Categories
American civil war Kevin MacDonald Monocausalism Robert Morgan / Jack Frost

Morgan on KMD, again

Kevin MacDonald: ‘Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition…’

I’ve been flipping through this book, and it’s not as bad as I thought it was going to be. On the positive side, I’m glad to see that MacDonald is evidently of the view that the American Civil War was all about slavery. He says, for example:

Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired and justified the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa.

This is a controversial statement in right-wing circles, where it is common to hold that the Civil War was only a dispute over states’ rights or tariffs, and that slavery played no role at all. So kudos to MacDonald for taking a stand in the opposing camp.

On the other hand, he is still pushing the view that the cultural defeat of Darwinism in America marked a turning point in white fortunes, and for this defeat he blames the Jews, especially Franz Boas. But, to those who have been following the matter, it will come as no surprise that he completely ‘forgets’ to mention the sizeable Christian role in the defeat.

There was a considerable amount of resistance to Darwin’s ideas from Christians on both sides of the Atlantic. In England, Thomas Huxley, ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, verbally jousted with Bishop Wilberforce. In America, it culminated in the 1925 Scopes trial, the so-called Monkey Trial. Darwin’s theory was thought to be contrary to the Bible, and there had been a law passed making it illegal to teach anything other than Biblical creation stories in public schools.

Ironically enough, it was the heavily Jewish ACLU that challenged this law. This would seem to pose a problem for MacDonald’s notion that the Jews were the only force [emphasis added by Ed.—what I call ‘monocausalism’] against Darwinism, so he prefers not to discuss it. Those pesky Jews!

In their relations with whites, it’s always been heads they win, tails we lose. If they challenge Darwin’s idea, as did Boas, they’re attacking white racial solidarity. If they uphold Darwin’s idea, they’re attacking Christianity, which in MacDonald’s view has been a force for white unity. Thus it seems the abandonment of Darwinism was not entirely a Jewish project. White Christians, too, reacted in horror to Darwinism’s implications, and still do so today.

In my view, omitting a discussion of this is a serious flaw in the book.

__________

Read it all here.

Categories
Alfred Rosenberg American racial right Austria Catholic Church Child abuse Germany Hitler's Religion (book) Joseph Goebbels Mein Kampf (book) Monocausalism Richard Weikart Rudolf Hess

Hitler’s Religion: Chapter 1

Goebbels’ Diaries

Joseph Goebbels, based on his frequent and extensive conversations with Hitler, recorded numerous times in his diary that Hitler was anti-Christian and wanted to destroy the churches. A few days after Christmas in 1939, he conversed with Hitler and reported, “The Führer is deeply religious, but entirely anti-Christian. He sees in Christianity a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a strata deposited by the Jewish race.”

The first chapter of Richard Weikart’s book is entitled ‘Was Hitler a Religious Hypocrite?’ In the white advocates’ internet movement, Carolyn Yeager has been the most faithful in holding in high esteem the memory of Hitler and his Reich. But like many Christian white nationalists, she has failed to notice the hypocrisy of the Führer’s public pronouncements when compared to his private pronouncements. I recommend Weikart’s book to those racialist Christians who are stuck with Hitler’s public image.

Who was the historical Hitler? Since, in many respects, Hitler is the antithesis of the archetypal Jesus, we can recall a verse from Mark’s gospel that portrays him: ‘He spoke to them only in parables, but to his disciples privately he explained everything’.

Plenty of evidence suggests Hitler was concerned lest he offend the religious sensibilities of the German public. In a lengthy passage in Mein Kampf, he warned against repeating the disastrous course that caused Georg von Schönerer’s Pan-German Party to nose dive. Schönerer was an Austrian politician in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who wanted to unite all Germans in a common empire. His fervent German nationalism brought him into conflict with the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire, which would dissolve if Schönerer had his way. He also promoted a biological form of anti-Semitism, wanting to purify the German people by getting rid of this allegedly foreign race. In 1941, Hitler told his colleagues that when he arrived in Vienna in 1907, he was already a follower of Schönerer. By the time he wrote Mein Kampf, he agreed fully with Schönerer’s Pan-German ideals, affirming, “Theoretically speaking, all the Pan-German’s [Schönerer’s] thoughts were correct.” However, he blamed Schönerer for not recognizing the importance of winning the masses over to Pan-Germanism and harshly criticized him for launching the Los-von-Rom (Away-from-Rome) Movement, which called on Austrians to abandon the Roman Catholic Church. Schönerer opposed Catholicism because he considered it an internationalist organization that undermined nationalism.

This reminds me of what Henry VIII did in separating the Church of England from papal authority.

He believed it posed a danger to the German people since it included many different nationalities, including his enemies: the Slavic groups in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Schönerer himself personally left the Catholic Church in January 1900 and joined the Lutheran denomination. Though he occasionally lauded Luther and Protestantism, his concern was purely political. According to Andrew G. Whiteside, a leading expert on Schönerer, he remained a pagan at heart and was indifferent to Christianity; though sometimes he claimed to be a Christian, at other times he admitted, “I am and remain a pagan.” Another time, he stated, “Where Germandom and Christendom are in conflict, we are Germans first… If it is un-Christian to prefer the scent of flowers in God’s own free nature to the smoke of incense… then I am not a Christian.” According to Whiteside, “none of the Pan-German leaders was in the least religious.”

Hitler viewed the Los-von-Rom Movement as an unmitigated disaster because it unnecessarily alienated the masses from the Pan-German Party, precipitating its decline. Hitler suggested the proper political course would be to imbue ethnically German Catholics (and Protestants) with nationalist sentiments so they would support a “single holy German nation,” just as they had done during World War I. Hitler also rejected Schönerer’s anti-Catholic crusade because he insisted that a successful political movement must concentrate all its fury on a single enemy. A struggle against Catholicism would dissipate the Nazi movement’s power and sense of conviction it needed to carry on its fight against the Jews.

Wow, this puts me closer to Schönerer than to Hitler, even though, privately, Hitler believed the same as Schönerer did about the religion of our parents.

But we must try to understand Hitler. In the case of Henry VIII, the winds of the zeitgeist on the British Isle were in his favour. The Austrians and Catholic Germans weren’t prepared for such a step, and in any case, German Lutheranism was as harmful to the Aryan cause as Roman Catholicism. If someone wants, like Hitler, to do politics, he has to compromise.

While Hitler faulted Schönerer for alienating the masses through his anti-Catholic campaign, he was not thereby endorsing Catholicism. Overall, he supported Schönerer’s ideological goals and only objected to his inopportune tactics: “[The Pan-German movement’s] goal had been correct, its will pure, but the road it chose was wrong.” What Hitler learned from Schönerer’s tactical mistake was that political parties should steer clear of interfering with people’s religious beliefs or attacking religious organizations: “For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes! Especially in Germany any other attitude would lead to a catastrophe.” Hitler thus warned any anticlerical members of his party to keep their antireligious inclinations private, lest they alienate the masses.

Hitler’s compromise took a toll that is noticeable even in American white nationalism: what I have been calling monocausalism on this site.

