web analytics

Category: Racial right

Categories
Racial right Real men

Linder’s

featured posts

“Why so hard!”—said to the diamond one day the charcoal; “are we then not near relatives?”—

Why so soft? O my brethren; thus do I ask you: are ye then not—my brethren?

Why so soft, so submissive and yielding? Why is there so much negation and abnegation in your hearts? Why is there so little fate in your looks?

And if ye will not be fates and inexorable ones, how can ye one day—conquer with me?

And if your hardness will not glance and cut and chip to pieces, how can ye one day—create with me?

For the creators are hard. And blessedness must it seem to you to press your hand upon millenniums as upon wax,—

—Blessedness to write upon the will of millenniums as upon brass,—harder than brass, nobler than brass. Entirely hard is only the noblest.

This new table, O my brethren, put I up over you: Become hard!—

As I recently said in the comments section of my latest posts, I would never have been so abrasive in my criticism of white nationalists—mere charcoal—if they had behaved like Alex Linder: a true diamond. In a very unique way, throughout my blogging career I have interpreted Linder’s advice, “Attack the conservatives!” to mean that today’s racial right ideology is basically conservative, not revolutionary; Christian, not anti-Christian; feminized, not truly Aryan. Therefore, they must be attacked.

Here are the articles on this site in which I tried to choose Linder’s words that best reflect his thinking, which evoke my favourite passage from Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, quoted above as an epigraph to this small tribute to the now deceased Man:

On Breivik

“I’m not a Nazi”

Linder’s Weltanschauung

Alex Linder on Christianity

Guessedworker exchange

On conservatism

On The Turner Diaries

Hunter Wallace exchange

On Kevin MacDonald

Bitchute audios on Christianity

Categories
Racial right

A visit

A Visit to the House of Cézanne in Aix.

A reader of this site has visited me in Mexico and is leaving this country today. One of the things we discussed was the chasm that separates us from the white nationalists (WNsts).

Having breakfast in a restaurant, I told him that when I discovered WN in 2009, people were still talking about the ethnostate, and sometimes it seemed to imply that a revolutionary process would be necessary to achieve such a noble goal. Now, we don’t hear about the ethnostate because it implies violence, blood, and iron; and today’s WNsts are like ladies hiding in a castle room during an invasion, praying for their men to triumph over the invaders.

In the current context, a real man wouldn’t be fighting alone, but rather practising what Muslims call an internal jihad so that, when the West’s fiat currencies collapse, an “Order” of the kind William Pierce imagined in his novel would attempt to seize political power. But there’s none of that in the contemporary racial right: just more stupidity as Michael O’Meara rightly pointed out when he wrote that the greatest betrayal is trying to use the System’s anti-white institutions to infiltrate the spheres of power (such as voting for Trump, etc.).

The visitor who will soon be heading to the international airport agrees with me that WN is a lost cause. But he added something I didn’t know: the Zoomers, those born between 2000 and 2020, may be our only hope as their mantra is “No Bread [i.e., inflation: no one can afford now a house], No Bros [friends], No Hos [wives], No Hope.”

But of course: even with these teenagers and kids in their early twenties, we need the dollar to collapse so that this generation of incels can fully enter what I call “angry mode” (a preamble to “combat mode” and eventually the government-toppling “killing mode”). Meanwhile, those of us in the trenches will have to suffer horrors of maddening patience because we cannot, and will not be able to for a few years, fire a single shot! But that’s reality, and although horrifying, we must stoically accept it.

The world is ruled by the law of the jungle. Those who believe in liberalism (i.e., Christian ethics) or men who take refuge in a castle like ladies who don’t want to be raped by invaders violate natural law: they are doomed to extinction. As the Führer said, “He who wants to live should fight, and he who does not want to battle in this world of eternal struggle does not deserve to be alive”.

To my knowledge, no WN site promotes a revolutionary ideology for the near or distant future. In general, WNsts seem to still believe in democracy, Christianity (or its bastard child: neochristian atheism) and the project of their nations (the US or UK, for example).

All of that has to be thrown out to create an ethostate! The heads of Washington, Jefferson, Thomas Roosevelt and Lincoln on Mount Rushmore must be blown up and replaced with the heads of Leonidas, Hermann, Hitler and the warrior who will play the role of Kalki. Since the WNsts have failed us, the big question is whether a revolutionary ideology will truly emerge among these Zoomers and take power…

Categories
Holocaust Racial right

No reply

from Greg Johnson

Update of August 24: Finally, he replied—in the comments section of this site, here.

