web analytics
Categories
Aryan beauty Nature

Bad sci-fi

Drying the books that got wet gave me the opportunity to reread some pages of those I had read long ago. In the series “Sixteen Years Later” I talked about the texts in a binder I read when, starting in August 2009, I discovered a healthy white nationalism that hadn’t yet suffered the regression of today. Now I would like to discuss one of the books I read before my racial awakening.

As an anecdote, the books that were most damaged were the science-fiction paperbacks I bought in the 1980s and 90s. Since the task of drying them is enormous, and it is difficult for me because the sun rarely shines during this rainy season, and above all, I must prevent the proliferation of mould on the pages that had become soaked, I decided to tear out the wet pages that didn’t have my footnotes. It is not difficult to acquire other copies of the books I have mutilated. What is irreplaceable are my footnotes. So, in my paperback copy of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation, which I read in 1994, I tore out almost all the pages to save myself the painful task of drying them.

Ever since I read it, Asimov’s science fiction has bothered me greatly. In another of my Asimov books, a non-fiction one, this Jew confesses that he loved living in New York. The room where this monk of letters wrote didn’t even have a window!

The difference between Aryans and Jews is that Aryans, being much more physically beautiful (see what I said about Éowyn in my post yesterday), have a religious calling to beauty that Jews lack (unless they have mixed genetically with Aryans, like Felix Mendelssohn). If we compare Asimov’s most renowned science-fiction work, Foundation, with Arthur Clarke’s The Songs of Distant Earth, the latter’s futurism even reminded me of Parrish’s paintings. The Jew lacks that call to beauty, at least to the religious level that I feel (cf. David Lane’s 14 words referring to the Aryan woman).

What bothered me about the first book in the Foundation series I read is that Asimov simply transfers his beloved New York to the capital of the empire, Trantor, with 40 billion humans: the centre of all intrigue and symbol of imperial corruption. Every day, fleets of tens of thousands of ships brought the produce of twenty agricultural worlds to the tables of Trantor. It’s a shame that Aryans like George Lucas have imitated Trantor with the city of Coruscant. Like Trantor, Coruscant is a kind of super-developed New York that encompasses the entire planet (in Lucas’ universe, Coruscant is also the seat of government). All of this is degeneration, obviously, and you have to read about what Thalassa was like in The Songs of Distant Earth to understand it.

In Foundation 25 million planets were inhabited in the Galaxy but the people that the novelist imagined were, from my POV, as Neanderthaloid as humans today. We can already imagine the sidereal level of unnecessary suffering that would exist in such a galactic nightmare!

But Asimov doesn’t see any of this. The city he imagines, covering the entire planet, lives under metal. People no longer saw the sky or the heavens. Not even the inhabitants knew what season it was outside the metal skin of the world—except for the emperor’s palace, nestled in natural land, full of green trees and adorned with flowers: a small island in an ocean of steel.

I have said it before, and it is worth repeating: the stars are not for man. Hitler himself believed that overmanhood could only arise on Earth. Even some YouTubers who speculate on cosmology are beginning to realise this; for example, what this guy says at the end of his video (yesterday I listened to that video in full, although without seeing the offensive images).

Even that vlogger fails because he succumbs to the YouTubers’ trend of saturating his videos with images of extra-terrestrial and space recreations and the like. Being faithful to Earth means attachment to earthly beings and landscapes; for example, the canvases of Romantic painters (Hitler tried, unsuccessfully, to be one of them). And knowing oneself. Only then can one know the universe and the Gods.

A scene like the one I embedded yesterday about Edoras tells me more than any of the hundreds of books Asimov wrote.

Categories
Correspondence Exterminationism

Dear Cesar,

To answer your question regarding your latest post, I agree with you in that I too think (lawful? as if that would be allowed!) secession is not enough, and would be better achieved itself through violent aggressive revolution.

There are too many enemies otherwise, and they cannot be left alive, as with their grasp on modern technology, and, as the quotation of extermination says, in paraphrase, what if 10, or 10,000 aren’t enough, and you need to eliminate nigh on 10 billion. One can only do that through long-term—perhaps intergenerational—Turner Diaries-style insurgency. Secession feels a little like these ‘prepper’ hippies who retire to the woods in cabins and think that is enough to save them from civilisation’s degradation, with the problem unsolved all about, just over their horizon, or indeed Covington’s effective ‘Murka II’, where, without ideological fanaticism and stringent adherence to iron rule patriarchal norms, it slips back into just another (feminist) democracy.

As you commented on the final author saying—revolution being a state of mind, I think I go with the former commenters (I can’t remember if it was originally Greg Johnson, Larry Auster, or Alex Linder) that the fanatic attitude of hatred as much as the mythological ideals of what our race was and should be​ thinking of Cro-Magnon point for a historical example—coupled to the 4-words is enough for me to feel there is already revolution, even if not among many people; even if they are simply waiting in frustration for an opportunity.

Personally, I find the (second half of the) 14-words harder to fight for, almost a given to me, and harder to feel passion over (perhaps it’s because I have a long-term partner, so am in some sense complacent, small-minded or selfish over that). But to answer O’Meara’s point then, it’s not about inheriting the Leviathan as much as de-fanging and de-clawing it permanently, and tossing the remains into that ‘ashpit of history’, so nothing like our current situation can ever arise again, a real scorched earth tactic psychologically, and only then could I realistically think descendants could plan for a peaceful pure Aryan society in aftermath, having that opportunity awarded automatically to then, as the only survivors, left then to expand across the globe in further war, and wipe out remaining enclaves of enemies. At the moment, there’s too much war in my mind to think of a simple dislocation.