By focusing, at least in the Reich’s public pronouncements, solely on Jews as the Enemy #1 of the Aryan, the public NS ideology exonerated Christians. I won’t reprove what Hitler did, because rather than being a religious reformer he chose to be a politician; and every politician has to compromise. But this tactic left a gap in racial ideology that to this day hasn’t been filled. (Since American white nationalists aren’t politicians but internet commentators, unlike the NS of the previous century they could break down the barrier between private and public, and start saying what Hitler said privately about Christianity, which they don’t.)

In 1924, when Hitler was interned in Landsberg Prison after his failed Beer Hall Putsch, his fellow prisoner and confidante Rudolf Hess talked with other Nazis about religion. Hitler did not join the conversation; afterward, he told Hess that he dared not divulge his true feelings about religion publicly. Hitler confessed that, even though he found it distasteful, “for reasons of political expediency he had to play the hypocrite toward his church.” From the early days of his political activity, Hitler recognized that being a religious hypocrite had its political advantages.

In his diaries, Goebbels confirmed that Hitler camouflaged his religious position to placate the masses. Based on his conversations with Hitler more than a year before the Nazis came to power, Goebbels wrote that Hitler not only wanted to withdraw officially from the Catholic Church but even wanted to “wage war against it” later. However, Hitler knew withdrawing from Catholicism at that moment would be scandalous and undermine his chances of gaining power. Rather than commit political suicide, he would bide his time, waiting for a more opportune moment to strike against the churches. Goebbels, meanwhile, was convinced the day of reckoning would eventually come when he, Hitler, and other Nazi leaders would all leave the Church together. If Hitler was being frank with Goebbels, then his public religious image was indeed a façade to avoid offending his supporters.

It couldn’t be clearer.

In a diary entry from June 1934, Rosenberg also explained how Hitler masked his true religious feelings for political purposes… According to Rosenberg, Hitler divulged his anti-Christian stance and “more than once emphasized, laughing, that he had been a heathen from time immemorial,” and that “the Christian poison” was approaching its demise. Rosenberg explained, however, that Hitler kept these views top secret.

Multiple sources, not only his monologues that we have begun to translate, portray what Hitler said to his ‘apostles’ in private in contrast to his ‘parables’ to the people.

In a major speech on the sixth anniversary of the Nazi regime (the same speech where he threatened to destroy the Jews if a world war broke out), Hitler remonstrated against the “so-called democracies” for accusing his government of being antireligious. He reminded them that the German government continued to support the churches financially through taxes and pointed out that thousands of church leaders were exercising their offices unrestrained. But what about the hundreds of pastors and priests who had been arrested and thrown into prison or concentration camps?

A fair question.

The only religious leaders persecuted by his regime, he smugly said, were those who criticized the government or committed egregious moral transgressions, such as sexually abusing children.

It is a myth that American Boston journalists were the first in the West, at the beginning of this century, to expose the Can of Worms that is the Catholic Church: it was the Germans. We can imagine how many Catholic children would have been spared if Hitler had won the war…

“Nor is it acceptable,” Hitler told the churches, “to criticize the morality of a state,” when they should be policing their own morals (the Nazi regime was at this time conducting trials of Catholic clergy for sexual abuse). He continued, “The German leadership of state will take care of the morality of the German state and Volk.” In Hitler’s view, morality was the purview of the state and its political leaders, not religious institutions and religious leaders. Any pastor or priest teaching his congregation morality contrary to Nazi policy or ideology could be labeled a political oppositionist, even if he was simply teaching moral precepts that Christians had been teaching for centuries.

Highly commendable, but because he lost the war we never settled accounts with Christianity: something Hitler planned to do after the war.

Categories
American racial right Deranged altruism Mauricio (commenter) Monocausalism

Two thousand years together!

by Mauricio

 
Who is worse, the drug dealer or the drug addict?

When you have a people who have become so dependent on this egalitarian worldview for so many centuries, and failed every single opportunity to break off this addiction, it starts to look like the drug dealer is just doing business, and the drug addict has an incorrigible deathwish.

One could write a history of White decline called ‘Two Thousand Years Together’.

It’s Whites who like to get high on slave morality. They’ve been getting higher and higher on this Christian drug ever since Constantine.

They’ve finally overdosed in 1945, and now the White race is lying comatose on a hospital bed full of Jewish doctors, lucid-dreaming about a perfect world full of brown people.

Nature has tested Whites’ spiritual resilience to a poisonous mental software, and they’ve failed repeatedly. The jews were merely the vector for that poison. Time for the final verdict: genocide.

Had the Third Reich survived, it would’ve brought a superior human race to this world—the Ubermensch—which would be practically immune to this mind poison; then the drug-dealing jew would have to peddle his pity-loving bullshit elsewhere.
It will take a catastrophe of unforeseen magnitude—and centennial duration—for the white human to stop pitying the angry brown subhuman mass that wants to kill him.

Abhor pity towards mankind – four words of Savitrian wisdom.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: Mauricio was responding to a typical white nationalist (they believe that Jewry is the root cause of white decline). In the comments section I just added these words:

As Thomas Kuhn saw, the same information can be processed in a completely different way between two subjects. So different that, depending on how we process the info, the paradigm shifts. In science, the classic paradigm shift would be from the geocentric to the heliocentric system. Although 17th-century astronomers had exactly the same information, it depended on how they interpreted the data.

This caricature reflects the paradigm shift from the JQ, which currently reigns in white nationalism, to the CQ—Christian question—that I propose. The caricature is interpreted by some white nationalists as archetypal Jewish subversion, as if to imply that the kikes hypnotised us through religion:

Regardless of whether or not that was the intention of the caricaturist, I see the same information differently. The kike didn’t hypnotise us. There is white agency. Just look at the faces of these white idiots. They simply love what the kike tells them. For two millennia white Christians have been willingly indulging in evil by following the gospel. And the same can be said for secular white nationalists who continue to subscribe to the same ethical code that we see in the caricature.

The caricature shows a malicious Jew selling us Christian ethics. The orthodox interpretation of our decline, which we see every day in The Occidental Observer, blames the Jew. But with the same info that MacDonald sees, I see whites as the real culprits. Who dares to believe such bullshit, the white family in the above caricature? The same info can be interpreted differently depending on our internal will. While white nationalists see a couple of kike silhouettes, I see in ochre colour the bitter cup that Christianity made us drink since Constantine:

The image above can also be used as an illustration of a paradigm shift. Who to blame: the Jew who wants to sell us the teachings of Jesus or the white people drinking this poisonous Kool-Aid with their eyes wide shut—including the ‘racist’ commenters linked above from Occidental Dissent and The Unz Review? Who is worse: the white imbecile or the foreign subversive?

Categories
Alice Miller American racial right Autobiography Ferdinand Bardamu Kevin MacDonald Monocausalism Psychohistory

WDH vs. TOO

‘Tanstaafl cannot think in terms of a combined causality, for him there can be only one cause: the Jews’. —Franklin Ryckaert

I woke up thinking I would post an entry from another section of Savitri Devi’s book and, while checking my email spam filter, I come across an article in The Occidental Observer (TOO) about Tanstaafl (Tan).

Although I never met him personally (the American government doesn’t give me a visa to visit the US), when I first woke up to the Jewish question, Tan and I were friends. Then I began to ask questions, such as the cases of ethno-suicidal miscegenation without Jewish subversion that have occurred throughout history, and I distanced myself from him. While I still believe that the JQ (the Jewish Question) is a very real thing—Kevin MacDonald is more or less right, as far as he goes, in his three books on the JQ that I’ve read—, in expanding the JQ into the CQ (the Christian Question) I lost almost all the friends I had known, thanks to the internet, from white nationalism.

