web analytics
Gaedhal (commenter) Philosophy

On atheism

In his correspondence our friend Gaedhal tells a group of correspondents:

Clarification on my theistic status (a critique of right-wing atheism)

As I said before, I am very clear as to which gods I disbelieve in. I disbelieve in the gods of Classical Theism. I disbelieve in the gods of revealed religion: Yahweh, Zeus, Krishna et al. However, other conceptions and formulations of Deity I am extremely open to. I like to speculate upon this topic in the privacy of my own mind, and entertain my own god concepts within the sanctuary of my own mind.

The reason why I don’t critique atheism that much is because Christianity is a trillion-dollar conspiracy. Atheism is not. Atheism runs on a shoestring. Richard Dawkins does not own any basilicas. Sam Harris does not own a microstate in Rome, filled with jewels and priceless works of art. However, there are things about atheism that must be critiqued. Atheism, in my view, is full of disturbing ideas. Dr Robert Morgan, here, seems to drift into Benatarian antinatalism.

The link to the Wikipedia article is mine.

Morgan calls himself a misanthrope. I personally, do not hate humanity: I hate the mob. As Aron Ra puts it: thanks to competing evolutionary strategies, humanity is both the best species on the planet, as well as the worst.

This seems obvious to me. Although Gaedhal doesn’t appreciate Uncle Adolf, I think people like him would redeem the world from its evil, if only we would follow him (that’s why I recently uploaded so many posts about the New Order).

Morgan says that love does not exist, only hate. I say that hate is this planet’s ruling passion, but that love also exists. With Schopenhauer, I say that hate is our default setting, but that love is an active negation of hate. Hate is an effortless default state. Love takes effort, and is a negation of hate.

Morgan believes that existence is homo homini lupus, ‘man is a wolf to man’. Morgan believes that existence is a war of all against all. However, as Aron Ra and P.Z. Myers point out, cooperation is also an evolutionary strategy. The reason why humans are this planet’s apex predator is because humans cooperate the best.

I sometimes use ‘atheism’ as a lazy shorthand for: ‘a rejection of classical theism’. However, I kinda agree with Sheldrake quoting Bertrand Russell: Deterministic materialism culminating in heat death [also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze in cosmology—Ed.] is a philosophy of unyielding despair. I agree with Benatar, in that if this universe really is a machine that is slowly running out of steam, and will soon disintegrate into the heat death of maximum entropy, then, yes, it is immoral to bring children into such a quicksand existence.

Perhaps Gaedhal didn’t read what I wrote about the hypothetical Big Chill in a post of December 2021, ‘Time here becomes Space’ in honour of the numinous music of Wagner’s Parsifal: ‘Once in the very distant future, where there are no more corpses of stars, and not even black holes that evaporate with time (remember Stephen Hawking’s phrase: “black holes are not so black”), leaving only photons in an expanding universe, if time ceases to make sense—then space, in our Newtonian sense, will cease to make sense. The moment time ceases to exist, space ceases to exist as well! And that would mean a new beginning or big bang insofar as astronomically large space would be, without time, nothing: equivalent again to a mathematical point or a new singularity. I hadn’t thought of that possibility…’ In other words, perhaps an eternal Big Chill won’t happen. Gaedhal continues:

One of Benatar’s books is The Misanthropic Argument for Anti-natalism. Morgan has ‘skimmed through’ Benatar, and is undoubtedly familiar with this book. Morgan’s comment below [not quoted here—Ed.] reminds me of Benatar’s book. However, the reason that I do not espouse Benatarian antinatalism is because I do not positively believe in deterministic materialism culminating in heat death. I call atheists ‘oblivion chasers’.

Oblivion chasers? This reminds me a lot of a scene from ‘A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms’, the second episode of the last season of Game of Thrones, where Bran Stark reveals the mind of the Night King: he wants perpetual night (the Big Chill). I think I’ve already talked on this site about that scene where Sam says in public, before the Battle of the Long Night, that this is precisely why the Night King wants to kill Bran, who represents the knowledge of Westeros’ past.

I do not see myself represented in either the atheism of the left or in the atheism of the right. To call oneself an ‘atheist’ is to place oneself as a member in the set of atheism—and this is not something that I am comfortable with. I don’t want to be associated with co-members in the set of atheism.

That’s why I don’t call myself an atheist either!

Postscript. Atheists say that atheism is not a belief system and technically, they are correct. However, is it mere coincidence that most of them—damn near all of them—positively believe in deterministic materialism culminating in heat death?

