence of the English.

Where is the judgement of all these men we revere as fathers of the fatherland? If Miranda, a man of the world, enlightened, almost brilliant, offered the provinces, what is so strange that Morelos, lacking in enlightenment, spoke naturally of offering Texas to the United States in exchange for a few rifles?

Aaron Burr, too, an American character who later fell into disgrace, was preparing an expedition down the Mississippi. Its object, proclaimed by Jefferson, was the conquest of New Spain. It was not carried out because Spain was behind it. When we lacked Spain, the disaster of 1947 occurred.
 

The War of Independence

The Viceroy, in the meantime, organised a new army which he placed under the command of Don Félix María Calleja, a royalist general. On the plains of Aculco, northwest of the capital, Calleja waited with ten thousand men for Hidalgo’s one hundred thousand. They were a poorly armed rabble, composed mostly of Indians, and Calleja succeeded in destroying them.

The insurgent defeat was total. From that moment on Hidalgo’s only thought was flight. On his way north he was apprehended near Monclova. From there he was taken to Chihuahua, where he was executed after publicly recanting his entire enterprise.

On his passage through Michoacán, Hidalgo had received the support of the priest Don José María Morelos, his former pupil at the seminary of Valladolid. Morelos was not very enlightened. His ideas about his movement were those communicated to him by Hidalgo, who was confused about them. Hidalgo viewed the unmotivated slaughter of the Spaniards with distaste. Morelos, less educated, was more easily infected by the irritation of the mestizos and Indians against the Spanish. On Morelos’ side, American agents gained considerable influence. One of these agents, according to Alamán, was shot by Calleja. But not before he had witnessed with satisfaction the hecatombs of Spanish prisoners consummated by Morelos. The destruction of the Spaniards was necessary to destroy the country.

The lust for booty drove the multitudes against the Spaniard, for the dispossessed always hates he who has. The United States would have degenerated instead of prospering if, like us, they were engaged in persecuting Englishmen. On the contrary, Yankee policy has been to favour the immigration of English and Nordic people of all races related to their own. And the power of Argentina and Brazil is due to the fact that they continued to receive Spaniards and Portuguese respectively, at the same time that we were killing and expelling Spaniards. It was a drain on our ethnic aristocracy.

If on these and similar facts there is not the slightest doubt. If Morelos cannot be a model, neither as a military man nor as a patriot nor as a gentleman, why these unlimited glorifications? To raise to the highest summit of patriotic fame one who suffers from such scourges, takes away authority to demand from the officials and caudillos of the day, the elementary virtues of the man of honour. Because how can we ask from the common official what is not demanded of the hero? On the other hand, there is nothing sadder than a people whose history is not even clean. To keep it dirty is not the fault of the characters who appear in it, but the fault of the crowd of intelligentsia hired out to the vilest powers of the moment, who repeat legends and bestow thoughtless or perniciously motivated consecrations, often to cover up and justify the crimes of the present.

Categories
Daybreak (book) Daybreak Publishing Mexico

Grammarly review


As I am reviewing the PDFs, I was surprised that the Daybreak articles hadn’t been checked by Grammarly, the syntax checker I use. That means that the current version is riddled with syntax errors, as they are old articles, prior to my use of Grammarly. It will take me a while to go through the whole book, as I have to do one or more home print-outs of each article after the Grammarly review, to polish up the syntax.

It is worth saying that I have just added an article to Daybreak that will appear, in PDF, when all the PDFs have been revised. I refer to the one piece of mine that Counter-Currents published: a magnificent quote from José Vasconcelos that would serve Americans well in understanding the tragedy of Mexico.

In the next few days I will be busy revising Daybreak…

Categories
Mexico Miscegenation New Spain

The more normie the more hits

Not so many years ago, when YouTube cancelled the channel of Stefan Molyneux, the biggest promoter of what was then called ‘Alt-Lite’ in contrast to the Alt-Right (as Moly, whose mother was Jew, has served as gatekeeper for the Jewish question throughout his vlogging career), and moved to other video platforms, something happened that caught my attention. According to Moly himself, who uploaded excellent videos on the IQ differences between the races, only a tiny fraction of his YouTube subscribers re-subscribed to his new platform on Odysee.

If we use my metaphor of crossing the psychological Rubicon and those stuck in the river unable to cross it, it’s understandable that there are miscellaneous people in the water—from what used to be called the Alt-Lite, who at least have one foot in the water, to those who are just a few steps already inside the river. Never mind that there are people like Moly who will never speak honestly about the JQ: a step in the right direction is something so significant for the thought police that YouTube took down his channel (the same day YouTube took down the channels of Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer). But Moly was by far the most important of the three in terms of the hundreds of millions of hits his channel had garnered.