But before I get into the title of this article, which I came up with because my previous article is entitled ‘WDH vs. AmRen’, I would like to confess a few things about my biography.

As you can read in my autobiographical books, my adolescent life begins with a family tragedy that destroyed several people. Cognitively, I was not well after the storm and fell into a neochristian cult, whose dogmas led me into a ‘dark night of the soul’.

Specific anecdotes are beside the point except that, after a period of blind belief in the cult, called Eschatology, I began to ask questions. For example, why, if Eschatology develops paranormal powers to heal the body and in theory one can prolong youth, did eschatologists get sick and die like everyone else (see my article on the subject on pages 9-24 of Daybreak)? My teachers of Eschatology never answered me, nor did it ever occur to them that they should answer me.

That was the first time I left a group that had served as a new family after the loss of my biological family. It was also the first time I realised that a group of religionists are so self-encapsulated in an ideological bubble that any rational argument attacking their bubble from the outside will simply be ignored.

Years after I left the cult, something similar would happen to me with another group I belonged to, but this time it was just an internet group about abusive parents: specifically, readers of the Swiss psychologist Alice Miller. By now I was familiar with the work of Lloyd deMause, who, in his book that was translated into several languages, History of Childhood, said that children had been much more abused in the historical past, and more so in non-Western cultures. Since Miller’s fans were (and apparently still are) all liberals, they didn’t enter into an honest discussion with me about the terrible treatment of children in non-Western cultures.

So, for the second time, I lost a group I had acclimatised with, and for exactly the same reason: a lack of honesty on the part of my colleagues to face the facts. My conclusions about deMause’s work can be read in my book Day of Wrath, and my final word to those I left behind as I crossed the bridge from Miller country to White Nationalist country can be read: here.

But my spirit of always going to the frontier of knowledge made me cross, once again, another bridge, although crossing it has left me almost alone. A commenter on this site hit the nail regarding this ultimate loneliness: ‘The leap from 5 to 6 [of Mauricio’s ladder] is astronomical due to the Xtian malware rejection. Feels lonely sometimes’. Indeed: by introducing the CQ we lose the friendship of not only Christian white nationalists, but Christian sympathisers like Kevin MacDonald and many secular people who comment on his site and AmRen.

The West’s Darkest Hour used to be visited by more people, and even receive more donations, before I went nuclear on the CQ. But I won’t change my views unless someone shows me I’m wrong.

A while ago I asked commenters who subscribed to ‘monocausalism’—Jewry as the primary cause of white decline—not to argue here. I have modified that request and I think that, if they have good reasons to refute me, they could point them out to me—as long as they take into consideration what I say in the single comment of the sticky post!

But there is a problem with this desire of mine for dialogue. If I take into consideration my past, for example all those decades I lost in the cult and the reluctance of eschatologists to discuss the issues with me, or the reluctance of Alice Miller fans to discuss my interpretation of deMause, I think I should understand that white nationalists will never try to refute me. Like the eschatologists and Miller fans, they will simply ignore what I say even though it would be possible, say, for one of these fans to write a critical review of my Day of Wrath, or for the nationalists to write critical reviews of the other books on the sidebar.

As those who study paradigm shifts know, the old-school proponents (e.g., those who believe in the quasi-monocausal premise of TOO) have to die off so that the proponents of the new paradigm—that the CQ and JQ are two sides of the same coin—can begin to flourish.

The problem is that we don’t have much time. The anti-white establishment is growing by the day to ‘wait’ for the monocausalists to die out (think, for example, of who Biden wants to nominate to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat). Rather than trying to convince them, it would be great if younger people could climb Mauricio’s ladder and get to where very few of us are. And if we are wrong, let those of the old school start, for example, by answering what Ferdinand Bardamu objects to about Kevin MacDonald (pages 171-181 of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).

 

Update of February 4

Edmund Connelly, PhD, the author of ‘Tanstaafl and Rational [!] Discussion of Jews’—the first link in the above article—didn’t mention what Greg Johnson thinks about Tan’s monocausalism.

In white nationalism there are three main sites of pundits: TOO, AmRen, and CC (Counter-Currents) administered by Johnson. Had Connelly been a little more objective, he would have taken Johnson’s objections to Tan into account.

Exactly the same can be said about the commenters in the TOO discussion thread. As of this update, there is not a single critique of Tan—or monocausalists like him—of the sort of Greg Johnson’s sharp critique. That gross omission vindicates what I wrote above about ‘the quasi-monocausal premise of TOO’.

Categories
American racial right Kevin MacDonald Miscegenation Monocausalism

How KMD ushers in the new year

In my last post last year I reminded visitors that none of the mainstream white nationalist forums has tried to answer my main point about miscegenation in Latin America, when Jews had no influence in the Americas. Kevin MacDonald’s first article this year in The Occidental Observer opens with these words:

Nathan Cofnas published a paper in the Israel-based academic journal Philosophia: Philosophical Quarterly of Israel in February of last year titled “The Anti-Jewish Narrative.” Andrew Joyce wrote a masterful reply, “The Cofnas Problem,” while I decided to try to publish a response in Philosophia. My paper went through two rounds of peer review and was finally accepted. It is the lead article in the January issue of Philosophia, and is available as an open-access paper on Springer Nature.

This is the first time I have attempted to publish an article on Jewish influence in the mainstream academic literature since The Culture of Critique was published in 1998 by Praeger, so it is something of a milestone.

MacDonald is one of the most respected white nationalists in America. I would like to respond to what he says about his milestone by paraphrasing the article’s abstract, replacing terms that refer to Jewry with terms that refer to Christian ethics. This is MacDonald’s original abstract:

The role of Jewish activism in the transformative changes that have occurred in the West in recent decades continues to be controversial. Here I respond to several issues putatively related to Jewish influence, particularly the “default hypothesis” that Jewish IQ and urban residency explain Jewish influence and the role of the Jewish community in enacting the 1965 immigration law in the United States; other issues include Jewish ethnocentrism and intermarriage and whether diaspora Jews are hypocritical in their attitudes on immigration to Israel versus the United States. The post-World War II era saw the emergence of a new, substantially Jewish elite in America that exerted influence on a wide range of issues that formed a virtual consensus among Jewish activists and the organized Jewish community, including immigration, civil rights, and the secularization of American culture. Jewish activism in the pro-immigration movement involved: intellectual movements denying the importance of race in human affairs; establishing, staffing, and funding anti-restrictionist organizations; recruiting prominent non-Jews to anti-restrictionist organizations; rejecting the ethnic status quo as a goal because of fear of a relatively homogeneous white majority; leadership in Congress and the executive branch.