At the time of posting this entry, the heated discussion thread on the Holocaust on Counter-Currents already has 267 comments. I tried to post six comments, only half of which were approved. Regarding what I said a couple of days ago—:

I tried to leave a comment on Counter-Currents linking to this article, but it seems—not sure yet; still waiting for Greg Johnson to reply to my email—that Greg sent it straight to the spam filter.

—Johnson has neither approved my comment nor responded to my last four emails. While Johnson approved three of my comments, the other three disappeared because now even the message “your comment is being moderated” no longer appears.

I am surprised that Johnson is capable of banning someone like me from his webzine because I was always respectful in all of his discussions threads, even when I used to comment on Counter-Currents under the pen name of “Chechar” or in the three “vaporised” comments of the ongoing discussion. Furthermore, like Johnson I am also a critic of revisionists because I am an “Holocaust affirmer”.

But here’s the thing: unlike the revisionists, I do not condemn exterminationism. So Johnson can ban me while allowing rude comments against him in that same discussion thread—as long as they come from Holocaust deniers who subscribe to Christian ethics, where the life of every Negro, Gook or Jew is invaluable.

My very recent banning on Counter-Currents is symptomatic of the fact that, even when speaking in a very cordial tone on their forums, it is impossible to argue with those who haven’t re-evaluated their values. They simply shun me. They’ve been using the “death by silence” tactic on me for years. So The West’s Darkest Hour will continue to be practically a ghost town…

Categories
Holocaust Racial right

Holocaust

Revisionist Scott Smith recently wrote the following in the vigorous discussion about the Holocaust now taking place on Counter-Currents:

I conceded a long time ago that [Raul] Hilberg’s 5.1 Jewish million mortality figure could be true.

Wow! I think it’s very healthy that the issue is being aired on Counter-Currents. I very rarely comment on that webzine, but this time I did so given the importance of breaking the taboo that exists in certain quarters of the racial right, and the only way to achieve consensus is to start talking to each other.

In my opinion, even if the official figure of six million Jews killed in the Holocaust is true (which I highly doubt), that shouldn’t weaken our faith. As a Swede commented quite a few years ago on the previous incarnation of this site:

What is certain is that the Holocaust would not have produced any debilitating psychological effect on non-Christian whites. (By Christianity I mean ‘Christian morality.’ Most atheists in the West are still Christian, even if they don’t believe in God or Jesus.) Being emotionally affected by the Holocaust presupposes that you think: (1) Victims and losers have intrinsically more moral value than conquerors and winners, (2) Killing is the most horrendous thing a human can do, (3) Killing children and women is even more horrendous and (4) Every human life has the same value.

None of these statements ring true to a man who has rejected Christian morality. Even if the Holocaust happened, I would not pity the victims or sympathise with them. If you told the Vikings that they needed to accept Jews on their lands or give them gold coins because six million of them were exterminated in an obscure war, they would have laughed at you.

This passage was included on page 83 of my anthology On Exterminationism. I believe that the commenters on Counter-Currents, whether Holocaust deniers or Holocaust affirmers, have not reached the level of the Swede because of their Christian programming.

Categories
Holocaust Racial right

Ghost town

As an holocaust affirmer, I agree with Greg Johnson in his article yesterday about the so-called Holocaust. But I am referring only to historical facts, not to a putative ethical assessment. For example, in the comment thread holocaust denier Scott said that zero Jews had been gassed: something that contradicts what, over time, revisionist Mark Weber acknowledged about Treblinka.

As far as an ethical assessment is concerned, my position is peculiar.

I would disagree with Hitler if the German chancellor’s mindset is accurately portrayed in Johnson’s article, in that I don’t believe that Jews alone caused the fatidic WW2. Now I blame the Anglo-Saxons more, especially the US, after having assimilated not only Brendan Simms’ biography of Hitler (quotes from its first chapters here), but also John Mearsheimer’s realism.

On the other hand, for reasons of transvaluation of values I like Mauricio’s words, “We need more Holocaust Affirmers”: something that is still not noticeable in healthy quantities in discussion threads on racialist forums such as Counter-Currents, or even on the ghost town that my website has become—precisely because I have shifted paradigms! (JQ => CQ).