I hope this gives my basic thoughts reflecting on your latest piece.

Best regards,

Ben

Categories
Civil war Michael O'Meara

Sixteen

years later (V)

When I was still living in Spain, I posted… my first comment on a racialist forum! (TOQ Online). Although that thread of comments no longer exists online, I can read the exact date on the printout in my binder.

On 24 August 2009, at 2:43 pm to be precise, in the comments section on the article “The Sword”, I wrote:

[Michael] O’Meara is basically right. Myth is certainly what moves the soul. That’s why, inspired by Nordic culture, J.R.R. Tolkien strove to create a myth to the point of inventing euphonically aesthetic languages. Women like Éowyn, the blond we all saw in the film The Two Towers, with Edoras the capital of Rohan in the background, is the crown of evolution.

To think that the very crown of evolution is now in danger of extinction because of self-hate among whites is too intolerable a thought to contemplate. A few months ago a former US president celebrated that whites will be a minority in his nation. I was extremely dismayed when learning what he said! I can only thank the authors of this website, which I have discovered just today. As soon as I can get a teleprompter, I will try to get my strong message through YouTube. Keep up the good work. With compliments, Chechar.

“Chechar” was my pen name when I started out on racialist forums. Once I had settled in Mexico, I read another article from my TOQ Online printout. Now that I can reread it, thanks to the fact that, although it got soaked during the flood, I dried it out, I see things I didn’t see in 2009 because I was just a newbie on racial issues. For example, one of those articles mentioned that Uncle Tom’s Cabin had been the best-selling book of the 19th century.

Let us recall Tom Holland’s Dominion, where he shows us how 19th-century Quakers created the ideology of abolitionism inspired by the message of the New Testament. Given that the female author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin wasn’t a Jew but a fanatical Quaker, whose message was validated by the American zeitgeist of the time, this fact refutes dozens of commenters on The Unz Review who try to explain the Civil War by economic causes instead of, as Goethe wrote, seeing what is right in front of their eyes. This wilful blindness on the part of all these commenters is due to their desire to get their parents’ religion off the hook about the negrolatry that has wreaked havoc on their nation.

Now I would like to say a word about the last text in my collection, “The TOQ Secession Essay Contest Winner: ‘Toward the White Republic’ by Michael O’Meara”, in my opinion, the finest writer TOQ Online and Counter-Currents had before the monocausalists who still comment there drove him away (the full essay can be read here). O’Meara wrote:

Inspired by the birthright handed down by the blood and sacrifice of ancestors, their project, relatedly, is not about restoring the Third Reich or the Confederacy, as left­ists imagine, but about creating a future white homeland in which their kind will be able “to pursue their destiny with­out interference from other races.”

I now see that this segregationist desire is expressed too broadly. A more concrete form would be what O’Meara would also say about Harold Covington’s novels. But Covington’s project, as I have said elsewhere, was quixotic because the government would never allow racists to declare independence in some American states. Furthermore, mere secession leaves weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the anti-white government. What we need is to take power (cf. the biographies of our enemies: Constantine and Lenin). Instead of Covington’s fiction I suppose O’Meara didn’t accept William Pierce’s exterminationist fiction because he still had Christian scruples, albeit in a secularised form. O’Meara continues:

But even if feasible, what self-respecting white man would want to take back the United States, this monstrous, bureaucratic Leviathan whose Jewish, race-mixing, homo­phile, feminist, fraudulent, anti-Christian, and degenerate practices stand as an affront to everything his ancestors stood for?

The hard truth is that it’s gotten to the point where the US can no longer be defended as “my mother, drunk or so­ber,” only repulsed as an alien body-snatcher. To this end, secessionists emulate the proud Danes, who said after the loss of Schleswig-Holstein in 1865: “What has been lost externally will be gained internally.”

But more than refusing to abide the state responsible for their dispossession, secessionists see this “abomination of desolation” as their principal enemy. Only by freeing themselves from it and acquiring their own land under their own sovereignty do they see a future for their kind.

There are two ways of looking at the abomination of desolation that the US has become: the traditional one we see in racialist forums; and ours, where the “anti-Christianity” O’Meara talks about is actually atheistic hyper-Christianity (once again, read Dominion). From our point of view, as I mentioned recently, the good-natured Charlie Kirk and his murderous madman are opposing factions of Christians, like the wars between Catholics and Protestants of yesteryear. That is exactly what Holland says.

In the article that Greg Johnson gave first prize to, the following sentence caught my attention: “Most whites, de-Aryanised as they are, allowed a Negro to become president”. And here is a paragraph in which O’Meara sees beyond the JQ:

As a conservative, he couldn’t see that white secession (unlike the secession of the Confederacy) is a revolutionary project premised on a rejection not just of the illegal alien­ations of the federal government, but of the entire social, economic, and moral order sustaining its ethnocidal rule.

