Categories
Yesterday I came across a quotable quote from Nietzsche:
‘The strength of a person's spirit would then be measured by how much “truth” he could tolerate, or more precisely, to what extent he needs to have it diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted, falsified’.
It reminded me that many white nationalists aren’t strong, in that they don’t tolerate the truth about their religion, which arose out of Jewish subversion and under the pen of the first evangelist at a time when the Romans were destroying Jerusalem. These nationalists have the JQ diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted and falsified in what we have been calling ‘monocausalism’ because they don’t want to grow up. But I would like to talk about something else.
I said recently that the scandals with the pseudoscience behind Covid and the sexual butchery of the LGBT movement—especially the ‘T’ folk—where surgeons are literally cutting off teenage penises and breasts, are beginning to move some quarters to question the medical establishment. However, as I was saying last week, voices have long been raised questioning another area of medicine: psychiatry.
In the old incarnation of this site a young Englishman told me that if anyone read my views on psychiatry, they would think I was a crank. Obviously, this young man hadn’t been aware that in his country the anti-psychiatry movement arose in the 1960s and that the Englishman Ronald Laing, a critic of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, had been criticising that book before he died. I pointed out to this young man the link to my text critical of psychiatry from its origins.
But my text is rhetorically flawed.
The fact is that such an enormous subject, as is the fact that pseudo-science has been taught in universities since the 19th century, seems implausible if we limit ourselves to reading texts. From a psychological point of view, we need lectures given by eloquent speakers who have studied psychiatry and disseminate their findings in front of an attentive audience.
Dr James Davies did that recently, and best of all, in front of a white audience.
Davies researched how the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—the handbook of psychiatrists in America—has been put together. I had known all this for two decades, thanks to my reading of the dissident psychiatrist Peter Breggin. But, as I said, reading anti-psychiatric books or articles isn’t the same as listening to a speaker who expresses his ideas in such a didactic way.
Nietzsche’s quote applies not only to those who don’t want to see that JQ and CQ are two sides of the same coin, but to those mental infants who cannot conceive that a pseudo-science, psychiatry, is being taught in universities.
Categories
European beauty
Categories
Embryonic idea
How did Christianity become liberalism? At the core of liberal thought we encounter individualism, egalitarianism and universalism. When European civilisation reached its peak before the decline of ancient Greece and Rome—think of the paradigms of Sparta and Republican Rome—values were not individualistic but social; not egalitarian but aristocratic, not universalistic but ethnocentric.
Christianity transvalued such values. By introducing spiritual terror with the doctrine of eternal damnation, it inverted social values into individualistic values (as it obsessed us in medieval times with the idea of personal salvation). Through the catholicism of the Church of Rome (‘catholic’ means ‘universal’), Christianity broke down ethnic barriers to the extent of turning the so-called Second Rome, Constantinople, into a hodgepodge of ethnicities very similar to what the globalists are trying to do today in the West.
When I was a teenager and read Nietzsche for the first time (Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist by the way), I didn’t understand why Nietzsche would put a constellation of notable, more or less secular people, side by side with Christians and fulminate them all equally. It took me decades to come across the reason for all this in a text we christened here ‘The Red Giant’, to the effect that Christianity is in its most destructive phase, the secular phase, after burning its religious phase. But it was only by studying Evropa Soberana’s article on the wars between Judea and Rome that I connected the dots between the JQ and the CQ.
Both the red giant essay and Evropa Soberana’s essay were written for the internet. In the wake of last month’s accident, I recently said that I shuddered that a website could be so fragile. Now that Blogger has taken down Evropa Soberana’s site since last year, I am more aware than ever that these post-Nietzschean ideas are more fragile than I thought. Given that the Spanish author who blogged under the pen name Evropa Soberana has not uploaded his site since it was taken down (as I did after WordPress took mine down last month), I have come to think that, perhaps, this Spaniard has died.