What KMD says both in this article and in his trilogy on Jewry is basically true. My objection is that it is short-sighted, in that it doesn’t adequately consider the history of the white race outside his nation. This is my paraphrase:

The role of the Catholic Church in the transformative changes that have occurred in the West continues to be controversial… On this side of the Atlantic, the post-Conquest era after 1521 saw the emergence of a new, substantially Spanish elite in the American continent that exerted influence on a wide range of issues that formed a virtual consensus among the organised Church and Catholic religious orders, including immigration of blacks from Africa, civil rights for the native Amerindians, and the Christianization of the Americas. The activism of the Spanish and Portuguese crowns involved a pro-immigration movement (in the following centuries more blacks migrated to the Catholic Americas than to Protestant America); Christian movements denying the importance of race in human affairs, and minimizing white supremacy to the point of wholesale mestization of the Iberian whites with both, native Amerindians and imported blacks.

If you wonder where these blacks are in Latin America, the answer is brutal: they have long since been genetically amalgamated with the other races, so the average ‘mestizo’ is actually the product of all three races.

Is it getting through that my ‘heliocentric’ paradigm replaces the ‘geocentric’ paradigm of the US racialist right? The policies of the 1965 Act that MacDonald mentions in his January 1st piece fall within my own life span. By contrast, what Christians did on the continent, ruining the DNA of those who came from the Iberian peninsula, was perpetrated for centuries (the first cases of interbreeding were consummated even before the Conquest of the Aztec Empire).

But obviously, white nationalists will continue to ignore these facts because confronting them would imply updating their little paradigm! Incidentally, to the translation of Ferdinand Bardamu’s essay into the language of Cervantes on why Europeans should reject Christianity, I have added a brief prologue and an epilogue, which can be read in the Spanish section of this site (here and here).

Categories
American racial right Correspondence Monocausalism

Last chance to save

the comments section

 

‘A country has the Jews it deserves. Just as mosquitoes can thrive and settle only in swamps, likewise the former can only thrive in the swamps of our sins’. —Corneliu Zelea Codreanu

Claudius’ insult in the previous thread got me thinking. Remember that earlier this year I eliminated the comments section for a month and a half, and I am tempted to do so for good. The thing is that the spam filter is being bombarded by banned sockpuppets, and sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between a new commenter and a sockpuppet due to proxy IPs.

To make matters worse, those white nationalists who religiously believe that Jewry is the primary cause of white decline are unwilling to be persuaded by reason or even historical facts. Consider Claudius mentioned above. Since July of this year I had been trying to reason with him. This is what half a year ago I tried to communicate to the now-banned Claudius:

But this doesn’t respond to what I say: In his first novel he [William Pierce] doesn’t criticise Christianity, only Jewry; and in the second novel he puts a Christian preacher as a legitimate way out of the current dilemma in the US. If the American Gore Vidal published an anti-Christian novel (Julian) in the 1960s, why couldn’t Pierce do the same in the 70s and 80s, when he published his two novels?

Furthermore, the National Alliance doesn’t list Christianity as the primary cause of white decline. It is a typical organisation of American white nationalism with the difference that they aren’t Christian.

The point of view of The West’s Darkest Hour is that Christian ethics is the primary cause of white decline, not Jewry, which is what American racialists believe. (That’s why they never tell me anything when I mention the gigantic mestization in this continent that occurred when their religion was supposedly healthy.)

The difference is as big as believing in the geocentric system vs. the heliocentric system: a paradigm shift! That’s why this site is ignored by all main pundits of American racialism. Nobody tries to answer what I say through a solid essay-review; replying, for example, to what we say in the books available from the sidebar.

A commenter replied: ‘Re: your Latin American argument. Can I hypothesize that the Yankee mutt nationalists ignore your point precisely because they are “racist”, i.e., Latin Americans are subhumans to them and should not be counted for anything?’ I responded:

The problem is that, what I say, happened even north of the Rio Grande before the US war with Mexico. I am referring to the states California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, the western half of New Mexico, the western quarter of Colorado, and the southwest corner of Wyoming (and later, Texas). All this is North America, and before belonging to Mexico they belonged to New Spain, the viceroyalty of Spain.

The trick white nationalists do to self-delude themselves is to ignore the history of their own land, since in those lands miscegenation wasn’t frowned upon either, courtesy of the Counter-Reformation ideology—i.e., Christian ethics—when it belonged to Spain.

After Claudius intervened, I replied by quoting him in bold:

However, we cannot underestimate the terrible impact of the accursed ‘chosen people’ on the White race.

Have I underestimated it? You are new to this site. Have you read the masthead of this site, the essay on Judea vs. Rome?

Hitler (and most of the NS leaders) was not a Christian, or a believer if you prefer, but he did not waste time attacking the Church when…

Again, old visitors of this site know that Hitler had to compromise—elemental PR—in his speeches. But in his inner circle he criticised Christianity more than Judaism.

…he knew that there was one enemy infinitely more dangerous.

If this is true, how do you explain that in his table talks there are more anti-Christian statements than anti-Semitic statements?

Put it this way: Christianity and Judaism complement each other. But the driving force in our downfall is Judaism.

Nope. The drive is that the white peoples let that a malicious archetype take over their collective unconscious right after Constantine. Again, you are new to this site. Have you read our translations of Christianity’s Criminal History (see the sidebar)?

The Jews have been the creators and promotors of everything vile and destructive. Driven by their messianic dreams and their hatred for mankind they are the most powerful and lethal enemy of the White race. Don’t put the cart in before the horse.

It looks like you haven’t even read Pierce’s Who We Are or Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans: the only histories of the white race written so far. They demonstrate that ethnosuicidal miscegenation occurred in the historical past sans Jews, for example the Aryans in India and right after the conquests of Alexander the ‘Great’. That a blind will to imperialist power is far greater ill than Jewish subversion is the moral of those two histories.

After responding to another commenter with the words inside the parenthesis (‘I am not saying that Christianity is a bigger problem than Jewry, but that Christian ethics is a larger problem than Jewry, since it includes the secular ethics after the French Revolution and the birth of the US that now infect all the West’), Claudius intervened again. My response:

… it seems to me that some people here have become obsessed with Christianity making it our chief enemy forgetting that the Jews are in the driving seat. As I said, that is as absurd as putting the cart before the horse.

You are talking like the proverbial white nationalist. This is the last time I repeat it: This is not a WN site. If you want a WN echo chamber please go to WN forums.

Christianity is an enemy… The Jews are at the forefront in the fight for the destruction of the White race and Western civilization and cannot be considered a secondary enemy.

They are a secondary enemy. The main enemy of whites is whites themselves, as proven in the sources I mentioned to you above (incidentally, The Fair Race doesn’t contain essays authored by me, only the prologue).

Most importantly they [the group of the late Pierce] are 100% anti-Christian.

Have you listened to what I said above? It doesn’t matter whether they are anti-Christian or not. What matters is if they know that Christian ethics is the primary factor of white decline which includes secular, atheist ideologies throughout the West.

Before I eliminate the comments section I must give one last chance to bona fide commenters who aren’t trolls, banned sockpuppets or monocausalists impervious to reason or fact. This post is dedicated to those commenters who wish to know our philosophy, the books on the sidebar: most of them available also as PDFs so that he who cannot afford them can print them at home.

Categories
American racial right Autobiography Child abuse Hellstorm (book) Monocausalism Second World War Thomas Goodrich Trauma model of mental disorders

On Tom Goodrich

Source: here

The following interview, done in June 2015, is with author Thomas Goodrich. While Goodrich has written over a dozen books, his book Hellstorm has proven to be the most popular and life-changing.