Precisely what Adolf Hitler tried in Germany! In 2009, when I read the article in the binder, I wrote there that I found the ending of O’Meara’s article beautiful, and I even mentioned my beloved Parrish (well, a Parrishesque video can be seen in the clip embedded above). These are the final paragraphs:

Those who know Hibernian—or any other European—nationalist history also know the immeasurable power of the nation, especially the nation rising to nationhood. This is the spirit we secessionists hope to stir in white Americans.

The situation today may, therefore, be totally grim, but politically there is no more feasible or marketable strategy to awaken our people, especially as they become aware of their approaching minority status and all it implies.

Imagine, then, for a moment, a white homeland in North America, free of the Jew-ridden US government, with its colored multitudes and parasitic institutions: In my mind, this one image says everything, explains everything, promises everything.

The powerful imagery of an autonomous white nation possesses, as well, the mythic potential that the General Strike has in the thought of Georges Sorel. All great movements, Sorel saw, are driven not by ra­tional arguments or party programs, but by their myths (which “are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act”).

For it is myth—and the memories and hopes animating it—that shape a nation, that turn a “motley horde” into a people with a shared sense of purpose and identity, that mobilize them against the state of things, and prepare them for self-sacrifice and self-rule.

A Sovereign Independent State, as the Irish called it in 1916—the White Republic, as I call it—is a possible seces­sionist myth to symbolize the determination of white men to assert themselves as a free people somewhere in an all-white America.

TOQ Online, August 1, 2009

In the now-deleted TOQ Online comments thread (in the C-C repost we see a different thread, with other commenters), Andrew Hamilton quoted something that I find true: “Revolution is a state of mind”: something I don’t see in today’s racial right.

Categories
Exterminationism Racial right

Sixteen

years later (IV)

Even on that same day, 23 September 2009, I read the Prozium article that Johnson reposted on TOQ Online, “Myths, Facts, Self-Interest”, from which I quote the following passages:

Americans are not analytical / empirical / objective. I have mentioned elsewhere that Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind series [LaHaye was a Christian fundamentalist —Ed.] has sold 65 million copies. Even within academia, the progressive mythos dominates entire disciplines, especially in the culture sensitive humanities. I just can’t see an appeal to science winning out (without substantial culture wind behind it); look what happened to James Watson (with all his prestige) when he stepped across the line of political correctness. Geneticists bend over backwards to avoid using the word “race” in lieu of Watson’s fall from grace. Most try to avoid it altogether (smart career move there). They bend to popular opinion and the progressive party line. Remember all that talk about how the Human Genome Project had discredited racialism? That and God talk has done wonders for Francis Collins’ career.

What can be said for self-interest? In our current political environment, it reinforces the LDC [Liberal-Democratic Capitalist] system. The career-minded, family-minded selfish individual prefers to go along with the flow. He is content to live in his whitebread suburb, shop at the Big Box stores for plasma televisions, pull the (R) lever at the ballot box in November. The first rule of conservative politics: Number One always comes first, second, and last. If such an individual is feeling really brave, he might go teabagging or do something really radical like visit a paleo website.

Just think about it: the tide of self-interest against us is so strong that White Nationalists have to cheer for a national catastrophe like a Second Great Depression, Hurricane Katrina or Kunstler’s Long Emergency to disrupt the status quo. Self-interest will come into play whenever our success appears plausible (think of the NSDAP) or catastrophic circumstances intervene. That’s when the opportunists and conservatives will flock into our ranks.

Looking at our situation objectively, even with the eye of an analytical empiricist (a bent of mind I share with GuessedWorker), what is needed right now (in the embryonic stage) is fanaticism [emphasis added by Ed.]. There are few incentives to join our movement. Racially conscious Whites are the most despised minority in America. I’m willing to wager we are hated even more than the atheists.

We need myths that are powerful enough to move a vanguard beyond their own rational self-interest. An alluring vision is needed comparable to the colorblind utopia that animates the left. It has to be expressed in art, literature, music and film; vehicles more accessible to the masses than academic texts… This is a task for artists, not intellectuals.

Regarding what Benjamin asked today (“Do you think part of this catastrophic regression has been because of the shift away from keeping personal libraries?”), I don’t think so because Prozium apparently reads a lot of books. “Prozium” was his old pen name. His real name is Brad Griffin, and since then he has been blogging on Occidental Dissent under another pen name, Hunter Wallace.

The point is: sixteen years ago Prozium was a self-proclaimed white nationalist and his blog’s subtitle, if I remember correctly, was “Western racial and cultural preservation”. Compare that to Occidental Dissent’s subtitle today: “Nationalism, populism, reaction”. What caused the shift to a reactionary mindset?

The European image that Occidental Dissent flaunted when that webzine defined itself as a “white nationalist” site.

For sixteen years I have followed the blogging career of Prozium, now known as Hunter Wallace in racialist forums. When he had bitter arguments with white nationalists, he repudiated the term “white nationalism” to define his position. As he confessed at the time, he became a “Southern Nationalist”. Years later, he decided that the best term to define his ideology was “Christian Nationalist”.

So, to answer Benjamin, I would say that it is not a large personal library that makes one wise (this man claims to have read hundreds of books). When one finds oneself in the middle of the psychological Rubicon, with water up to one’s knees, a dilemma arises: either one continues to cross the river to the other side, National Socialism (see above where Prozium himself mentioned the NSDAP), or one retreats back to the lands of Normieland (remember that on one occasion, after Prozium / Wallace took steps back, he called himself a “neo-normie”).