People who are perfectly aware of the Christian question could be counted on the fingers of one hand. The CQ, as the ultimate diagnosis of white man’s disease, is for the moment an embryonic idea. None of us is wealthy enough to set up a publishing house to guard these ideas for posterity precisely because it is an embryonic idea of which Nietzsche was its precursor. My only hope is that death doesn’t surprise me and I can continue blogging for another two or three decades…
Categories
European beauty
One of the most serious objections lodged against the interpretation of Hitler as a pantheist is his use of the term “Creator” in his writings and speeches. Hitler occasionally referred to an Almighty Creator or Eternal Creator, and he sometimes asserted humans were made in the image of God. If Hitler believed in a God who created nature as a distinct entity, separate from himself as deity—as monotheistic religions have traditionally taught—then he would not be a pantheist. He would most likely be a deist, since he generally spurned the idea that God intervened miraculously in history.
In his speech to the 1935 Nuremberg Party Congress, Hitler called God “the Creator” of the German Volk. However, he also implied that God would not intervene miraculously on behalf of his chosen people. They would have to work and fight to gain the Almighty’s favor and blessing. Hitler stated, “In the long run God’s favor will be given only to him who deserves it. He who speaks and acts in the name of a people created by the Almighty continues to act under this commission so long as he does not sin against the substance and the future of the work of the Creator that has been placed in his hand. Therefore it is good that the conquest of power is always bound up with hard fighting.” Hitler’s God was not one who intervened super-naturally in historical developments. Rather, he rewarded people according to the way they worked and fought. God did not break into the cause and effect relationship governed by natural law.
In January 1943, Hitler again called God “Creator” yet implied this version was not a miracle-working deity; rather, he expected humans to make their own way in the world… “In this mightiest struggle of all time, we cannot expect that Providence give us victory as a present. Each and every people will be weighed, and what is judged too light will fall.”
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: If this is true, and I believe it is, American white nationalism will fall: it is too timid an intellectual movement.
______ 卐 ______
God’s judgment is thus not a decision of a personal deity but the result of natural causation: those who work hard and fight bravely win. It is also interesting to note that, according to this speech, one of the things Hitler’s God established was the Darwinian law of the struggle for existence…
Hitler explicitly rejected the creation stories of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Finally, Hitler embraced an evolutionary account of the origins of humanity.
Let’s explore these last two points in greater depth. Never did Hitler express belief in the biblical creation story—which, after all, derived from the Jewish scriptures. (We have already seen that Hitler’s anti-Semitism led him to spurn the Old Testament as a Jewish document.) He obviously did not embrace young-earth creationism (which is what most Americans mean today when they use the term creationism), since on quite a few occasions he mentioned the earth existing for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of years. For example, in Mein Kampf, he warned pacifists that their naiveté would have disastrous consequences, because “this planet once moved through the ether for millions of years without human beings and it can do so again some day if men forget that they owe their higher existence, not to the ideas of a few crazy ideologists, but to the knowledge and ruthless application of Nature’s stern and rigid laws”…
In general, Hitler regarded the Old Testament creation stories as delusional inventions of the Jewish mind. On October 24, 1941, Hitler spoke at great length to his entourage about the controversy between science and religion, and specifically between evolution and Christianity. Hitler opened this lengthy monologue on evolution by claiming that the church’s teachings are contrary to modern research. In fact, as Hitler expounded on this science-religion controversy, he clearly came down on the side of science and bashed the church, asserting, “The definition of the church is a misuse of the creation for earthly purposes.” He also divulged his pantheistic tendencies: “Whoever sees God only in an oak or in a tabernacle and not in the Whole, cannot be pious deep inside; he remains stuck in the outward.” In addition, Hitler praised the French Enlightenment thinkers’ anticlericalism and the progress of science. After expostulating on the glories of science and the ignorance of the church, Hitler pronounced his belief in the evolution of humans. He stated, “There have been humans at the rank at least of a baboon in any case for 300,000 years at least. The ape is distinguished from the lowest human less than such a human is from a thinker like, for example, Schopenhauer”…
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Just what I meant in my previous post, ‘On the hermit’s cave’.
______ 卐 ______
[Hitler’s secretary Christa] Schroeder confirmed in considerable detail that Hitler believed in human evolution through the process of struggle and selection. Two other associates of Hitler testify that belief in Darwinian evolution was integral to his ideology. Wagener remembered a conversation in the summer of 1931 when Hitler professed, “Everywhere in life only a process of selection can prevail. Among the animals, among plants, wherever observations have been made, basically the stronger, the better survives”.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: And the Jews are proving to be stronger than the Aryans because of the Christian malware in the latter’s head, the parasite that weakened them (compare today’s Aryans with what Flavian dynasty member Titus did in Jerusalem).