There is a lot of the etymological fallacy going on with the definition of ‘atheism’. If ‘atheism’ is commonly used to denote deterministic materialism culminating in heat death, then that is its definition. If 99.9% of atheists believe in deterministic materialism culminating in heat death, then it is not wrong to say that this is a tenet of atheism. A word is not defined by its etymology, but by how it is used. Atheism is very very often used to denote deterministic materialism culminating in heat death.

That’s why it is worth re-reading what I wrote about a phrase from Wagner’s Parsifal. Roger Penrose made me see that space—like time—is also an illusion, although this won’t be apparent until the last black hole evaporates. The Night King might not get his way after all in the cosmological song of ice and fire!

Film Philosophy

Taylor’s soliloquy

People of the new generations cannot have an accurate idea of the incredible level of degeneration that the last generations have experienced. True, the boomers behaved like traitors, but for non-traitor boomers like us, the culture shock we experience when talking to those of later generations is brutal.

As I tell in Whispering Leaves, one of the most beautiful experiences I had as a child was going to the best cinema with my dad. One of the films that made the biggest impression on me at the age of ten was the first Planet of the Apes (the sequels are endless crap that should be destroyed in their entirety in the ethnostate).

But even in the pure mind of a child, it struck me when I saw it on the big screen in 1968 that it was odd that one of the astronauts was black. It is amazing how a child untainted by the surrounding culture sees things exactly as they are!

The coloured astronaut aside, several lines in that film reflect the depth of the science-fiction novel on which the film was based. Nothing stupid or childish like the next decade would see with the Star Wars trilogy. On the contrary: Taylor’s soliloquies, played by Charlton Heston, and I am referring to the opening lines, could very well come in the literary genre of philosophical autobiography that I want to inaugurate:

George Taylor: And that completes my final report until we reach touchdown. We’re now on full automatic, in the hands of the computers. I have tucked my crew in for the long sleep and I’ll be joining them soon. In less than an hour, we’ll finish our sixth month out of Cape Kennedy. Six months in deep space—by our time, that is. According to Dr. Haslein’s theory of time, in a vehicle travelling nearly the speed of light, the Earth has aged nearly 700 years since we left it, while we’ve aged hardly at all. Maybe so. This much is probably true—the men who sent us on this journey are long since dead and gone. You who are reading me now are a different breed—I hope a better one. I leave the 20th century with no regrets. But one more thing—if anybody’s listening, that is. Nothing scientific. It’s purely personal. Seen from out here, everything seems different. Time bends. Space is boundless. It squashes a man’s ego. I feel lonely…

Emphasis added and YouTube clip here. Of course, later there are some fascinating dialogues from a philosophical point of view, such as Taylor having fled from human civilisation because he could no longer stand it, as we see when he argues with Landon in the desert crossing. Not to mention the wise words of Zaius at the end of the film.

What I would give to be in that world and see the Statue of Liberty in ruins and half buried between the sea and the rocks… If we remember Savitri’s quotable quote, that is the world to which we should aspire.

Philosophy Roger Penrose Science

Computers can’t think

Responding to Adunai:

You have the mental block, not me. You got to read Roger Penrose to see what we mean. No computer to date has more consciousness than a washing machine.

P.S. The Penrose book I read is The Large, the Small and the Human Mind. Fascinating philosophy of science!

Philosophy Sponsor

WDH needs sponsors to survive

I don’t know exactly why donations to The West’s Darkest Hour (WDH) have decreased in recent times. Is it due to criticism of Christianity (when I wasn’t so critical I received more donations)? If that is the cause, donors should note that if we reject Christian ethics, the Jewish problem is automatically solved. As we have seen on this site, it is precisely Christian ethics, especially potent in the ‘secular’ West, that has empowered Jewry (I will continue my excerpts from Tom Holland’s book in January).

Are the diminished donations due to my criticism of the United States? If that is the cause, Americans who used to donate must understand that, while WDH defends the DNA of the white American, we also believe that the culture of that country is the number one enemy of white American and European blood (cf. Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe).

A normie doesn’t know how to distinguish between culture and nation (nation here understood as a specific ethnic group). American culture has been the enemy of the white nation on American soil so to speak. If we compare it with Latin America, the Catholicism of the subcontinent has been the enemy of the Iberian whites since the end of the 15th century, when they arrived on the continent. The mestizaje is proof of this. Just as the few Iberian whites south of the Rio Grande shouldn’t hate me, the Anglo-Germans north of that river shouldn’t hate me either. The advocate of the 14 words should repudiate both projects of so-called nationhood: the one that came out with the Counter-Reformation and the one that came out with the Reformation.