Life-changing, not only for him as an author, but for anyone reading this painful and shocking book. You won’t soon forget it, and nothing you will ever read will compare to the evil and horrors contained in this book.

After reading what America and its allies—the ‘good guys’, did to the Germans during and after the end of WW2 you will surely realise the scale in which we have been lied to. As you will read in the interview, this book’s purely historical information is so feared by those in power that it got the author black-listed for writing it.

Hellstorm is a brutally honest book. It lies about, censors, or hides nothing. It is a picture of hell on earth. Of monsters hiding in human skin and their agonised victims.

When you realise the truth about what the Allies did to Germany you will certainly question everything you’ve been taught. We personally have an immense amount of respect for Thomas Goodrich for choosing truth over personal career and monetary gain. Such people are, regretfully, very rare in today’s twisted, money-worshipping world.

As Thomas says in the interview, the information was already out there. Out there, waiting for the day when people would finally be ready, or even give a shit about, the terrible truth of WW2.

It just took someone as selfless and courageous as Thomas Goodrich to bring it to the world.

 

Question: First off, could you please tell us a little about yourself; your background, education etc.?

Tom: Born in Kansas as Michael Thomas Schoenlein, I was adopted at age five. I spent my first years on my grandma’s farm in Missouri, then moved to Kansas. My biological dad was a professional musician, alcoholic and drug addict. About the age of 8-11, I was raped and sodomised on a daily basis. Other than that, I led a fairly normal childhood. After the military, I graduated from Washburn University in Kansas with a degree in history.

Question: What got you interested in the history of WW2?

Tom: TV was filled with war movies in the 1950’s and 60’s. Never really knowing why, I always sided with the Germans. Maybe it had to do with such a small nation, relatively speaking, taking on the world and almost succeeding. Or maybe it had to do with so much hate directed at Germany; that seemed suspicious, even to a kid. I remember a coach-parading-as-a-teacher once upbraiding the entire high school I attended because some bored and anonymous student had carved a swastika into a desk top. Judging by the deathly seriousness on the coach’s and other teachers’ faces as they tried to root out this closet ‘Nazi’ and this deadly challenge to American freedom and sports watching, one might have thought the devil himself had been set loose in the hallways. To even an undeveloped mind, such serious looks and words and fuss among adults at the very least created curiosity and interest, thereby having the opposite effect of that intended.

Question: Hellstorm is one of the most important books detailing the horrors the innocent German people suffered at the hands of the Allies. This topic, the mass rape, murder and starvation of the soldier and civilian population, is not popular with the mainstream media outlets. Can you tell us about any resistance or backlash you have endured because you have bravely decided to speak out?

Tom: Prior to Hellstorm, I never really had trouble finding publishers. Hellstorm ended that run. The only press that took the manuscript was the University of Kentucky Press and the director who wanted it was fired within one month. Thus, sad as it was, I put the manuscript on a shelf and there it stayed for ten years. When I did eventually find a small press to take the book, no one was willing to review the book or have me back on their radio programs. Prior to Hellstorm I had been on scores of major media outlets publicising books, including Cspan, BookTV, Book Notes, and PBS. Also, I had been a talking head on a score or more of documentaries featured on Discovery, NatGeo, and History channels. All that, of course, was now gone. But honestly, I would trade all of that for the wonderful reception I have had in the Alternative Media. These people have embraced me. The MSM uses someone like toilet paper; you are important to them only as long as you serve their purpose. Except for predictable name-calling and veiled threats from the hired Hasbara haters and other Jews, I have little fear or concern for the enemies of truth.

Question: To most Americans and citizens of Allied countries, the horrors of WW2 are squarely put on the shoulders of National Socialist Germany. We are taught that they were beyond evil and that our ‘heroic democracies’, with the assistance of communist Russia, gallantly liberated Europe from monstrous Germany. Well as lies have a way of seeping out, the truth is coming to light. Do you foresee a future that will have accepted the truth and come to terms with it?

Tom: As humans, it’s hard for us to see change when it takes place over years or decades. But if it were possible to have a time-lapse camera and watch the days, weeks and months pass and how quickly our current darkness is giving way to light, then everyone could clearly see that the truth is spreading over the globe with almost breath-taking speed. Our great techno break-through, the internet, has given us the weapon to free ourselves from slavery. Prior to the info super highway, our Jewish enemy had almost total control over communication; now, their strangle-hold is slipping rapidly away. Fewer and fewer whites get their information on the anti-white MSM; more and more turn to our Alt media. Next up: We need to develop our own WN television system that airs the truth 24/7 and that offers a gamut of thought and entertainment.

Question: Writing a book about a topic as disturbing as Hellstorm must take a toll on one’s psyche. How did it affect you? What was your defence against letting it depress you, if you had one?

Tom: By researching and writing Hellstorm, I realised that the world was a much more terrible place than even my wildest imagination could paint. Easy to say, I am not the same person after writing the book. I heard the screams of those girls butchered by those Jewish commissars at Neustettin; I heard the howls of those burning to death in Hamburg and every other German city; from my own childhood of sexual abuse, I could taste the hot, salty filth as the Germans POW’s in Eisenhower’s death camps drank their own urine to avoid death; I could vomit along with the women who were forced to kiss and make love to the rotting corpses at the Jewish torture pens in Poland. At the same time as I learned to fear much in this world, I also learned to hate from every molecule in my body. I get very little sleep now. What little I do get is interrupted frequently with long bouts of restless thought. Certainly, researching and writing a book like Hellstorm is not good for one’s physical or mental health. But it had its rewards. Now I realise that our Jewish enemy not only wants to kill we whites, but beastly, unimaginable torture is part of our future as well; Germans were just the most available and easy to destroy; now, the plan is set in motion to commit complete and utter genocide against the white race. The more one investigates, the more obvious this murderous plan becomes. I, for one, refuse to ignore this proof that is right in front of my eyes.

Question: What authors have influenced you and your work? Are there any you would recommend?

Tom: William Gayley Simpson, a good and true man, taught me to be true to myself, no matter what. William Pierce, maybe the most honest man who ever lived, in an entertaining, yet forceful way, pointed me in the right direction with an unflinching hand. Many great writers and thinkers—John Kaminski, Lasha Darkmoon, and those on Greg Johnson’s Counter Currents website, have nourished me daily. Fearless young fighters, like Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice, and Kyle Hunt of Renegade Broadcasting, are constant sources of inspiration.

Question: I have noticed that Hellstorm is widely recommended and cited online. How did you publicise it?

Tom: White Nationalism has developed a very effective network of communications. Fortunately, most of the writers, bloggers and radio hosts in the truth movement were eager to have me on to discuss the book. And, to spread the story behind Hellstorm, I was eager to be on. I have probably done over a hundred shows in the past two years, so eventually, all truth-seekers are going to hear of Hellstorm.