______ 卐 ______
This not only demonstrates Hitler believed in Darwinian natural selection, but it also suggests he saw the process as nonteleological, i.e., not directed by some deity. Wagener claimed that Hitler based his support for killing the weak and the sick on this vision of natural selection. Otto Dietrich generally concurred, stating that Hitler’s “evolutionary views on natural selection and survival of the fittest coincided with the ideas of Darwin and Haeckel.” Hitler was not an atheist, according to Dietrich, but believed in a Supreme Being who “had created laws for the preservation and evolution of the human race. He believed that the highest aim of mankind was to survive for the achievement of progress and perfection.” Thus, evolutionary thought was central to Hitler’s goals and policies.
In his two books, Hitler discussed evolutionary theory as vital to his theory of racial struggle and eugenics. Several times throughout Mein Kampf, he specifically employs the term “struggle for existence” (“Kampf um das Dasein”); in fact, the phrase or its plural appears three times in a passage several pages long where Hitler described why the Germans should be both pro-natalist and expansionist. Historian Robert Richards, however, inexplicably claims that Hitler’s views in this passage are un-Darwinian, because—according to Richards—a Darwinian should supposedly want population expansion only within restricted borders, which would allow the fit to triumph over the unfit. Richards argues expanding into new territory would lessen the struggle, allowing the fit and less fit “to have fairly equal chances.”
Richards, however, miscalculates here because he leaves out one of the most important factors in Hitler’s reasoning: the living space (Lebensraum) is to be taken from allegedly inferior races. Thus, expanding is part of the Darwinian racial struggle that allows the allegedly fitter Nordic race to outcompete allegedly inferior races. Contra Richards, Hitler’s discussion makes perfect sense in a Darwinian world if unequal races are waging a struggle for existence. In fact, the whole idea of Lebensraum was first formulated by Friedrich Ratzel, a Darwinian biologist who later became a geographer. In addition, many pro-natalist eugenicists with impeccable Darwinian credentials, such as Alfred Ploetz or Max von Gruber, agreed with Hitler’s position on expansionism (indeed, they may have influenced Hitler in this matter).
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: On the following pages (231-236) of Hitler’s Religion, pages containing a very important quotation from Hitler’s second book, we see that Hitler understood Darwinism perfectly.
The point is that this Darwinism will lead us to our exterminationist philosophy (remember what Darwin himself believed would be the fate of coloured people). Weikart continues:
______ 卐 ______
In June 1944, Hitler explained his views on war to an audience of army officers in a remarkably candid speech. He opened it by basing his philosophy of war on natural law:
“Among the processes that are essentially immutable, that remain the same throughout all time, and that only change in the form of the means applied, is war. Nature teaches us with every gaze into its workings, into its events, that the principle of selection dominates it, that the stronger remains victor and the weaker succumbs. It teaches us that what often appears to someone as cruelty, because he himself is affected or because through his education he has turned away from the laws of nature, is in reality necessary, in order to bring about a higher evolution of living organisms”.
Hitler then insisted that humans must follow the ways of nature, not the allegedly misguided path of humanitarians. If they pursue humanitarianism, Hitler warned, they will be supplanted by other organisms that take the struggle seriously.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Instead of ‘humanitarians’ or ‘humanitarianism’, the Christian author of this book didn’t dare to write simply ‘Christians’ or ‘Christianity’. If the ancient Romans would have had weapons of mass destruction and survived the next centuries instead of succumbing to Christianity, we can already imagine the fate of the Huns, the nascent Muslims or the Mongol invaders.
______ 卐 ______
As I have demonstrated above, Hitler did indeed believe in human evolution. It was not a peripheral element of his worldview, either. It helped shape his understanding of the human struggle for existence, natural selection among humans and human races, eugenics, pronatalism, killing the disabled, and expansionism. Of course, Hitler’s evolutionary views were synthesized with many other influences, such as anti-Semitism and nationalism; it was by no means the sole influence on his ideology or policies.