As I mentioned in my previous post about Greg Johnson and the vanguardist literature he used to publish in TOQ Online, the same can be said about Prozium / Wallace / Griffin: the pull that Normieland exerts on the minds of American racialists is so powerful that they rarely cross the river. To put it in a nutshell, the exterminationism on the other side scares the hell out of them!

Likewise, Andrew Anglin originally used a lot of Nazi paraphernalia on his site, The Daily Stormer. Then he Christianised his site and has been using Christian symbols. No more love for Uncle Adolf… On this side of the Atlantic, only racists like William Pierce (1933-2002) crossed the river to the extent of embracing exterminationism. So I’m glad, Benjamin, that you recommended Pierce’s book, Who We Are, to your friend. That book should be available in print! (as our anthologies were available before Lulu Press deplatformed us).

If we remember that Greg Johnson used to deliver pious homilies in his church in San Francisco as late as 2010, and that Griffin and Anglin remain openly Christian, it is clear why the magnet of Normieland moved them to retrace their steps as they were about to cross the Rubicon.

Categories
Literature Racial right

Sixteen

years later (III)

Already flying halfway across the Atlantic on 12 September 2009, I read Justin Raimondo’s article “The Good War Wasn’t So Good”, the first few paragraphs of which were published by TOQ Online:

I write these words on September 3, 2009, seventy years to the day since Britain and France declared war on Germany—an occasion observed, if not exactly celebrated by the leaders and opinion-makers of the West, as the beginning of “the good war.” The War Party just loves WWII because it’s the one war where all agree we had no choice but to fight and win a war to the death. Well, not quite all, but on this question dissent is simply not tolerated.

Take, for example, Pat Buchanan, who marks this anniversary with a reiteration of the theme of his excellent book, The Unnecessary War, which makes the case that war was never inevitable, and that only the pernicious idea of “collective security”—the Franco-British “guarantee” to Poland—made it so. Buchanan also makes the indisputable point that if only the Poles had given Danzig back to Germany, from whom it had been taken in the wake of the disastrous Treaty of Versailles, a negotiated peace would have been the result—a much more desirable one than 56,125,262 deaths and the incalculable toll taken by the war in terms of resources and pure human misery.

Oh, but no: to the “bloggers,” left and right, this is a case of “Pat Buchanan, Hitler Apologist.” In the political culture constructed by these pygmies, any challenge to the conventional wisdom—especially one that involves questioning WWII, the Sacred War—is something close to a criminal act, one that separates out the perpetrator from the realm of polite society and consigns him to an intellectual Coventry, where he can do no harm. And of course attacking US entry into WWII is considered a “hate crime” because—well, what are you, some kind of “Hitler apologist”?!

But of course WWII was not inevitable, and Hitler was indeed amenable to negotiations: he never wanted to go to war with the British—whom he admired—and the French, whose influential native fascist movement had good relations with their German co-thinkers.

The article motivated me to obtain a copy of Buchanan’s book. Once settled in Mexico, on 23 September I read Sam G. Dickson’s “A Modest Proposal” in the same webzine which contains these paragraphs:

To those of you who think this is a nutty comment, I would suggest that you attend the next town hall meeting of your local Congressman or Senator. He need not be a liberal, not some crazed Methodist on Marx or a Marxist on meth, like Hillary Clinton. He could be a white Christian Southern conservative Republican Congressman. During the question and answer period, go to the microphone and say: “Congressman, I am concerned about the tide of non-white immigration, and the low white birthrate in this country and around world. I’m concerned that our race might become extinct.”

And just see the reaction of that Christian, Southern, conservative member of the establishment. See how you will be shouted down by his followers. See how the guard will be instructed to come and take you out of the room, because you have committed an act of hate by suggesting that your race should be anything other than exterminated.

It is considered per se immoral to advocate the survival of our race. We need to think about that when weighing the claims of our enemies to be the voices of love and tolerance.

But where do the feelings that it’s immoral to advocate Aryan survival come from? Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, which I heard countless times at Mass as a child, only metastasised into the Aryan collective unconscious after the Second World War. As Tom Holland has said both in writing and on YouTube: after WW2, white people managed to maintain Christian ethics only by transferring the idea of the Devil to Adolf Hitler. Because of this transfer, the West now defines morality in a negative way: everything must be done in opposition to Hitler’s ideals!

In other words, after WWII Aryans must commit ethnic suicide. That same day, I read Greg Johnson’s review of the novels of Harold Covington, who had been inspired by The Turner Diaries (the following year, when Johnson launched his new website, Counter Currents, he republished his review which can be read here).

Given that Johnson praised the novels this explains why, in 2009, I, who longed for a revolution, never criticised white nationalism. I imagined it then as a revolutionary ideology, as evident in this comment by Michael O’Meara in TOQ Online regarding Johnson’s review. Incidentally, some TOQ Online articles are still available on the internet. But they no longer have a comments section, so the following gem from O’Meara would have been lost had I not printed it out for my binder sixteen years ago:

This is an extraordinary article on an extraordinary subject. I am constantly amazed by the fact that the Quartet [H.A. Covington's The Hill of the Ravens, A Distant Thunder, A Mighty Fortress and The Brigade —Ed.] has been virtually ignored in our community. Part of this, I imagine, is due to the fact that the present generation of racialists, like their unconscious cohorts, no longer reads. Anything that’s more than two or three thousand words long and lacks illustrations is practically inaccessible to them.