Categories
Michael O'Meara Racial right

A final

comment on the silence of the last few weeks before resuming my common activities on this site (which will be postponed anyway because the day after tomorrow I begin moving from a Mexican Indian village, where I live, to the capital where there are still some white Iberians).

I suppose the reason for the silence is that my neighbours north of the Rio Grande cannot conceive of someone south of the river speaking truths that, for American racialists, are still taboo. Therefore, I want to remind you that a few years ago, an American—although not a National Socialist—made critical comments about his nation’s project that, in some ways, converge with our approach. I am referring to the retired writer Michael O’Meara, whose articles we have summarised on this site. I will give just one example.

Michael O’Meara (1946-)

The white nationalist I respect the most is Kevin MacDonald. But MacDonald recently wrote in his webzine that he was disappointed with Trump for behaving like Bibi Netanyahu’s bitch, by declaring war on Iran with his bombings. Naturally, MacDonald used much more polite language than I did, but he confessed: “And on a personal note, I feel betrayed given that I have strongly supported Trump since he first ran”.

This would be inconceivable to Michael O’Meara! for the simple fact that, unlike the reactionaries on the American racial right, O’Meara is a revolutionary (the kind of revolutionarie I like: it’s not yet time for violence but our ideology must be revolutionary). What distinguishes O’Meara’s thinking from that of virtually every notable figure on today’s racial right is that, for Michael, “the greatest treason” consists precisely of hoping to use Establishment institutions to try to bring about substantial change. From this perspective, those in the American racial right who believe in democracy and capitalism (I would add the Christian churches) find themselves inadvertently betraying their goal: racial preservation.

While I won’t complain any further about the racialists who don’t comment on this site, I do suggest that those who remain silent reread some of O’Meara’s writing. And I’d love for someone who knows him personally to let me know what this man is up to these days, or if he’s still alive…

Categories
Racial right War!

Jew obeyer

A recent plea addressed to US President Donald Trump reads, “Mr. President, Finish the job” in Tel Aviv, Israel.

A few years ago, I wrote “On Jew Obeyers”. I wish that expression would start spreading like wildfire because of things like what the US president did yesterday: directly attacking Iran by bombing uranium enrichment facilities because the Jews asked him to. Trump has been, as has every American president since Judea declared war on the Third Reich, a “Jew obeyer”.

American racists, mostly Christians, are wrong. The Jew Ron Unz, for example, just republished an article by Andrew Anglin in which he calls notable philo-Semitic figures in American politics, such as Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz, “Satanic”.

Anglin and company don’t want to understand that the Spanish inquisitor Torquemada, who sent Jews to the stake, was just as Christian as St Francis who, following the word of the Gospel more literally, preached universal love. It’s no coincidence that the Church hasn’t canonised Torquemada, but rather that Francis has perhaps become the most beloved saint among Catholics.

Reread how Benjamin summarised the POV of this site. Since the Judeo-Christian archetype possesses the Western collective unconscious—this includes today’s racialists—it shouldn’t surprise us that at the time of writing, the discussion thread on Anglin’s article reposted on The Unz Review already has 265 comments, while recently on The West’s Darkest Hour I was left talking alone with Ben. The difference is that, like Hitler, he and I are already possessed by the other collective unconscious, the Aryan one.

My prediction is that Christians on the racial right will not only continue to ignore us and obey the Jew—if you preach universal love, genocide à la Heydrich must be wrong—, but they will remain in their echo chambers feeding off each other with positive feedback to avoid the cognitive dissonance we provide. Sad to say, as I concluded one of my posts late last month, “The malignant psychosis of today’s white man is such that only an apocalypse could reset the button of his collective unconscious so that the few survivors may regain a primal Lebenskraft”.

Could the conflict in the Middle East escalate to the point of a third world war, this time using nukes?