In other words, if I hate the nationalist symbols of, say, the country I live in (the Aztec civilisation, the War of Independence and the Mexican Revolution), it is because I am taking the side of the very few white Latin Americans, even if they stupidly accept those symbols and hate me (because they simply don’t care about their white blood). Likewise, if I hate the symbols of Yankee nationalism (the puritanism of the early settlers, the American Constitution, Mammon worship, etc.), it is because I want to save the white man in the US and Canada from extinction. Although there are incomparably more pure whites in those countries than south of the Rio Grande as far as Argentina, the principle is the same: hatred of Catholic and Protestant cultures—Christianity conquered the entire continent!—because Christian axiology is the cause of white decline on both sides of the Rio Grande.

Will the diminished donations be due to inflation in 2022? Apparently, such inflation doesn’t impede thousands of whites travelling to Qatar to watch the Football Cup being played this very moment (and I believe the final will be played this week).

Without regular donations, however modest, WDH cannot continue as I would have to suspend my activities to look for a job in the third-world country where I live.

I won’t post new entries until next year. The revision of the translation of Savitri Devi’s book, Souvenirs et Réflexions d’une Aryenne, which we will publish here, is taking up all my time. Savitri’s book is vital because, given that WDH is a National Socialist site that differs from American white nationalism, NS requires a formal presentation: a text written after the catastrophe of 1945. It is such an important book that I will put it second in the featured post.

I would like to end this post with a few quotes from Émile Michel Cioran (1911-1995). As will be recalled in my preface to the 2022 edition of Deschner’s book on the history of Christianity that we recently published, there I quoted this Romanian philosopher (‘The whole world has forgiven Christianity…’). The book I own by Cioran contains some aphorisms that remind me of Nietzsche’s style, and I would like to collect a few of them. The first, which can be read below, reminds me of the pre-Hispanic religions of the American continent, the Christianity that Europeans later imposed across the same continent, and the Woke religion of our days led by the US. The book from which I took these quotes is titled Adiós a la Filosofía (Ediciones Altaya 1998), with an introduction by Fernando Savater:

• ‘History is nothing but a parade of false Absolutes.’

• ‘We only really began to live at the end of philosophy, on its ruins: when we have realised its terrible nullity, and that it was useless to resort to it; that it was not going to be of any help to us.’

• ‘You destroy a civilisation only when you destroy its gods.’

• ‘…to exchange the old gods for a nailed corpse… To abandon the gods who made Rome was to abandon Rome itself to ally yourself with this new race of men…’

Tommaso Laureti: The Triumph of Christianity also
known as The Triumph of the Cross, painted in 1585.

(Donate: here)

Antichrist (book) Friedrich Nietzsche Philosophy

The Antichrist § 12

If you stop and think that among almost all peoples the philosopher is just a further development of the priestly type, then this legacy of the priests, the art of falling for your own forgeries, will not seem particularly surprising.

Antichrist (book) Friedrich Nietzsche Germany Immanuel Kant Philosophy

The Antichrist § 10

Germans understand me immediately when I say that philosophy has been corrupted by theologian blood…

What German philosophy really is—an underhanded theology…

Why were Germans so convinced that Kant marked a change for the better? The theologian instinct of the German scholar had guessed just what was possible again: a hidden path to the old ideal lay open…

Kant’s success is just a theologian success: Kant, like Luther, like Leibniz, was one more drag on an already precarious German sense of integrity —

Antichrist (book) Friedrich Nietzsche Philosophy Theology

The Antichrist § 8

We need to say whom we feel opposed to—theologians and everything with theologian blood in its veins—the whole of our philosophy…

Alexander the Great Ancient Greece Aristotle Philosophy Story of Philosophy (book) Will Durant

The Story of Philosophy, 8

Aristotle and Greek science


Under Plato he studied eight—or twenty—years; and indeed the pervasive Platonism of Aristotle’s speculations, even of those most anti-Platonic, suggests the longer period. One would like to imagine these as very happy years: a brilliant pupil guided by an incomparable teacher, walking like Greek lovers in the gardens of philosophy. But they were both geniuses; and it is notorious that geniuses accord with one another as harmoniously as dynamite with fire. Almost half a century separated them; it was difficult for understanding to bridge the gap of years and cancel the incompatibility of souls.