When I learned that only a negligible fraction of his supposed fans had subscribed to Moly’s new channel on another platform I thought that, rather than having been awake, those ‘fans’ had only been logging on to his YouTube channel out of curiosity but without real conviction.

Recently I’ve been thinking about the comments threads on webzines that address topics Moly didn’t touch (and doesn’t touch on his new channel). But even in the comment sections of forums that go so far as to address the JQ, I’m always left with the impression that I’m encountering normies or semi-normies. Think of the hundreds of commenters on The Unz Review for example: a webzine that republishes what Andrew Anglin writes in Daily Stormer. As far as I know, none of the authors Ron Unz publishes is aware of the Christian question, and very few commenters are aware of it, or that the US had a bad birth. (Unlike Europeans, Americans have never gone through a civilisational stage where there was not a single Christian.)

I am capable of rejecting both flags of the county where I was born: the tricolour flag of the eagle on a cactus devouring a snake—that is, an Aztec flag—and the previous flag, which some Criollos associate with New Spain. I reject even the latter because the first thing these Catholic idiots did was marry Indian girls. There is a very vulgar saying in Mexico that I have heard from the Criollos who live here: “Carne buena y barata sólo la de la gata” (‘Good and cheap flesh only that of the Indian maid’).

Not being aware of CQ is similar to Moly & Alt-Lite’s company not being aware of the JQ. As Adunai said in our Monday’s post, Robert Morgan has tried to break the taboo in the comments section of The Unz Review about how CQ explains the first anti-white war perpetrated by the Yanks in a time when Jewry hadn’t yet taken over their media. But if one starts from a primitive pride in one’s nation and stupid worship of one’s ancestors, one will never diagnose the causes of white decline. It is as if I were to blindly honour, say, New Spain by removing from my conscience the fact that the New Spaniards committed the nefarious sin of mestization.

My great-grandfather Damián Tort Rafols exemplifies
the saying “Carne buena y barata sólo la de la gata”.

Why is it that if I can disown the culture I was born into, and even my ancestor who married an Indian, the normies and semi-normies who argue in racialist forums cannot disown their culture? Never mind that the Spanish and Portuguese have been mixing since the 16th century and the Anglo-Germans from the North until the present century and the end of the last century. Both cultures have the same perpetrator as a common denominator: the universalist religion that equalises all human ‘souls’.

I started talking about Moly’s Alt-Lite, which reached half a billion hits on YouTube, because I have the impression that, as a blogger or vlogger moves away from Normieland and into the river, his hits begin to diminish. Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer, who had taken a couple of steps further towards the other side of the river, certainly didn’t have the audience volume that Moly had when they cancelled all three, not remotely. And someone like me, who has virtually finished crossing the river, has become an obscure blogger that no one mentions or links on racialist forums!

It seems that obscurity, in the sense of fewer and fewer hits, is directly proportional to the distance from crossing the Rubicon to the other side.

Categories
El Grial (book) Mexico Miscegenation Racial studies

Exchange at the Observer

The quote above in the sidebar, ‘In committing the matricide of Europe, Anglo-Americans heaped up their own funeral pyre’, is from Junghans, with whom I had been discussing amicably years ago.

After years of not discussing with him, on Tuesday I mentioned to Junghans at The Occidental Observer comments thread my usual mantra about miscegenation in Latin America, which shows that Iberian whites committed ethnosuicide without Jewish help. We have already seen what I said about Claudius, a monocausal Argentinian who insulted me and now no longer comments here. In the Observer, another Argentinian under the pen name of Angelicus said: ‘I am 62 and I was born in Argentina, a country whose population is nearly 75% White’. In my reply to Junghans, I mentioned Angelicus’ preposterous claim:

The Argentinian who wrote the above is hallucinating: if most Mexicans are mestizos, Argentinians and Uruguayans are what in Latin America we call castizos or harnizos. I.e., they have less Indian blood than the Mex, but they still have it (see the new racial classification, pages 561-620 of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).

Among other claims, Angelicus responded: ‘What Mexico’s government publishes instead is the percentage of “light-skinned Mexicans” there are in the country, with it being 47% in 2010 and 49% in 2017’. This was my response:

HAHAHA! I’ve lived here for more than half a century and hardly see any white people on the streets. I don’t need academic ‘studies’ to see what I see every day when I leave the house.