Categories
Correspondence Racial right Solitude

Silencio

The tragedy of Friedrich Nietzsche’s life was that it happened to be a one-man show, a monodrama wherein no other actor entered upon the stage: not a soul is at his side to succour him; no woman is there to soften by her ever-present sympathy the stresses of the atmosphere. Every action takes its birth in him, and its repercussions are felt by him alone. Not one person ventures to enter wholeheartedly into the innermost sanctum of Nietzsche’s destiny; the poet-philosopher is doomed to speak, to struggle, to suffer alone. He converses with no one, and no one has anything to say to him. What is even more terrible is that none hearken to his voice. —Stefan Zweig

Today, Benjamin sent me an email containing this paragraph: “I’m disappointed no one else even seems to have clicked my link to the page though (or if they have, from my analytics they haven’t stayed more than two minutes—odd with an easy-access layout one-page site containing many hours of content). Bar the psychiatry focus, and the veganism, I thought I was basically covering topics we talk about all the time on WDH. I don’t understand (my perennial problem: trying to analyse the apathetic) why they’re not interested. Maybe they haven’t got 6 quid. I hope not, or our movement is screwed”.

This is something that, in the past, has seemed like an extraordinary phenomenon to me, and I would like to respond to Benjamin in the second person singular:

As I’ve told you several times, even years before you found my site, when I posted quite insightful entries and thought some of them would have a large quorum, no one said a peep, and over time I invented a saying that I used to say to myself in soliloquies: “Here come the silent ones…!” in the sense that they left me talking to myself, over and over again.

It was so exasperating that, occasionally, as I’ve also confessed to you, I let the insulting trolls’ comments slide because I preferred the insults to have the racialists apply what the Germans call “death by silence” tactic. (My family, relatives, friends, therapist and acquaintances “killed me with silence”. No one wanted to know anything about what was happening at home, and it was precisely because no one wanted to listen that I dedicated myself to writing about the family tragedy.)

As I told you by email, the silence of the visitors began several years ago, when it became clear that my criticisms of white nationalism were going to be incisive, constant, and persistent. That scared everyone away. And they are fundamental criticisms: I was trying, and am trying, to shift the paradigm from the JQ to the CQ. And I do this not because I side with the Jews: I believe they should be expelled to Madagascar, Hitler’s original idea (or to Israel, although that country has already become a precarious place, and the war with Iran could evolve into a regional war).

I suspect that the relative silence in the comments section is due to what Thomas Kuhn said about a paradigm shift. The old guard first ignores the new paradigm (admirably summarised in yesterday’s post, citing your book!). When it’s no longer possible to ignore the new paradigm, let’s say if voices like yours were to multiply (obviously, we’re not there yet), the old guard fiercely opposes the new paradigm. Finally, the new paradigm is accepted as the most natural thing, although that only happens with the biological death of the old guard who controlled the boundaries of discourse. The new generations are seeing that the old paradigm was wrong or at least incomplete: something that, to preserve their egos, the older generations were reluctant to concede.

It’s similar to what Scott Peck says about narcissistic parents who never admit that they might have made a mistake with one of their children. It also reminds me of the case of a girl diagnosed as schizophrenic in one of Ronald Laing’s books. Laing wrote that it was precisely because the mother was incapable of accepting an ounce of guilt that her daughter was so disturbed.

The same thing happens with white nationalists: they are incapable of accepting that our civilisation took the wrong path many centuries ago. These nationalists maintain a working hypothesis that resembles a religious dogma: Jewry is responsible for our misfortunes. We say: Jewry is very powerful in the West and very subversive: but whites empowered them by destroying the religion whose Gods represented the Aryan collective unconscious, replacing it with the Judeo-Christian collective unconscious. As Emperor Julian saw when the transition from one collective unconscious to another was underway, “Why were you so ungrateful to our Gods as to desert them for the Jews?”

Contrary to what Hitler privately confessed to his closest friends, today’s nationalists are like the mother of the schizophrenic woman: they don’t accept an iota of blame. Compared to intelligent people like William Pierce, who wrote Who We Are, or scholars like Revilo Oliver, the ideology of today’s nationalists, besides being simplistic, represents a giant step backwards. If we follow the Rubicon metaphor it’s as if, after two solid steps toward the other side of the river—racial realism and becoming aware of JQ—instead of moving forward, these racialists panic about what they begin to glimpse through the fog on the other side. Transvaluing implies genocidal actions against our enemies and, like a magnet pulling them toward Normieland due to their Christian programming, they begin to take steps backwards instead of forward to finally cross the river toward National Socialism.

We can’t do anything with these cowards. We must be very patient. If Kuhn was right, the older generations—in our case, the white nationalists—will have to die. Perhaps those who are now Aryan children, or even unborn minds will have a better chance of seeing things differently: of discovering this site and embracing the post-1945 National Socialist antichristian worldview. But trying to do so with the hundreds of conservatives who comment on, say, The Unz Review and other racialist forums is a fool’s errand.