But in addition to all the times Hitler explicitly broached the topic of human evolution, he even more frequently discussed the racial struggle for existence, the struggle for existence within the Nordic race, natural selection, and many other Darwinian themes. He often abbreviated these terms as “racial struggle,” “struggle,” and “selection,” just as many of his contemporaries, including biologists and eugenicists, did, but key issue here is the concept, not the exact terminology. When Hitler spoke about the “selection” of the strongest organisms and the elimination of the weakest, it did not matter whether he used the exact term “natural selection” (though he did at times). He was obviously describing it, and that is the crucial issue…
“The ape is distinguished from the lowest human less than such a human is from a thinker like, for example, Schopenhauer.” In a 1933 speech at the Nuremberg Party Rally, he stated, “The gulf between the lowest creature which can still be styled man and our highest races is greater than that between the lowest type of man and the highest ape.” These last two comments paraphrase statements Haeckel made in many of his works; two examples are “the difference between the lowest primitive humans and the highest evolved cultured humans is in this respect greater than that between the former and the apes” and “the differences between the highest and the lowest humans is greater than that between the lowest human and the highest animal.”
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Emphasis in the original. I hope that by now you understand my iterated statement on this site about “the extermination of the Neanderthals”: something I have been telling myself for decades in the cave but only in recent years dared to divulge.
______ 卐 ______
Hitler asserts, “Nature knows no political boundaries. First, she puts living creatures on this globe and watches the free play of forces. She then confers the master’s right on her favorite child, the strongest in courage and industry.” In other words, nature is the source of living organisms—not some Creator God—and lets these organisms fight it out among themselves. Nature is not actively intervening or doing miracles but rather allowing its laws to prevail.
Categories
European beauty
On this site, I have been using the metaphor of the three-eyed raven’s cave in the sense that for a real intrapsychic metamorphosis it is necessary to cut oneself off from human society for decades. Even Hitler once fantasised about becoming a Benedictine monk. A Trappist monk (my father, by the way, loved some Trappist monks he met in Spain in Franco’s time), Thomas Merton, wrote something that portrays what I have come to know precisely by going into that cave for most of my life:
"The world of men has forgotten the joys of silence, the peace of solitude which is necessary, to some extent, for the fullness of human living. Not all men are called to be hermits, but all men need enough silence and solitude in their lives to enable the deep inner voice of their own true self to be heard at least occasionally. When that inner voice is not heard, when man cannot attain to the spiritual peace that comes from being perfectly at one with his own true self, his life is always miserable and exhausting. For he cannot go on happily for long unless he is in contact with the springs of spiritual life which are hidden in the depths of his own soul. If man is constantly exiled from his own home, locked out of his own spiritual solitude, he ceases to be a true person. He no longer lives as a man. He becomes a kind of automaton, living without joy because he has lost his spontaneity. He is no longer moved from within, but only from outside himself".
Naturally, Hitler and I would object to Merton and the young Americans who wanted to emulate him after World War II that true wisdom is not to be gained in Catholic hermitages, but in pagan caves where the magic of the old religions allows us to see the historical past as it happened (the metaphor of the third-eyed raven). If the young men who wanted to emulate Merton had opened their third eye, they would have realised that they fought on the wrong side in WW2 (just imagine seeing the Hellstorm atrocities with your own eyes!).
Nevertheless, what Merton says about the solitude of the hermit is true.
Only by separating ourselves from our fellow human beings to develop the inner self is it possible to understand what is going on. Alas, no normie or racialist today, as far as I know, has gone through the initiatory process that Hitler went through so well, as explained in the book we recently translated for this site by Savitri Devi.
Categories
European beauty
Categories
Other sites
Almost a month ago the old incarnation of this site was censored by WordPress, Inc., which hosted it. Although the technicians have helped me with the migration, there are things I have to do manually. For example, I have six other sites on WordPress. After last month’s censorship, I will no longer be posting on those other sites. However, I am still busy backing up the information of those sites.
In English:
Ex libris
The medieval Turin Shroud
In Spanish:
La hora más oscura
Hojas eliminadas
Anti-psiquiatría
Escatología
I hope that by Friday, one month after the censorship, I will have finished all this backup so that my intellectual work on those other sites won’t be lost in case WordPress decides to take down them as well.