Question: When I read about the atrocities committed against the innocent Germans and found the vile quotes by Ilya Ehrenburg, the influential writer whom incited the Red Army soldiers, I was appalled. Quotes from him like ‘The Germans are not human beings… If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day…’ etc. Ehrenburg was speaking about all Germans, including civilians. The Germans are still paying reparations to the victors for ‘war crimes’, yet no one even knows about the war crimes committed against the Germans. What individuals would you deem to be the worst perpetrators against the Germans? What shocked me the most was that the Americans were responsible for untold deaths of surrendered German soldiers whom they had put in death camps after the war. Some reports say millions of German soldiers died while in American custody. It’s ironic how we’ve been taught over and over how bad the Russians were in WW2 (the gulags, Russian occupation, etc.), when in fact the Americans were also incredibly evil. Another case in point is that of Rudolf Hess. Britain and America for years claimed the reason he wasn’t released was because of the Russians, but his son and other historians believe it was in fact the British and Americans who refused to release him. There is also incredible evidence that he was murdered.

Tom: Although Jews in the US, in the UK, in the USSR, and elsewhere, orchestrated the monstrous crimes against Germany, it was our fellow whites—Europeans, Americans, Canadians, etc.—who were the willing tools and who implemented these cold-blooded crimes. In some ways, it’s easier to understand the Jewish motives against Germany and Europe than it is the depravities gleefully committed by our own racial kinsmen. At some point in the very near future, there will be a much-needed ‘culling’ of the white herd. No healthy race could commit such vile atrocities against any living thing, much less against their own herd; both during and since World War Two the white race has proven to be the most unhealthy and diseased herd on the planet.

Question: How long did it take you to research and write Hellstorm? Where did you find the source material?

Tom: It took me circa three years to research and write the book. Most of my research material came from extremely rare, but published, or typed, resources, including letters, diaries and manuscripts. The material was there for any historian, academic or otherwise, to read and publish for themselves, if they so choose. But no one, of course, did so. I also did a number of live interviews with survivors.

Question: I noticed you also have a book on the American Indians. Can you tell us a little about that? What has been your favourite topic to write about?

Tom: I am a historical iconoclast. Perhaps springing from that incident I mentioned above back in high school, I have enjoyed dragging down and crushing the idols made of clay that the dim and the dull worship. There is so much propaganda parading as history out there right now—lies, exaggerations and utter nonsense easily proven wrong, that the market is bullish for anyone who wants to join me. Take the American Indian, for example. Judging by Jewish Hollywood and Jewish TV, one might imagine that the American Indian lived the life of some sort of peaceful, pastoral, philosophical early-day Hippie culture, whose entire existence was spent harmonizing with his surroundings and protecting all nature from the encroachment of evil, grasping whites. Additionally, after watching or reading any number of modern accounts of Indians at war, one might imagine that Indians went to war only reluctantly and only because they were forced into it to save their way of life. As I have described in my book, Scalp Dance, the American Indian could be just as destructive of nature and just as ruthless in exploiting it as any white man ever born. Also, the fact is that Indian tribes lived for war; it defined who they were; war was the very reason for their existence, and not just war with the white man, but war with other red men, as well.

Question: Can you tell us about your collaboration with Kyle Hunt (radio host of Solar Storm on Renegade Broadcasting) to create the Hellstorm documentary? It is very popular with over 208,000 hits on Youtube.

Tom: Kyle is young enough to be my son, and yet, there was very little generational conflict, that I am aware of, while working on the film together. Kyle is an incredible young man. Talented, creative, industrious, the single feature that distinguishes Kyle from others his age is his incredible focus. From my experience with him, nothing seems to sidetrack Kyle. His passion is also clearly demonstrated to anyone who watches his film, Hellstorm. Kyle might also be one of the most moral men I know.

Question: Can you compare the horror of Dresden’s destruction by firebombing with any other war crime? Has there been such a vicious attack in our history of the world? Why do you think the horrific firebombing attacks on civilian targets like Hamburg and Dresden have gotten so little coverage in the media and history books, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are widely publicized? It’s interesting that more Germans died in the firebombing assaults than the atomic bombings.

Tom: Truly, the deliberate and premeditated firebombing of helpless German cities by the Allies stands as one of the most demonic and evil war crimes committed in the history of the world. And Dresden remains the apotheosis of that campaign of terror. Dresden stands as a shameful monument to the evil that was WW2. An undefended city, crowded with refugees, one of the most beautiful cities on earth, targeted by the forces of hate for the simple purpose of killing as many women and children in the most sadistic manner imaginable. Among so-called historians and so-called German leaders, there is today a deliberate attempt to lower the number of Dresden deaths from an estimated 250,000—400,000 dead to a mere 20,000-25,000. The assumption, of course, is that if the number of dead can be reduced, and accepted, then the extent of the enormous crime itself can be reduced. Unfortunately for the history distorters, the International Red Cross, with numerous reps on the scene in 1945, along with Berlin officials and city, state and national rescue workers who were doing the body count, are the sources most credible, not moderns today who have agendas and a vested interest in reducing the horrific death toll. More people died in Dresden in one night than died in the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Question: Your newest book Rape Hate is a very interesting compilation of cases of rape and murder. Not only does it involve a glimpse into the hell that German women went through during WW2 at the hands of the Allies, but also has tales of early American settlers whom were often murdered and raped by the American Indians. While I don’t want to downplay the tremendous crimes against the American Indians by the United States government, people aren’t often told about the shocking crimes against settlers by the Indians. Your thoughts?

Tom: Judging by Hollywood and modern academics, one might imagine that white women were thrilled at being taken prisoner by Indians that they might shake off the shallow and confining conventions of civilised life and begin enjoying their new natural life out-of-doors. Indeed, many portrayals of white captives convey the idea that they were transformed into something akin to Indian princesses. The reality, however, is just the opposite. Gang rape, abuse, over-work, more rape, dirt, filth, beatings, lice, fleas, more rape, prostitution, and so on were the reality of white women captured by Indians.

Question: Your compassion in writing Rape Hate is very evident. You mention that you yourself were a victim of abuse as a child, and I think that fact really helps the writing in this case. You seem very able to ‘get into the victim’s shoes’, more so than many other authors of True Crime books. Are you interested in the ‘true crime’ genre as a whole? What do you think about how the American justice system handles such monsters like serial killers? They are often allowed to drain millions of taxpayer dollars with appeals and can often drag out their sentence of death for decades. It seems to me to be a huge flaw in the legal system, especially when the person admits they are guilty. I was recently reading about a serial killer in National Socialist Germany named Paul Ogorzow. This monster would actually rape and murder women during air raid blackouts in Berlin. After Ogorzow was arrested, admitting his crimes, it only took the NS justice system thirteen days to examine his insanity claims and execute him by guillotine! In the case of such criminals the authorities would mail a bill to the heirs of the deceased. What are your thoughts?

Tom: My thoughts are your thoughts, Molly, and our thoughts are the thoughts of any healthy race of humans. Aggravated rape should be a capital offense. Rape is the crime that keeps on giving; the victim never recovers. It is much like victims of a home invasion; one replays that vile invasion virtually every hour of their life. And yes, there should be no lengthy ‘appeals’ process. Punishment should be within days of the crime, not decades. Mistakes will be made, of course, and some innocent will suffer, but the victims of these crimes and their families deserve some sympathy too. As far as the manner of punishment, the family of the victim should have a say in that. The current process is a crime in itself, and a slap in the face of every victim and their family.

Question: Are you working on a new book currently? Can you tell us anything about it?