Since I’m already in my sixties I hope that if death were to surprise me, our work wouldn’t disappear but that I could pass the mantle to someone younger, like you: someone who would maintain the content of this site, especially the PDFs where the vital information is condensed.

And when it comes to the havoc that abusive parents wreak on their offspring, the situation is even worse! The taboo is universal due to the “problem of the attachment with the perp”, a concept explained in my Day of Wrath. However, if it makes you feel better, I received an email today from a Panamanian who asked me to share the link to your site, which I did.

Categories
Racial right

Excerpts

Editor’s note: Below, some excerpts from pages 184-199 of the expanded, August 2024 edition of Benjamin’s The Less Than Jolly Heretic:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Dear César,

I hope you are well. Congratulations on the completion of the Savitri Devi book project. I’ve already downloaded a digital copy and read through it once. I was wondering if it was now possible to place an order for one of your home-bound editions? If you could tell me the full costs, I shall put the money through to you. I did not want to contact you until now as I wanted to make sure I was financially secure enough to afford the process and shipping costs…

I’m also aware that, sadly, the vast majority of “right-wing” individuals and the groups they cluster to are extremely hostile to manifestations of psychological pain, and ignorant over trauma, and with a particular recent drive to ridicule mental health for the purposes of ‘defeating’ their political ‘leftist’ rivals. As you wrote before, I consider them to be fakes. To be honest, you’re the only National Socialist I have ever encountered online who is at all understanding of madness…

I see nigh-on all these committed White political activists as just as much of a threat as everyone else. If there ever were to achieve substantial power, I would not expect them to impose an order in any way relatable to the worldview of National Socialism, or of any genuine intrinsic loyalty to the great vision of Adolf Hitler, or indeed the West itself…

Occasionally, I’ll check Counter Currents, maybe once every few months. I always regret it. Of all of them, I had expected more of ‘Morgoth’. I saw this today by Stephen Paul Foster. Immediately I was put off but decided to see what he had to say. I paused on the lines:

My friend, whose name was Bill, was not your typical loser who works himself into a violent temper and up and slays his defenseless girlfriend. This particular slayer turned out to be a man of advanced degrees, sophisticated tastes, serious books, and immense erudition. Fluent in four languages, the range and depth of his knowledge was phenomenal. He could converse insightfully about the influence of Kantian ethics on German legal positivism, help you fathom the aesthetics of Arnold Schoenberg’s atonalism, and substantively compare English translations of the pre-Socratic philosophers.

I knew he was hopelessly lost in relativism, ignorance and Christian moral outrage. Even culturally, we could do better than Schoenberg and Kant. Might as well be Bukowski, or at least their Hemmingway. He wrote:

In his trial for the second murder, to convince the jury that Bill’s torture and killing of his girlfriend was not a first degree (capital) murder, his attorneys summoned as defense witnesses “theorists of the mind”—psychologists—to compound the “assumptions” that would explain Bill’s evil; abstractions conjured out of the black box of “mental health” in the form of “disorders” .

Much as I don’t agree with the orthodox medical system or with the term “disorders” either, it seems like Stephen was unwilling to accept that Bill’s behaviour was in any way explainable beyond him being pure evil. I’m not sure how one could ever satisfactorily attempt to pass that off as an intelligent response. He even wrote immediately afterwards, using Poe as an authority, of all people:

By undue profundity, we perplex and enfeeble thought. — Edgar Allan Poe, The Murders in the Rue Morgue

He goes on:

The trial was a formal ritual of “undue profundity.” It attempted to factor in of all of Bill’s personal paraphernalia that had been relevant to the murder. But pondering his potential, intelligence, educational attainment, cultured charm, and his sick, unhappy childhood with divorced parents and a callous father was worse than useless as an effort to explain the elusive why he did what he did. Some people are just no good. It is that simple. They are unredeemable. They belong in Dante’s tenth and lowest circle of Inferno. The more assumptions introduced to explain it, the more confusing (perplexing) it becomes, and less satisfactory the results.

Considering what I said in my previous email, where I was pondering what the Dissident Right would be like in a position of power, this line troubled me:

Stupidity cannot be fixed; neither can evil. Yet, while everyone concedes that stupidity is impossible to remediate, many think that evil is an accident or a breakdown that can be repaired by “experts.”