A second reason I imagine the Quartet has been ignored is probably due to Covington himself, who is apparently an uncompromising individual and certainly one who has acquired a great many enemies. I don’t personally know Covington, so I have no way of evaluating the various charges made against him. [The charges were true. See may take here —Ed.]

In any case, even if the nasty things said about him by his enemies are true, it still distracts not in the least from the quality of his works, which are virtually unparalleled in our community. This gets me to the third reason I think the Quartet is ignored. Both white nationalism and race realism are largely cyber phenomena. If you take Covington seriously, however, you would have to tear yourself away from the computer monitor and act in the real world—with all its attendant inconveniences. The thought of political activity, though, is apparently too much for most of us. We too, even if we have remained unmoved by the system’s racial fictions, seem to behave in ways not unlike the rest of the sheep. Will we also go quietly to the slaughter?

I think it’s significant that the spontaneous uprising depicted in the Quartet at Coeur d’Alene, which provoked the war leading to the eventual formation of the Northwest American Republic, was something of a mystery. This rings true to me. We may no longer be the men who defied the might of the British Empire in 1776 or 1916, but there are other forces that might save us from ourselves.

The greatest of the “conservative” thinkers, Joseph de Maistre, pointed out long ago that the French Revolution led the revolutionaries rather than was led by them. For he believed that certain Providential forces rule our lives. These forces he saw in Christian terms, but others, like Heidegger, for instance, saw them in terms of Being, over which humans have no control.

In either case, the force of Providence or Being or Destiny has a power that has often made itself felt in our history. For this reason, I have little doubt that Europeans will eventually throw off the Judeo-liberal system programming their destruction. I’m less confident about we Americans, given the greater weakness of our collective identity and destiny. But nevertheless even we might be saved from ourselves by this force—as long as we do what is still in our power to do. Greg Johnson has given us in this review something we ignore at our own peril.

The tragedy is that, in the years that followed, American white nationalism suffered a regression: from an incipient revolutionary thought to de facto conservatism. Moreover, the revolutionary O’Meara left the movement after a heated discussion thread against the monocausalists of Counter-Currents regarding the JQ.

Categories
Literature Racial right

Sixteen

years later (II)

The norns Urðr, Verðandi and Skuld beneath the world tree Yggdrasil (1882) by Ludwig Burger.

I continue to quote some passages from my binder. Incidentally, when it got wet, not only did the ink from my notes run, but it also bled through to the other side of the pages. Fortunately, it is still legible.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Once on the plane, when I no longer wanted to be in Zapatero’s Spain and was preparing to live in Mexico, on 12 September 2009, still on the ground but after midnight, I began to read the articles printed in my binder of The Occidental Quarterly Online (TOQ Online from now on).

The first one I read on the plane was “The Seven Pillars of White Nationalism” by Yggdrasil (I would later learn that this was John Gardner’s pen name). I was stunned to see that among the readings Yggdrasil recommended was Himmler’s Posen Speech!

Unlike what I had been reading in Larry Auster’s View From the Right, the contributors to TOQ Online weren’t Jews. Since I was just beginning to familiarise myself with white nationalist literature, I would not wake up to the Jewish Question until the following year (February 2010, to be exact). But on the plane, still grounded at the Gran Canaria airport, I had no way to awaken to the JQ, and I wrote in the binder something in Spanish that I am now translating. When I came across Yggdrasil’s recommendation of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, I wrote: “Wow, wow, wow. So these guys are totally paranoid?”

In January 2014, when I reread this article, my old notes and I had already awakened to the JQ, I added a postscript on the same page of the binder: “Look what I thought four years ago… I remember reading this on the plane and feeling that it was an evil trait of the author and of all TOQ in general—just the Pavlovian reaction that everyone who takes a look at my current blog for the first time must feel…”

When I started blogging in 2009, in the first incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour I hadn’t yet awakened to the JQ, so in 2014 I was referring to the second incarnation of my site; the present one is the third incarnation after WordPress cancelled my account. Incidentally, the Spanish word actual (translated as current) is underlined in my binder; above I put it in italics.

In his article Yggdrasil also recommended The Turner Diaries, a novel I was not yet familiar with, and on the second page of the article on recommended readings, I read this sentence by him:

Surprisingly, I was unable to find any coherent and helpful works in English translation from The Third Reich explaining how National Socialism might save us. Most of the major works of that period, including Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Century and Hitler’s Mein Kampf are dreadful tomes, which fail to recognize our basic predicament. The best explanation I can find of National Socialism is Lincoln Rockwell’s White Power.

I have complained a lot about this: there is no good book from the Third Reich that explains National Socialism; at most, there are inspirational booklets and, after 1945, Hitler’s readable after-dinner talks that can be read one a day (as David Irving recommended). But during the Third Reich there could be no frank books because that would have meant revealing the profound anti-Christianity of NS. It would have been political suicide to reveal that esoteric aspect to the masses. So, while I do not blame Hitler or his intellectuals for the absence of such an educational book (as Mein Kampf is a dreadful tome as Yggdrasil rightly says), our anthology The Fair Race could now be considered an introductory book (unlike the 1930s, in the new century the esoteric aspect of NS must become exoteric). Yggdrasil continues:

The prosperity that followed WW II has reduced the inclination of Euros to resist the human equality mania en-mass, resulting instead in localized witch hunts, including war crimes persecutions and hate crimes laws.