Tom: I have two, perhaps three, books that will come out this year. The working title for all three is Rage & Revenge—Torture & Atrocities in War & Peace, Parts 1, 2, 3. Also, I will write two more scripts for films by Kyle Hunt; one on the Indian wars, and another on the treatment of the defeated Confederacy after the American Civil War. In numerous ways, what the South suffered, 1865-1866, was very similar to what Germany suffered, 1944-1947.

Question: Lastly, thanks so much for your time and thoughts Tom! And thank you so much for giving a voice to all the voiceless victims. Any words to the world?

Tom: To the White World: The time is swiftly approaching in which you must make a choice. On the one side is the rotting, diseased world of the past and the almost certain extinction of the white race; on the other side is the difficult, but necessary, road ahead which ultimately leads to a rebirth of the European spirit. While our parents and grandparents slept, and grew fat and lazy, their worst enemy slipped in and usurped our future. Now, we must fight to reclaim it. This is a fight worthy of the white race and a battle in which surrender is utterly out of the question—Hellstorm has proven that. We either win and ensure the white race will survive to realise its ordained destiny to embrace the stars, or we lose to be laughed at and scorned as a race too weak to survive. Every white man and white woman must decide their course of action.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note:

Tom speaks as a white nationalist, not as a 14-word priest. Note that after the question ‘What authors have influenced you and your work?’ he doesn’t mention post-1945 National Socialist thinkers like Savitri Devi (only when Rockwell was alive and published an issue of National Socialist World Pierce called himself a follower of the Führer). Tom also said above:

Although Jews in the US, in the UK, in the USSR, and elsewhere, orchestrated the monstrous crimes against Germany….

Really? What about Roosevelt, Stalin, Eisenhower and Truman? The above statement is so typical of the white nationalist!

These guys believe that Jews are behind everything. Given that today there is only one priest with an established blog, it is understandable that Tom doesn’t want to be left alone, even in the small environment of white advocates (who almost never link my work). But one need only read his book to realise that the evil came, for the most part, from gentile Americans and the Soviets. Why use the word ‘orchestrated’ referring to Jewry? Jew-wise folk know the nefarious role the Jewish press played in WW2. But the direct perpetrators, the ones who killed the most Germans, were gentiles; and the guys who orchestrated the Hellstorm Holocaust were Roosevelt, Stalin, Eisenhower and Truman.

It seems to me more than obvious that I will have to keep reproducing Savitri’s texts for a new pro-white conception to be born: a conception in which the focus is on the beam in our own eye and not on the straw in someone else’s eye. Just look at the vast majority of whites today: traitors, the worst human scum since prehistoric times (for example, those who are demonstrating tonight in various American cities over the jury verdict on Kyle Rittenhouse).

Neither Tom nor the typical white nationalist seem to grasp the wisdom of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu: If mosquitoes (kikes) have proliferated so much in the West, it’s because of the swamps of our sins that allowed them to proliferate. Writing this reminds me of the day I drove my car with Mexican plates from Houston to New Orleans through Louisiana over a huge number of bridges over swamps: I couldn’t believe the geographical extent of those swamps!

This said I still believe that, in this century, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany (1944-1947) is the most important book written in English (more about it: here). But I want to say another word about Tom’s interview:

Aggravated rape should be a capital offense. Rape is the crime that keeps on giving; the victim never recovers. It is much like victims of a home invasion; one replays that vile invasion virtually every hour of their life. And yes, there should be no lengthy ‘appeals’ process. Punishment should be within days of the crime, not decades. Mistakes will be made, of course, and some innocent will suffer, but [emphasis added] the victims of these crimes and their families deserve some sympathy too.

This, of course, is very unfair. If capital punishment is applied for male rape, capital punishment should be also applied to the woman who accuses the innocent man of rape!

Tom is a writer but not an autobiographer like me (cf. my eleven books in which I tell how my parents murdered my adolescent soul: something that keeps on giving to this day). The experience I have with survivors of parental abuse who fail to write autobiographies is that they massively project themselves onto cases outside their own, and want revenge on others; not on one’s own parent. For example, concerning rape, the punishments Tom proposes, which would sometimes blame the innocent, are excessive. Surely the Germans of the Third Reich didn’t see things that way.

In the ninth book of my autobiographical series I talk about my late first cousin, a female victim who was molested as a pubescent by an uncle. Speaking of what I said in my article yesterday, I violated my first guideline with her. It was impossible to talk about elementary human realities, such as the male sex drive. She saw everything in black and white. Sometimes survivors become intolerable. Even in a book we both read, Toxic Parents by Susan Forward, Sue puts incest as ‘the ultimate betrayal’.

For truly profound experts in child and adolescent abuse, that’s untrue. The most damaging abuse to the human soul is that which leads to what psychiatrists diagnose as ‘schizophrenia’ (hearing voices, delusions, salad language, catatonic postures, etc). In Western society ‘schizogenic’ behavior from parents is the ultimate betrayal: the kind of abuse that drives children mad, literally mad, even more serious than the gross forms of neurosis of victims of sexual assault.

Anyone who doesn’t understand the above statement should read Sue Forward’s book, a victim os sexual abuse, which I still highly recommend (although she doesn’t mention schizo clients), and compare it with the cases of ‘schizophrenia’ mentioned by Arieti (to whom I devote a few pages in my Day of Wrath).

If Tom were to write his own autobiography he would come to conclusions that would more closely resemble my own. Writing mine was probably as painful as it was for him to write Hellstorm. You suffer a lot, yes: but eventually you are liberated from neuroses and even psychoses.

Anyone who wants to know a little more about what happened to me could read my Letter of mom Medusa whose front cover appears on the sidebar. That was only the beginning of a long agony which I tell in the following volumes. Tom and I are writers but I don’t think he got to the core of his pain as I have in my books; hence he seeks to take it out on innocents (‘Mistakes will be made, of course, and some innocent will suffer, but…’).

Categories
American racial right Autobiography Monocausalism

Dumb Americans

Lately I no longer read what American white nationalists say. But I always check my spam tray and, as long as I am subscribed to articles from The Occidental Observer, before deleting them I usually see the first lines of the latest article published by that webzine. I no longer have the patience to read an entire article. So this day I only read the lead paragraph of ‘Jones vs. KMac: Spirit or Material? Toward a Synthesis’:

By now, healthy numbers of informed people are generally aware of the work of our editor Kevin MacDonald and traditional Catholic thinker E. Michael Jones. Much of their influence comes from the fact that both have devoted major portions of their careers to writing about what is absolutely the most pressing issue of our age: The Jewish Question.

The most pressing issue, really? Also, I only read a single comment, the one that appears at the top in the comments section:

In essence… it always was… and still is… a war on Christ!

Definitely, as Thomas Kuhn said, science advances at funerals while people who believe in the old paradigm (e.g., JQ monocausalism) have to die for the new paradigm (CQ) to gain momentum.

The saddest thing is that people older than those who write and comment on MacDonald’s webzine already knew the causes of Aryan decline. That remarkable SS pamphlet that mentions not only Jewry, but Christian churches and Gentile liberals comes to mind (and in the case of Savitri, this priestess of the holy words had a perfect notion of the role that Christianity had played in the darkest hour in which we live). The contrast between what the cream of Nazi power said and these dumb Americans cannot be greater.