Great, so first some people are just evil, fundamentally, and no further questions needed, and then we discover that they are also unable to repair from this. I am left wondering what they would propose to do, given this strange superstition. I can understand Bill’s sentencing, and I am not attempting to excuse the acts. However, I can see Stephen potentially applying this mantra further. He seems to be rationalizing for what is—in the near-synonymous to this wording of his own article—a fear of new knowledge. There is the voice of the Elizabethan witch-hunter in him. At what point does his pathetic Christian moralizing stop? What would prevent him expanding his definition of evil? I shudder to think how he would react to mental health in general. I was thinking of the case of Jeffrey Dahmer at the time, and the pieces you wrote on his case. [Editor's note: See e.g., here and here] It’s terrible, but now understandable. I am able to feel pity and sadness all round, knowing it was not dealt with in time.

After all, in the original entry in the un-updated blog he linked here Stephen wrote:

His personal history was indeed a remarkable departure from that of the typical slayer of ex-girlfriends: marks of social and economic privilege, impressive educational credentials, extraordinary intellectual attainment. Bill’s life had been considerably advantaged. His father was a highly successful attorney, first in St Louis, then in California.

He went on:

This man had been my friend for fifteen years. We met when he was a first year law student at St Louis University in 1982. I was a librarian at the law school, teaching part time and finishing a dissertation for a Ph. D. in philosophy. Bill worked as a student in the law school library and after a couple of initial encounters we became friends. Few friendships in my life formed so quickly and with such intensity, in part because we shared a passion for systematic and voracious historical and philosophical reading.

Additionally, I noted the sentence:

To me Bill had always appeared completely normal, even conservative in his personal habits, orientation and behavior.

Then, tellingly:

How could this extraordinary man I had known for so long and for whom I had so much affection, commit such horrible crimes? … How could I not over the years have seen any indications that he was capable of such murderous fits of rage? Did my friendship mean anything genuine to him, or was I a kind of social prop who served a darker pathological purpose? Was there a flaw in my character not to have recognized the malignancy in his?

I was vindicated when I read the lines:

…the attorneys also painted a picture of Bill for the jury that bore little resemblance to the person I had known for so many years. They said Bill was a socially inept, maladjusted loner, a man who had been irreparably damaged by an indifferent and emotionally distant father. About his upbringing I have no direct knowledge, but I do remember over the years how consistently he spoke with respect and admiration of his father [emphasis by Ed. - cf. the Dahmer case], particularly his basic decency and integrity.

The conclusion I drew from this was that Stephen was awed by Bill’s intelligent and academic nature, which was in fact all that really seems to have interested him, and he did not indeed know Bill that well, or a great deal about Bill’s father either, bar more credentialism, having never had the compassion or emotional intelligence to notice any warning signs of repressed psychological pain. Rather than a fairy-tale “evil,” I am concerned reading that he is so overcome with righteous rage at the crimes against two women that he cannot bear to wonder more about Bill’s childhood experiences with his father.

All he notes is Bill’s successes and erudition. I find the presumption terrible. Given the way you have exposed in your writings and links how much abuse victims idolize their abusive parents, and how the self-repressive mentality of continuing to do so is a sure-fire route to them taking out their rage on others, I thought it was not unbelievable that this indeed was the cause of Bill’s horrific criminal actions.

Rather than soaking up facts about Schoenberg and feeling smug in having a charming token ‘highly intelligent friend,’ perhaps Stephen could have listened to him, or had the perception to see between the lines. Despite his PhD in philosophy, his argument seems to stem more from his livid social embarrassment at having been ‘caught out’, especially on account of the fact that he seems to have considered Bill a good catch, almost as a vicarious academic status booster, basking in the glow of his knowledge, and yet another very able scholar himself, perhaps observable now, given his protestive elucidation, this sounder moral quality, rising.

In a nutshell, this is generally the sort of reason I keep clear of Counter Currents and the Dissident Right. They infuriate me.

Well, I’m off to lift my weights and prepare some soup, I shall look forward to ordering your bound translation next week. I hope you have a good day.

15 March 2023

Categories
Racial right

Some

quotes from The Less Than Jolly Heretic: The Philosophy of Hurt Children and An Adult’s Transvaluated Moral Principle by Benjamin:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The term “Neochristian” is perhaps most appropriate. It is a slightly different consideration that takes European racial history into account in detail beyond mere latter-day political manipulation and propagandizing, an understanding that does not pass off this issue as mere leftist ‘brainwashing.’