That is why what I long for most of all is for fiat currencies to collapse and, subsequently, for energy devolution to eliminate billions of Neanderthals. Only then will the degenerative effects of material comfort evaporate, like morning dew, among the surviving whites. Yggdrasil continues:

And you cannot interrupt the flow of social reinforcement by adopting a low status label—by claiming to be a KKK member, for example—just to gain the attention of the media. Adopting emblems and symbols that the controlled media has invested billions of dollars stigmatizing as low status merely serves to reinforce the belief among the outer party that their displays of the egalitarian delusions confer precisely what they seek—the opinion of their neighbors that they are “good people.” Thus, in order to interrupt the status transmission mechanism, the outer party must value your opinion of them. You must appear to be just like them. That means you must avoid markers of low status.

Sixteen years after I read the article, we see that even that isn’t possible in the darkest hour of the West. I have been watching many videos about Charlie Kirk, who was murdered this month by a homo, and it hurts that someone as good as him—good by normie standards—, so incapable of the slightest hatred, was slandered as a hater not only by the murderer but also by the progressives who applauded the attack. So it’s not enough to appear to be a good guy, as Yggdrasil recommended, to prevent crazy people from calling you a Nazi. I prefer to show my true colours: red, white and black so that at least a few visitors will want to become priests of the sacred words (cf. our featured article).

Yggdrasil’s article was published on 6 September 2009. Unfortunately, TOQ Online no longer exists. That’s why it was worth printing the articles that started my ideological transformation.

Those were different times. Online I never, ever insulted White Nationalism at that time! Incidentally, only one brief comment appeared in the comments section, from Michael O’Meara, who subscribed to white nationalism but not to NS. O’Meara commented: “I feel about the world in a way different from Yggdrasil, but at the same time I think every important idea of my WN comes from what I learned from him.”

Greg Johnson was then editor of TOQ Online, and I was surprised to discover in my binder that the previous article Johnson had published in that webzine was titled “All-Time Leading Hitlers”.

As I said, those were different times…

Categories
Liberalism Racial right

Sixteen

years later (I)

The long task of drying my wet books has given me the opportunity to reread some texts that greatly influenced my thinking. In particular, I want to revisit the writings that introduced me to white nationalism in September 2009. I believe quoting and analysing these texts will help clarify how my views were shaped, especially given that, before encountering white nationalism, I had no exposure to such ideas due to their suppression by the System.

At the time, I was living in Spain. The first author I read who critically spoke about forbidden topics, such as blacks and feminism, was a Jew who had converted to Christianity and was still alive in 2009: Larry Auster. At that time, I knew nothing about the Jewish Question and was fascinated by what Auster wrote on his website View From the Right. I will be quoting from my printouts in the order in which I placed the articles from 2009 in the binder (pic left), whose pages, incidentally, are still damp. Today, I will have to put them back in the sun to continue drying.

So let’s quote some passages from what Auster said at a conference in Baltimore in February 2009 (emphasis mine):

To deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is.

The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society.

The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life.

The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence.

This liberal principle of destruction is utterly simple and radically extreme. Yet very, very few people, even self-described hard-line conservatives, are aware of this principle and the hold it has over our society. Instead of opposing non-discrimination, they oppose multiculturalism and political correctness. But let’s say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end Muslim immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of Muslim immigration. The source of it is our belief that we must not discriminate against other people on the basis of their culture, their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion. This is the idea of the 1965 Immigration Act, which was the idea of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to all of humanity: all discrimination is wrong, period. No one in today’s society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it.

To see how powerful the belief in non-discrimination is, consider this: Prior to World War II, would any Western country have considered admitting significant numbers of Muslim immigrants? Of course not; it would have been out of the question. The West had a concrete identity. It saw itself as white and in large part as Christian, and there was still active in the Western mind the knowledge that Islam was our historic adversary, as it has been for a thousand years, and radically alien. But today, the very notion of stopping Muslim immigration is out of the question, it can’t even be thought.

What would have been inconceivable 70 or 80 years ago is unquestionable today. A society that 70 years ago wouldn’t have dreamed of admitting large numbers of Muslims, today doesn’t dream of reducing, let alone stopping, the immigration of Muslims. Even the most impassioned anti-Islamic Cassandras never question—indeed they never even mention—the immigration of Muslims, or say it should be reduced or stopped.

You don’t need to know any more than what I’ve just said. The rule of non-discrimination, in all its destructive potentialities, is shown in this amazing fact, that the writers and activists who constantly cry that Islam as a mortal danger to our society will not say that we ought to stop or even reduce Muslim immigration. Such is the liberal belief which says that the most morally wrong thing is for people to have a critical view of a foreign group, to want to exclude that group or keep it out.

The dilemma suggests the solution. What is now unthinkable, must become thinkable; what is now unsayable, must become sayable; and ultimately it must replace non-discrimination as the ruling belief in society. I know that this sounds crazy, utterly impossible. But fifty or a hundred years ago it would have seemed crazy, utterly impossible, that today’s liberalism with its suicidal ideology would have replaced the traditional attitudes that were then prevalent. If society could change that radically in one direction, toward suicidal liberalism, it can change back again. It’s not impossible.