As for myself, I will continue to translate Savitri’s book. At least I have already found a soulmate in the world after 1945. It’s curious, but the first time I visited England was precisely the year Savitri died there, in 1982. I was unaware that she existed! In the last of my autobiographical books I mention the anecdote that, in 1973, I asked in a bookstore if they had books ‘in favour of Nazism’. I say in my book that the person who attended me was stunned by my question, and he said no. I would never have imagined that it would take so long for me to find the books I was looking for. And who would have told me that they were written by a woman?

In the photo we see the bookstore where, as a teenager, I asked that. In recent years all that was demolished and in its place they built a huge building. Although I found a Spanish translation of Mein Kampf in that bookstore, I was looking for updates on Nazism: books written by my contemporaries. At the Madrid High School where I was studying, very close to the Librería de Cristal (‘Crystal Bookstore’ would be the translation), there was a classmate with Canary-yellow hair who admired Nazism. But I lost contact with Eduardo after the principal expelled us both because we were bad students of the silly program that these dumb refugees of the Francisco Franco regime taught us.

Categories
Monocausalism Parapsychology Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 29

Sometimes, even if his soul is less complex, that is to say, in this case, less divided against itself, the agent who senses, or even knows, what the inevitable course of events will be, will decide—and this, without any need for him to ‘deliberate’—in favour of the most useless action from the practical point of view. Teia, the last king of the Ostrogoths in Italy, knew that it was now impossible for his people to remain masters of the peninsula. This did not prevent him from launching himself without the slightest hesitation into the fight against Byzantium and finding a death worthy of him at the famous ‘Battle of Vesuvius’ in 563. He is credited with the historical words which, even if he didn’t say them, capture his attitude: ‘It is not a question of leaving or not leaving Italy; it is a question of leaving it with or without honour’. Words of a lord… words of a man ‘against time’, i.e. defeated in advance on the material plane.

One can say that to the extent that what the Sanskrit Scriptures call the Dark Ages unfold, and as a cycle of time draws to a close, more and more lords—both in the biological and psychological sense of the word—are men ‘against Time’, defeated in advance on the material plane. They don’t feel any less ‘free’ in their spontaneous choice of the practically useless act.

The impression of freedom is thus not at all related to hesitation and ‘deliberation’ before a decision. It has to do with the agent’s ability to imagine a future different from the one that will result from his act—the one that he would like to see result from it, if possible—and with the illusion that he is the source and principle of this act—whereas he is only the instrument of realisation of possibilities destined, in our world of time, to pass from the virtual to the actual, because they already exist, in the state of actualities, in the ‘eternal present’.

In other words, this impression of freedom is linked both to the agent’s thinking and his ignorance. For the man who acts in time, true freedom consists of the absence of external or internal constraint (i.e. from the deep contradictions of his ‘I’), and the total authorship of the ‘I’ concerning the decision and the act. Ignorance of this future—which sometimes partly follows from the act, but which cannot follow fully in the case of a practically useless act—may help some men to act. Was it not said that the foreknowledge of the fate that awaited their civilisation had broken the spirit of the leaders of 16th-century America, both Aztec and Inca, that they were unable to resist the Spaniards as quickly and as vigorously as they might have done, had they never known of the prophecies of destruction? It can give the illusion of an absence of constraint—a knowledge of the absence of the constraint of Destiny— and thus allow the blossoming of hope, which is a force of action.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Once again, Savitri is assuming that precognition exists. Since I am more familiar with the 16th texts about the Conquest than her, and since for some years I read sceptical literature about the paranormal, I see things differently.

I don’t remember the source and I’m not going to dig for the moment into the literature I read when writing the section on pre-Columbian Amerindians for Day of Wrath, but I seem to remember that what the Amerinds began to say after the Conquest is that everything was prophesied. That is to say: it was not a real prophecy but vaticinium ex eventu: a psychological trick to better cope, based on the Mesoamerican worldview, with the trauma of the Conquest.

I mention this because it seems vital to me to question the existence of the extrasensory powers that came into vogue right after Savitri wrote her book. For the Westerner to regain his sanity, he cannot afford the slightest cognitive distortion of reality. This is why on this site we have been insisting so much on debunking the claims of the conspiracy theorists. Saving the Aryan race from extinction involves declaring war on all cognitive distortion, which includes blaming the Jews for everything. (Kevin MacDonald does generally a good job but there are quite a few racialists who, in their comment threads, blame Jewry for things they didn’t orchestrate. These guys would do well to read MacDonald’s trilogy, especially his first book, before keep seeing kikes under every stone.)

The same can be said of the American racialists who want to save their race but at the same time believe in the Hereafter, the existence of the god of the Jews and other paranoias. Savitri continues:

______ 卐 ______

 
But, as I said earlier, the Strong don’t need this help to do what the sense of honour dictates, which is always the consciousness of loyalty to a Leader, or an idea, or both, and the duty that this implies. Even in the full knowledge that the future escapes them, that their beloved truth will henceforth remain under a bushel and that, indefinitely, they will decide for action, useless certainly but honourable; for beautiful action, daughter of all that is most permanent, more fundamental in their lordly selves: an action for which they will be rigorously responsible and that they will never regret, because it is ‘them’.

They can, of course, imagine a future different from the one they only envisage with horror or disgust, and to which their whole attitude opposes them. But they cannot imagine themselves acting differently. In them, there is neither idle ‘deliberation’ nor choice, but a reaction of their whole being in the face of the elementary alternative: to be oneself, or to deny oneself; internal necessity—exactly like the sage ‘above Time’ when he acts.

The only difference is that, for those who do not yet ‘see’ the future from the point of view of the eternal, this internal need doesn’t necessarily merge with that which governs the visible and invisible cosmos, and the Being itself, beyond its manifestations. It can, by accident, merge with it. But it also can represent only the fidelity of action to the ‘ego’ of the agent, sages being rare, and a great character not always—alas!—being put in service of a true idea, an eternal cause.

This is enough to make the agent absolutely responsible. For one is responsible for everything with which one feels solidarity: initially for his action, insofar as it expresses his true ‘self’, and then for the actions of all those with whom one is bound by a common faith. So much the worse for the man who gives his energy to a doctrine that moves him away from the eternal instead of bringing him closer! No value of the individual as such, no nobility of character can make a false idea true and a cause centred on false ideas or half-truths objectively justifiable.

Categories
Mauricio (commenter) Monocausalism

About the fish

‘The white nationalists of today’, said Mauricio this morning, ‘are like Kantian fish, trying to make sense out of the progressively muddying Christian water, when instead they should become Nietzschean amphibians and get out of the drying lake, by reversing all values, and into the Aryan river of life, where might makes right’.

Anon, presumably an American, is a good example. At midnight he said on this site: ‘I can’t prove it, but I believe it quite likely that Eisenhower was a jew’. Why? Because he hated Germans.

I find this typical mono-causality among American white nationalists particularly irritating. It’s like trying to discuss with fundamentalist Americans who reduce everything to accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour. White nationalists have eaten so many Jews for breakfast that vital news, like Biden’s confession that he wanted to flood masses of non-whites into the US for the specific purpose that whites become an ethnic minority (see Tucker Carlson’s very recent words: here) are considered a by-product… of the JQ!

Even the fact that many white Americans feel like Biden (their new religion is to exterminate whites), as recently discussed by Kevin MacDonald in his webzine, doesn’t motivate them to become amphibians.