Regarding Argentinians and Uruguayans, the claim that most of them are pure whites is bunk. I invite Observer visitors to see YouTube clips of the 2014 Football Cup celebrated in Brazil. Most of the Argentina team members were mestizoids, as well as the thousands of fans at the stadiums from that country (you only see very few real whites from Argentina). Latin America is a complete goner, far more than the US and Canada. (Why do some of them claim to be white, you may ask?—see this article.)

Another commenter, Moneytalks, replied to me wrongly assuming that I hadn’t visited the states of the Mexican republic. This was my response:

You are assuming that I haven’t travelled to the states, but I have. There are more white people in the north of Mexico than in the south, for example.

Alas, regarding those who look like Iberian whites, appearances are deceiving. In Mexico there are hardly any racialist groups. A pure Spaniard, named Pedro by the way, from one of these groups said something that hits the nail referring to those Latin Americans who look like Iberian whites: “Fenotipos vemos, genotipos no sabemos” (‘We see phenotypes, we don’t know genotypes’).

Very true. There are people you can see on the Mexican streets and they look as white as an Iberian Spaniard. The problem is with their children! Since they aren’t pure Spaniards, by Mendel’s laws one of the children can be born brown (‘We see phenotypes, we don’t know genotypes!’). I have written on the subject in El Grail, the eleventh of my books in Spanish, but this month the Lulu printing company closed my account and it is only available, for the moment, to those who request it by email.

On this site Mauricio commented:

Not knowing the phenotype of an unborn child, due to the contaminated genotype of the parents… Lovecraftian horror at its finest.

This was my response:

I don’t remember on which of the main white nationalist forums not long ago I read a comment from a guy who visited Mexico and was shocked when a very white woman told him she was half Indian because her mother (or father?) was Amerindian. He couldn’t believe it.

But that’s precisely the problem when you copulate with an indigenous woman. Above [I refer to my Friday article ‘On Alberto Athié’] I was talking about Athié’s brother who married a close aunt. Without dropping names, this aunt’s brother married a very white woman and had a couple of daughters.

At family gatherings the difference between a phenotypically Aryan girl—green eyes, light hair, rosy-white skin, etc.—and the brunette sister is noticeable. One of the anecdotes I mention in The Grail is that my mother, many years ago, warned me not to praise the Aryan girl’s beauty because it might hurt her little sister, who might suffer from an inferiority complex. This sort of thing happens to mudbloods and the only way to avoid it is the zero-drop rule.

Let’s take another example, this one about one of my cousins who moved to Canada, another brunette. When her white sister visited her, some Canadians asked her why if she was white, her sister was brunette: a great curiosity for the WASP normies who don’t understand that Mendel’s laws apply not only to flowers, but to humans.

In addition that it is preposterous to believe that there is a huge percentage of white men south of the Rio Grande, many Observer commenters still fail to grasp Mendel’s laws. Fenotipos vemos, genotipos no sabemos…

Categories
Autobiography Catholic Church Feminism Liberalism Mexico

On Alberto Athié

How Christianity is transmuted
into liberalism: a textbook case

In my post the day before yesterday I tried to see liberalism as a movement heretical to traditional Christianity. These days I have also been watching many YouTube videos where we can see the Mexican Alberto Athié (pictured above) speaking.

After twenty years of priestly ministry, Athié resigned in 2003 when he discovered that the Catholic Church not only had no interest in curbing cases of sexual abuse, but also had an internal mechanism to cover up the perpetrators, silence the victims and protect its image. What I said recently about Spotlight in the US can be compared to what is happening in Latin America.

My mother used to see Athié at religious celebrations when he was still a priest because Athié’s brother married one of my close aunts. When Alberto Athié began to denounce in the media the paedophile worm can that was the Catholic Church in his country, the two brothers stopped talking to each other.

In the first post of this month I mentioned, in grey letters, an anecdote told to me, very close to where I’m writing this entry, by Athié’s buddy: José Barba, one of the victims of the paedophile priest Marcial Maciel. But I didn’t tell everything that happened when Barba visited me with a friend.

When the subject of women came up, I expressed my views on feminism (see our book On Beth’s Cute Tits). Barba, then in his late seventies, sided with feminism in such a way that I even felt his gestures were rude when he heard me speak: he started yawning, signalling that he didn’t want to hear what I was saying. I was surprised by his rudeness, as Barba continues to go to mass despite his activism against paedophiles in the church. Why did the old wise man who speaks fluent Latin, reads the New Testament in the original Greek, and had been a seminarian react like that? The slew of videos of his buddy Athié that I have seen these days revealed the mystery.