In the same way, modern liberalism says that it is evil to believe that some people are more unlike us than others, because that would also be a violation of the liberal principle that all people are equally like us. The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature.

This is the ubiquitous yet unacknowledged horror of modern liberalism, that it takes the ordinary, differentiated nature of the world, which all human beings have always recognized, and makes it impossible for people to discuss it, because under liberalism anyone who notes these distinctions and says that they matter has done an evil thing and must be banished from society, or at least be barred from a mainstream career.

This liberalism is the most radical and destructive ideology that has ever been, and yet it is not questioned. Communism and big government liberalism were challenged and fought in the past. But the ideology of non-discrimination, which came about after World War II, has never been resisted—it has never even been identified, even though it is everywhere. What is needed, if the West is to survive, is a pro-Western civilization movement that criticizes, resists, and reverses this totalistic liberal belief system that controls our world.

There are several observations I can make now, reflecting on these texts after sixteen years. With greater maturity, I can identify key ideas that I missed at the time, which are central to my current understanding.

Auster observes that liberalism, which poses a threat to the West’s ethnic survival, emerged after World War II. However, he avoids the argument that England’s war declaration on Hitler was wrong (future quotes from the binder don’t come from ethnic Jews like Auster).

Another thing that comes to mind is that, behind Auster’s principle of non-discrimination, we encounter what I quoted the day before yesterday. I am referring to Robert Barnes: “Slavery abolition was on the clock the moment the American Revolution went forward. Because once you say, ‘All men are created equal’, sooner or later all men have to be treated equal”.

Bingo! Those who heard Barnes’ audiovisual words that I linked to in that post will have heard that the principle of non-discrimination is due to Christian ethics, secularised by the Founding Fathers (or as we should call them, the Founding Cucks). In Barnes’ words, “What they [the Founding Fathers] meant by a Christian nation was the ideal that we are all equal, and that we get that equality from [the Judeo-Christian] God, that gave us all souls. That was a revolutionary break”. Indeed, and as Tom Holland wrote in Dominion, “[Benjamin] Franklin, like the revolution for which he was such an effective spokesman, illustrated a truth pregnant with implications for the future: that the surest way to promote Christian teachings as universal was to portray them as deriving from anything other than Christianity” (emphasis added).

Naturally, Auster, the Jew who converted to Christianity, didn’t go so far as to blame his adopted religion as the ultimate cause of the principle of non-discrimination that currently surrounds us like water surrounds a fish.

Categories
Racial studies

What

was the colour of Hitler’s hair?

by Heinrich

I’m in full agreement with Mauricio. Even if the Führer were a black-haired “Mediterranean” I would still venerate him as the Greatest Man. His courage, gravitas, persistence, eloquence, wisdom, nobility and kindness were exemplary of a specimen of the highest calibre, and once you get to grips with racial psychology you realize that all those virtuous traits could only materialize in a man of pure Nordic blood.

Every time when someone implied that there is a self-contradiction in Hitler being a Nordicist with brunet hair I always responded that hair colour is just one of many racial characteristics of an individual, so he would still be mainly Nordic even if he had dark hair, and that this would only show that you can support the cause of perfection selflessly despite yourself not being as perfect.

As most people I too found that his personality and Weltanschauung are far more important than his physical features, but after accidentally finding out the truth I cannot sit anymore and watch baseless lies being spread about him often driven by malicious mockery.

So let’s look at the actual evidence.

Black-white photos aren’t of any use in determining the colour of his hair, because everything except for the fairest hair appears dark on them. But in determining forms and shapes they are helpful, and they tell us something really important.

If we look closely we can observe he used some kind of hair-dressing product to shape his hairstyle. You cannot see the look he had naturally. These products were at the time oil based with wax, and were known to darken blond hair with several shades.

When reading Hans F. K. Gunther’s Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes I was pleased to see that he makes very similar observations when discussing Nordic hair, namely that 1) Any other shade of blond that isn’t the lightest will appear dark on the photos of that time, and 2) Oily or wet blond hair will appear dark.

This also explains why we don’t have many more testimonials describing him as blond: it didn’t appear as striking due to the side effects of the hair-dressing product. The only person we know of describing him as blond is Lothrop Stoddard, a eugenicist who probably had been used to paying special attention to details and precision:

There are certain details of Hitler’s appearance which one cannot surmise from photographs. His complexion is medium, with blond-brown hair of neutral shade which shows no signs of grey.

Another piece of real, and undisputable evidence is a painting by Heinrich Knirr who is the only artist ever to paint Hitler from life. He also painted photocopies of course, but one painting we know with 100 per cent accuracy not being a photocopy and made in excellent light conditions is Der Führer (1937). He painted two examples of this. One was brought to London by J. von Ribbentrop and is now at the British imperial war museum. It shows him with light to medium blond hair, with the hair dressing product on!