On the same page Durant adds that Aristotle

was the first, after Euripides, to gather together a library; and the foundation of the principles of library classification was among his many contributions to scholarship. Therefore Plato spoke of Aristotle’s home as “the house of the reader, ” and seems to have meant the sincerest compliment; but some ancient gossip will have it that the Master intended a sly but vigorous dig at a certain book-wormishness in Aristotle.

After an unquoted paragraph Durant writes:

The other incidents of this Athenian period are still more problematical. Some biographers tell us that Aristotle founded a school of oratory to rival Isocrates; and that he had among his pupils in this school the wealthy Hermias, who was soon to become aristocrat of the city-state of Atarneus. After reaching this elevation Hermias invited Aristotle to his court; and in the year 344 b.c. he rewarded his teacher for past favours by bestowing upon him a sister (or a niece) in marriage. One might suspect this as a Greek gift; but the historians hasten to assure us that Aristotle, despite his genius, lived happily enough with his wife, and spoke of her most affectionately in his will. It was just a year later that Philip, King of Macedon, called Aristotle to the court at Pella to undertake the education of Alexander. It bespeaks the rising repute of our philosopher that the greatest monarch of the time, looking about for the greatest teacher, should single out Aristotle to be the tutor of the future master of the world.

You can imagine treating white women like barter today? But it was healthier than Western feminism.

Philip had no sympathy with the individualism that had fostered the art and intellect of Greece but had at the same time disintegrated her social order; in all these little capitals he saw not the exhilarating culture and the unsurpassable art, but the commercial corruption and the political chaos; he saw insatiable merchants and bankers absorbing the vital resources of the nation, incompetent politicians and clever orators misleading a busy populace into disastrous plots and wars, factions cleaving classes and classes congealing into castes: this, said Philip, was not a nation but only a welter of individuals—geniuses and slaves; he would bring the hand of order down upon this turmoil, and make all Greece stand up united and strong as the political centre and basis of the world. In his youth in Thebes he had learned the arts of military strategy and civil organization under the noble Epaminondas; and now, with courage as boundless as his ambition, he bettered the instruction. In 338 b.c. he defeated the Athenians at Chaeronea, and saw at last a Greece united, though with chains. And then, as he stood upon this victory, and planned how he and his son should master and unify the world, he fell under an assassin’s hand.

Durant ignored what I know about psychoclasses: different levels of childrearing from the point of view of empathy toward the child. It is disturbing to read, for example, that according to Plutarch, Olympias, Philip’s wife and the mother of Alexander, was a devout member of the orgiastic snake-worshiping cult of Dionysus. Plutarch even suggests that she slept with snakes in her bed. Although Oliver Stone’s film of Alexander is Hollywood, not a real biography, the first part of the film up to the assassination of Philip is not that bad as to provide an idea of the unhealthy relationship between Olympias and her son.

“For a while,” says Plutarch, “Alexander loved and cherished Aristotle no less than as if he had been his own father; saying that though he had received life from the one, the other had taught him the art of living.” (“Life,” says a fine Greek adage, “is the gift of nature; but beautiful living is the gift of wisdom.”)

But was it wisdom? The real ‘wisdom of the West’ only started with a politician like Hitler and, on the other side of the Atlantic, a white supremacist like Pierce. Ancient philosophers ignored the dangers involved in conquering non-white nations without the policy extermination or expulsion.

Ancient Greece Arthur C. Clarke Pedagogy Philosophy Plato Socrates Story of Philosophy (book) Will Durant

The Story of Philosophy, 7

To save the white race from extinction it is not enough to start using the Semitic words that our Christian parents instilled in us as insults to Neo-Christian Aryans. We also have to make a destructive critique of what we have inherited from the secular world in the West. I have said that, if theology has been the wicked party for the West (tomorrow I’ll resume Deschner’s chapter on St Augustine), philosophy has been the stupid party. On Plato, I have little to add about the stupidities of his philosophy to what has already been said in the previous article of this series. But I still would like to say something.
In the section of Durant’s book, ‘The Ethical Problem’, Plato puts Thrasymachus discussing with Socrates. I must confess that I find quite irritating the figure of Socrates, with his eternal questions always putting on the defensive his opponents. If I had walked on the streets of Pericles’ Athens, I would have told Socrates what Bill O’Reilly told Michael Moore when he met him on the street: that he would answer his questions to Moore as long as he in turn answered O’Reilly’s questions. Otherwise we are always on the defensive against Socrates/Moore.
On the next page, Durant talks about the Gorgias dialogue and says that ‘Callicles denounces morality as an invention of the weak to neutralize the strength of the strong’. In the next section of the same chapter Durant quotes the Protagoras dialogue: ‘As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them’. Some pages later Durant quotes one of the passages in which I completely agree with Plato:

The elements of instruction should be presented to the mind in childhood, but not with any compulsion; for a freeman should be a freeman too in the acquisition of knowledge.
Knowledge which is acquired under compulsion has no hold on the mind. Therefore do not use compulsion, but let early education be rather a sort of amusement; this will better enable you to find out the natural bent of the child.