The now secularized Athié, who still believes in the gospel message, says in one of his videos that feminists helped them enormously in the cause of bringing paedophile priest cases to light. Hearing him speak in various televised interviews over the years, one discovers how Christianity began to transmute. Once he hung up his habits he began to sympathise more openly with liberation theology, so-called women’s rights, a Manichean vision where there are exploited poor and exploiters in a nation, third world countries whose underdevelopment is caused by the prosperity in first world countries, and so on: the typical toxic cocktail of Latin American leftism.

The Athié family has a reputation of mocha (goody-goody) in the country, of a very traditional and recalcitrant Catholicism. It is fascinating to see how, after an Athié priest hung up his habits, it didn’t take long for his Catholic programming to metamorphose into the typical liberalism we see in countries that had practised traditional Christianity. In the specific case of Latin America, as the anti-Aryan crossbreeding has already been consummated (see my comment yesterday in the comments section of The Occidental Observer), what it is now all about is achieving the long-awaited equity between men and women. Athié completely and utterly endorses this Orwellian agenda in Latin America. So from an extremely traditional family we now have, when you leave the church, a typical modern-day liberal.

The racial right in North America, so obsessed with Jews, doesn’t want to see the elephant in the room: only the countries that used to profess traditional Christianity have become ethno-suicidal. Even the Asian copycat countries that now worship Mammon are not so imbecilic as to invite masses of Blacks or Muslims to immigrate while devising shut-up neologisms like ‘racist’ for those who rebel, and even hate-speech laws to punish dissent. Likewise, feminism, taken to the point of hating men, is a phenomenon that only affects once-Christian countries as is now the case not only of Spain but Latin America, which has also embraced gender ideology, and the Athié case illustrates this wonderfully.

For those who know Spanish, I suggest you watch some of the videos with Athié. The former priest speaks in a very good-natured, cordial, charismatic and empathetic way: a true spiritual heir of the mythical Jesus.

Categories
Evil Mexico

Why I hate Christianity

In 2019 I wrote:

A few days ago some Santería practitioners ritually sacrificed a poor chicken and they came to throw the decapitated corpse at the corner of my house in Mexico City.

In the winters I usually walk around the streets a lot to warm my feet and hands. I just saw another decapitated rooster, whose carcass has been dumped a block from my home.

The intrinsic evil of Christianity is that it commands us to love every bipedal ape regardless of his morality. I have written extensively on this site about the human sacrifices of the Amerindians before the arrival of the Europeans. But sacrifice continues in the 21st century, albeit with animals.

If the Christians had not conquered the continent, but say the Visigoths, there would have been much more chances to wipe out the horrible inhabitants of the Americas.

Categories
Amerindians Free speech / Free press Hinduism Mexico Miscegenation Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book) Vegetarianism

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 12

The question arises, however, as to the boundary between the two intolerances, or rather, between acts and gestures hostile to the order dreamed of by the legislator and ‘thoughts’, deep-seated convictions, attachment to values that contradict the basic propositions on which this order is based. It is certain that gestures, unless they are purely mechanical, presuppose thoughts, convictions and the acceptance of well-defined values. And it is also certain that any ardent attachment to given values will sooner or later be expressed in gestures—by creating ‘facts’. It will do so as soon as it can, that is, as soon as the pressure of the hostile forces which have hitherto prevented it, relaxes.

And in the meantime, if any public demonstration is prohibited for him—if he is, even as a feeling, considered ‘subversive’, even ‘criminal’, by those in power—he will express himself clandestinely: by word and deed, behind closed doors, among ‘brothers’. This is exactly how our attachment to the values of Aryan racism in its contemporary form, Hitlerism, has been expressed for a quarter of a century now. We are tolerated only insofar as we are invisible. And the immense hostile world in whose midst we are scattered, accustomed as it is to trust only its senses, believes us to be non-existent. Any clandestine thought is necessarily tolerated, or rather ignored, and for good reason!

Tolerance of the expression of another’s thought or faith, in a society based on norms which it seems to despise, is logically justified in only two cases.

Either one considers this thought or faith as not being likely to have any influence on the social life of the individual (and even less on that of his racial brothers), or one admits its harmfulness; its subversive character, its potential danger on the practical level—but, either we don’t esteem the representatives enough to judge them capable of sustained persistence, or we don’t believe in the efficacy of thought and faith, even when expressed, if the action they call for is impossible. We don’t admit the real danger.