After all, in the words of an anonymous commenter I discovered online through the West’s Darkest Hour blog in 2024 (a highly detailed and beautifully erudite online academic resource where one will, doubtlessly, have one’s core assumptions shaken), “liberalism itself, and its factional development into the likes of Marxism, Bolshevism, Fabian Socialism, and Fourierism is merely a repurposing of Christian ethical values, the ‘catholic,’ i.e., universalist dogmas of egalitarianism that inspired Boasian anthropology, and the genuflection, self-abnegation, and self-abasement that function as necessary prerequisites for spiritual purity, the public display of self-hate coupled to penitent virtue-signaling, the Christian doctrine of original sin synonymous with modern white guilt and the moralizing over privilege, and political correctness no different to judgments of heresy, witch-hunting, and ex-communication, with government replacing God as an omnipotent benefactor.”

He goes on, in my mild paraphrasing: “Even as the original religious belief in a supreme Jewish deity and an afterlife dies, the inverted value system remains, self-policing and condemning other tribal kin as heretics and infidels and working against their family interests, a meek, self-defeating, pacifist transvaluation of traditional moral values, replacing the pre-Christian aristocratic values that inspired a love of strength, pride, honour, loyalty, family, tradition, and race with weakness, mediocrity, conformity, and vulgarity, stripping all self-worth, severing connections to ancestry and genetic memory, rendering intellectual curiosity and critical thinking a sinful threat and stimulating a culture that holds contempt for learning, learned helplessness and conditioned group obedience, the slave-like underclass of society weaponized to resent, judge and police the behaviour of the warrior and aristocratic castes, and a hyper-political polarization.”

The commenter (whose extended quotation is sadly unlocated by me at the time of writing this so I am unable to provide a proper acknowledgement) ends his share of prudent wisdom with the acknowledgement that “Christianity itself has always been an institutionalized, self-regulating millenarian slave-morality system promoted as a religion, shaping the evolutionary group strategy of Europeans for almost two thousand years. These values are handed down from parents to children, and all modern patterns of perception, logic, speech, thought, action, and emotional response operate subconsciously within the dynamics of this system”, irrespective of an increasingly anti-theistic secularity since the 18th Century. [pages 10-11 of the Third Edition, 2024]

——- * * * ——-

I generally find I have absolutely nothing in common with those I observe and read who are designated “Far Right” by the establishment or, indeed, self-defined as “White Nationalists.” As examined at length above, then, I am vastly more interested in the close Nordic phenotypical similarities of the Cro-Magnon settlers who migrated to Europe from the Anatolian peninsula of Western Asia at the end of the Middle Palaeolithic than in rooting our racial origins in the early Bronze Age.

There’s the superficial appearance of a relationship with the dissident right, but it remains a shallow, lazy analysis. I have little interest in the right’s incessant and fallacious genetic determinism theorising. I find the political right appallingly crass, boorish, and ignorant in general, more an example of insincere, ratings-sensitive showmanship than a force for any active change, and I can’t imagine I’d integrate too well with any of their peer groups, even if I somehow wanted to. They seem to remain as rooted in the orthodoxy as every other branch of political activists across the spectrum, or indeed the apolitical citizen majority, the same insular, bourgeois attitudes, and those cruel moralizing values of what unfortunately amounts to the 99%. [Ibid., page 128]

——- * * * ——-

You might also have to come to terms with the uncomfortable realities of Nordicism. Suppose you can’t even admit that your recent ancestors ended the world and are to be held accountable for this. In that case, you’re going to have problems announcing that those of them before that violated your racial phenotypes also, corrupting your genetics through poor mate choices – and some considerable way back. Genetics (or archaeogenetics) is often a superficial excuse. Just look at your exterior forms, your faces and bodies, their minds and actions. You’re dung. There, I can see some conservative type getting offended at me now.

As I wrote before, I don’t relate well to White Nationalists and right-wing thinkers, the discrete ‘national supremacists’ of England and America, as I call them. I see the communistic Athenian democracy of their massed online alternative media forums, and I have no respect for – or interest in – their proud, cruel, egalitarian conservatism, that brutish bourgeois capitalism and psychiatric Neochristianity, always the resolute pacifism and the scolding of braver men. [Ibid., pages 194-195]