But several pages later Durant tells us that ‘the guardians will have no wives’ and about empowered women, he adds:

But whence will these women come? Some, no doubt, the guardians will woo out of the industrial or military classes; others will have become, by their own right, members of the guardian class. For there is to be no sex barrier of any kind in this community; least of all in education—the girl shall have the same intellectual opportunities as the boy, the same chance to rise to the highest positions in the state.

One would imagine that Durant would strenuously rebel against this feminism in ancient Athens, but no. In the final section of the chapter, devoted to Durant’s criticism of the philosopher, he wrote instead:

What Plato lacks above all, perhaps, is the Heracleitean sense of flux and change; he is too anxious to have the moving picture of this world become a fixed and still tableau…
Essentially he is right—is he not?—what this world needs is to be ruled by its wisest men. It is our business to adapt his thought to our own times and limitations. Today we must take democracy for granted: we cannot limit the suffrage as Plato proposed…
…and that would be such equality of educational opportunity as would open to all men and women, irrespective of the means of their parents, the road to university training and political advancement.

Will Durant, who wrote this book in the 1920s, was nothing but a normie. And compared with us, white nationalists are normies too: as they have not figured out that, in addition to Jewry, they have enemies in the very fabric of history, which is why Plato proposed a static state.
A dynamic society is not recommended because, as we have said elsewhere, the human being is not ready for Prometheus’ fire. Since the Industrial Revolution whites have done nothing but commit ethnic suicide for the simple fact that they are still children playing with matches who burn their own house. That is why, at the end of my ¿Me Ayudarás?, I recommend a static society as Arthur Clarke described it in Against the Fall of Night when writing about Lys, a novella later expanded into The City and the Stars: the utopia that I imagine with the paintings of Le Lorraine.

Ancient Greece Athens Painting Philosophy Plato Sparta (Lacedaemon) Story of Philosophy (book) Will Durant William Pierce

The Story of Philosophy, 6

The Republic

The last words of Will Durant in the previous entry of this series: ‘Let us study The Republic’. But in this post I will not quote any passage from Durant’s book. I will give my opinion on this classic work that bequeathed us historical Greece.
In the first place, it must be recognised that the race of the ancient Greeks was of the Nordic type. In The Fair Race there are two articles on the subject, one written by a Spaniard and another by an American. Since then civilisation has metamorphosed so much, especially in axiology, technology and demography, that what Plato wrote could only be valid after the extermination of all non-whites, as William Pierce put it at the end of The Turner Diaries. Sorry, but the Greeks of the ancient world were physically beautiful, says the article of the mentioned Spaniard. Hence, in our technological times with a demographic explosion that, because of Christianity, reversed the beautiful values of the classical world, only in an ethnically cleansed Earth what the ancient Greek philosophers discussed could become germane again.
The tragedy of the Aryans reminds me of the meaning of the One Ring in the tetralogy of Wagner, a symbol that Tolkien would pick up in his novel. It has been Aryan greed what blinded them to the fact that using non-whites as capital was suicide in the long term. That is the moral that emerges from the stories about the white race of William Pierce and Arthur Kemp. But even from the 19th century some Americans felt the danger, as shown in the paintings of Thomas Cole. A world with the destroyed Ring means, in many aspects, a return to the small cities: the subject matter not only for Plato but for Aristotle. For the latter, a Greek city should not exceed ten thousand inhabitants…
That is precisely the moral of my books in Spanish: after so many hells in ‘the Black Iron Age’ as I said as a teenager, I propose a return to the Shire so to speak. For the same reason, if there is something that hurts me when I see the sites of white nationalists, it is that they are cut off from their European past. I have spoken on this site about music, but not much about painting. The following is the oil canvas by Claude Le Lorrain (1600-1682) that appears at the top of my Facebook page:

On my most recent trip to London I saw some splendid canvases of Le Lorrain’s paintings in the National Gallery. Outside of London and the madding crowd, some English aristocrats of past centuries took Le Lorrain as a paradigm to mould their extensive lands, and even some buildings in the countryside. Some of this can even be seen in the movies of this century. In this very beautiful film of 2005 for example, when Mr Darcy declares his love to Elizabeth, I could not contain my admiration for that place: it seems to be taken from a canvas by my favourite painter (watch the last ten seconds of this YouTube clip)! Who of the contemporary racists has such contact with their visual past?
A true racist should reject any image of pop culture sold to us by American Jewry. But going back to Plato. Let us suppose, just suppose, that the white race will emerge alive from the coming apocalypse and that, in an Earth already without Orcs and (((Sauron))), they would reconstruct white civilization. In an unpopulated land and with only a few small cities, like the one seen in the painting above, the question would arise as to what kind of government is desirable. In this world, the survivor could be asked about Plato’s magnum opus, something like a second chance or a fresh start for the West. So let’s expose our views about the philosopher.
The first thing I could say is that the distortion that is taught in the academy about the classical world is such that we would have to change the title of The Republic for the simple fact that it is an invented title. The original in Greek was Politeia, whose translation would be ‘regime or government of the polis’, that is to say how to govern a small city-state. The title The Republic falsifies the mind of Plato already from the cover of the book we see in bookstores, inducing the popular notion that the author was an utopian. He was nothing of the sort. Politeia was the recipe of Plato to remedy the bad governments he saw in ancient Greece. His starting point had been the examination of the Greek cities of his time, not of a hazy future but the four regimes of Greece: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny.
Imagine a world à la Lorrain in which only whites inherit the Earth. The bookstores, this time with imprimaturs that do not admit anything from Semitic pens, would show Plato’s main work with the original title… But that does not mean that we should consider the disciple of Socrates a provider of laws, a new Lycurgus. At this stage of the historical game it is obvious that Plato did not see, nor could he see, the iniquity of the world; of men, of the Jewry that would invent Christianity, and the catastrophic industrial revolution.
For example, Plato does not speak of the need to keep Nordic blood pure, at least not with the lucidity the Nazis had. The closed polis of the Spartans complied more with the laws of nature than the open polis of the Athenians (in this Durant was fatally wrong). But not even the Spartans knew Pierce’s formula: to maintain an Aryan culture one must maintain the Aryan ethnicity: and that can only be done by exterminating or expelling all non-Aryans.
Plato’s missteps go further. Above I complained that the typical racist of today has no internal contact with the world of the great masters of painting. Another common ailment in those who have abandoned Christianity is that they keep infectious waste that puts the Aryans at a clear disadvantage compared to the Jewish quarter. One of these residues is the belief in post-mortem life. He who believes this doctrine will not fight as much in this life as the Jews are currently fighting, insofar as they believe they will have a second chance (either in the afterlife or reincarnated).
Jews do not masturbate their minds with unearthly hopes: one of their enormous advantages before us. But to be fair to Christianity I must say that even before Christianity Plato already masturbated his mind, and the minds of his male pupils, with such fantasies: what I have called in this series the root of the baobab. In fact, Plato finishes his great work sermonizing us: if we stick to what he says and believe in the immortal soul, we will be happy:

Thus, Glaucon, the tale has been saved, and will be our salvation, if we believe that the soul is immortal, and hold fast to the heavenly way of Justice and Knowledge. So shall we pass undefiled over the river of Forgetfulness, and be dear to ourselves and to the Gods, and have a crown of reward and happiness both in this world and also in the millennial pilgrimage of the other.

As I observed in a previous entry, during the savage destruction of most of the books of the classical world by the Judeo-Christians, it survived a work that many consider a precursor of the Christian doctrine of the human soul. The Republic, to use the falsified title, is anachronistic in many other ways. In addition to his post-mortem masturbations, what is the point of praising Plato when he did not oppose the incipient miscegenation of Athens with the greatest possible vehemence?
Unlike every rabbi who practices intuitive eugenics, Plato did not even leave offspring. He was not a husband or father. In his case, no good genes passed to the next generation (where his sperm ended, I dare not speculate). Moreover, he believed that in his republic women could perform the same functions of the male, even the highest. Compare the feminism of this philosopher of 2,400 years ago with what the Orthodox Jews of New York teach today: they educate their women to behave like little red riding hoods!
Whoever complies with the laws of Nature survives and who violates them perishes. At present the Jews fulfil them and the Aryans violate them. The white race will not be saved unless it makes a destructive criticism of much of what passes for ‘wisdom of the West’, starting with the Greeks.