The Hindu who has no objection to one of his sons worshipping Jesus, rather than the divine Incarnations known and worshipped by his fathers, has in view only one function of religion: leading the worshipper to the lived experience of ‘God’ to the realisation of the universal Self within himself. He presupposes that his son, while tending towards this supreme experience through his devotion to the Christ, will not break any of the ties that bind him to Brahmanical society. If he thought differently, if he suspected, for example, that the young man no longer had the same respect for the traditional laws concerning food and marriage; if he believed that he was now capable of eating flesh (and especially bovine flesh) or of procreating children outside his caste, and this because his new faith had given rise to a new mentality in him, he would be less tolerant.

The European who is refused entry to a Hindu temple is excluded not because of his metaphysics, which is held to be false, still less because of his race, if he is indeed an Aryan, but because of the culinary habits attributed to him, sometimes wrongly; but no regulation takes account, alas, of the exception! (Although Hindu society in general had long since accepted me, I was refused entry to one of the temples of Sringeri, the homeland of Sankaracharya, in South-West India, on the pretext that I had been, before embracing Hinduism, a beef-eater. And when I vehemently objected to this accusation, pointing out that I had always been a vegetarian, both before I came to India and afterwards, the priest told me that ‘my fathers, no doubt’ had not been vegetarians. I must confess, to be fair, that I was admitted to almost every other temple in India, including the one at Pandharpur in the Mahrat country.)

Hindu ‘intolerance’ being, like ours, essentially defensive, is understood that it manifest itself against any idea or belief, or metaphysical or moral attitude, seen as tending to undermine the traditional social order. But it will never be exercised in respect of a different traditional order, to change it by force or even by persuasion. This is, I repeat—and it cannot be repeated too often—the ‘intolerance’ of all the peoples of antiquity, minus the Jews. The judges who condemned Socrates to drink the hemlock because he ‘didn’t believe in the gods of the city’ would never have dreamt of imposing these same gods of Athens on an Egyptian or a Persian.

If they could have known in which direction ideas would evolve and history would unfold—Christian (or Muslim) proselytism, the Crusades, the Holy Inquisition, the suppression of indigenous religions in America—, they would have seemed as monstrous to them as they do to us, the much-hated ‘intolerants’ of today. And we, who would be ready to crack down with the utmost violence on all those who, by nature or choice, would oppose the resurgence of a social and political order based on Aryan racial values among Aryan peoples, would regard as absurd any attempt to preach our values to Negroes or, in general, to peoples of other blood than ours.

Even in Europe we distinguish between the ‘North’ and the ‘South’, the Germanic and the Mediterranean element even though the latter was already mixed with the blood of the Nordic conquerors in ancient times. After every conquest there is a gradual return to the race of the conquered, if no ‘caste system’ or at least no marriage laws guarantee the survival of the conquerors.

If Aryans with our mentality would have conquered the Americas instead of the Spaniards and Portuguese, they would have left the temples and the worship of the native gods intact. At most, seeing that they themselves were taken for gods from the start, they would have allowed themselves to be worshipped while trying, with all their might, to become and remain worthy of being so. And they would have punished, with exemplary severity, any intimacy between their own soldiers and the women of the country, or at least prevented the birth of children from mixed unions, thus preserving the purity of both races.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: The following passage from Breve Historia de México (A Brief History of Mexico) by José Vasconcelos portrays the Catholic ethos criticised by Savitri:

In sum, it is time to proclaim, without reservation, that both the Aztec and the [Mesoamerican] civilisations that preceded it formed a set of aborted cases of humanity. Neither the technical means at their disposal, nor the morality in use, nor the ideas, could have ever raised them, by themselves.

The only means of saving peoples thus decayed is the one used by the Spaniards: the miscegenation legalised by the Papal Bull that authorised the marriages of Spaniards and natives. And with miscegenation, the total replacement of the old soul by a new soul, through the miracle of Christianity. The fact that we have so many millions of Indians in Mexico should not demoralise us, as long as the traditional tendency subsists: that is, the effort to make the Indian a European by soul, a Christian, and not a pagan with the paganism of savages. On the contrary, the Indianism that they try to take back from the past, to return us to the Indian, is a betrayal of the homeland that, since the Colony, stopped being Indian.

That is why we have always talked about incorporating the Indian into civilisation, that is, into Christianity and Hispanism, so that all our children, united, enjoy a Mexico totally regenerated from its Aztec-ism, even the Indians and the children of the Indians!

Vasconcelos was pathetically wrong. It’s impossible to turn the Other into oneself. Vasconcelos died when I was one year old. He could never have imagined that the statue of Christopher Columbus would be vandalised by the slightly mesticized Indians that he idealised; removed from its pedestal by the government itself, and replaced by that of an Amerindian woman as I said in my post yesterday.

Incidentally, those who want to read a translation of mine from ten years ago of another passage from Vasconcelos’ book can do it at Counter-Currents.