The other version of the painting was exhibited at the Grosse Deutsche Kunstausstellung that year, and had been kept in Germany, so it ended up destroyed in the war and there is only later colourizations of it circulating on the internet:

There is no trace [!] of the other version that had been displayed at the 1937 great German art exhibition. It was presumably wrecked by bombs, looted or destroyed by victorious allied troops. —The Art Newspaper

The version kept in Germany had been black-and-white photographed before it got destroyed and there is a colourized version circulating of it on the internet, his hair being colourized brown of course. I have seen it being often used as a counterargument so many times. So it is very important to emphasize: it’s a colourized version of a black-and-white photo. This version of the portrait was never even captured in colour, so it cannot be used as evidence for his actual colouring.

Somebody also showed me a few strands of hair from his hairbrush, sold at an auction. Curiously, the hairs were also blond. We should in general be cautious with items from auctions, but because they corroborate the other two pieces of evidence we have, I think it’s highly probable that they are real. And if we also consider that his actual hair colour is always overlooked by literally all historians, I highly doubt forgers would know about him actually being blond and use blond hair strands in a world where everyone “knows” he had dark hair. If we look really closely these hair strands also look like they have some residual hair-dressing product left on them at certain parts, where they appear thicker, which is consistent with his daily habits.
 

What about colour photographs?

Colour photography back then was still in an early stage of development which makes it an unreliable tool for determining colour.

Blond hair consists of mainly yellow with some red/orange undertones. In the context of photography, Yellow light = Red light + Green light. We can see the problems Agfacolor had with its sensitivity to green and red light. But now that we understand what’s missing from the old Agfacolor photos, it is not difficult to imagine how they would look if captured with a modern camera.

Hammering this supposed self-contradiction in Hitler’s worldview was started as early as the Second World War (see, e.g., Soviet propaganda poster below). Most historians who are of course by default anti-Nazi either don’t care or actively participate in keeping alive these lies. None ever dare even mention the evidence that contradicts the mainstream convictions which are built on zero evidence. So it is our job to show the real evidence.

Propaganda poster ridiculing Hitler for his alleged dark hair being in contradiction with the Aryan ideal.

However we’re not trying to argue that he did all of what he did out of selfishness or self-worship, or that his Nordicism was only motivated by his own self-image. We are only striving for historical accuracy as we regularly do so regarding important historical figures. Like the Heroes of Homer, Alexander or the Roman patricians, there is no reason to soften this case when the Führer is more significant than all of the aforementioned combined.

Everyone ought to know the truth because the lies have been repeated many times. Adolf Hitler deserves not only to be remembered, but to be remembered accurately, without falsification.

Categories
Egalitarianism

Founders

What white nationalists of the patriotard variety will never accept is that their nation was born with the wrong ideals: the ultimate aetiology of Aryan decline, which I have been calling neochristianity. (The JQ has been merely an opportunistic infection arising from the primary infection: the Christian ethics shared by the deist founders of the US.) Let us listen to what Robert Barnes has to say, interviewed by Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris:

Slavery abolition was on the clock the moment the American Revolution went forward. Because once you say, “All men are created equal”, sooner or later all men have to be… treated equal.

The last question for Barnes is especially noteworthy (click here).

Categories
Liberalism

Stage

by Gaedhal

My good friend Alex [Linder], who has since gone to be with the ground, said that we should attack and mock—with our words—conservatives, because we are in direct competition with them, and not with Liberals, and Communists.

There are a lot of voices out there, like this nutcase, who wish to drag us back to a previous stage of the Christian Revolution. Fascism is different to Naziism. Fascism is a Christian phenomenon, whereas Nazism is esoterically antichristian. I was reading Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin, and it is clear from this dialogue that Hitler was antichristian, although he pretended otherwise. In Bolshevismus by Dietrick Eckhart, Hitler calls Christianity “the first communist cell”.

This form of Fascism—specifically, Christian authoritarianism as practiced by Salazar, Franco, Mussolini, and Dollfuss—is inherently Christian. Communism and Liberalism, so far from being anti-christian is simply what happens when Christianity, naturally, atheises. The Christian god, let us remember, does not exist, and so Christianity, if left to itself, will eventually atheize. Thus Revilo P. Oliver spoke of “The Marxian Reformation”.

Liberalism was dreamt up by the Christian theologian, John Locke.

Spinoza, who dreamt up the “dialectical” metaphysic of Communism was good friends with Quakers, who themselves were a more extreme sect of Communist Anabaptists like John Bunyan and Thomas Muentzer.

Thus, what our wingnut, Alex Hexagon, describes as political systems of decay: Communism, Liberalism and Christian Authoritarianism, are merely evolved states of Christianity.

Hexagon equates Liberalism with The Cult of Ugliness. Christianity was the original cult of ugliness. They whitewashed the frescoes, threw sculptures into the see, defaced sculptures with crosses, destroyed beautiful architecture such as the Serapeum. Christians did in the first centuries of the Common Era exactly what “Liberals” do today: and a hatred of good architecture is shared between yesterday’s Christians and today’s liberals.

Isaiah assures us that the central character in the Christian mythos, Jesus Christ, has no beauty in him. Early Christianity was a literal cult of ugliness.

The answer to a revolution is not to overthrow it with an earlier stage of that revolution, but to overthrow the revolution, completely, ad radicem, at root.

Christianity, as Revilo P. Oliver points out, was a mob revolution against Aristocratic Epicureanism. If you want to overthrow the revolution, then return to Epicureanism, i.e. the observance of causal reality. In Epicureanism, there most certainly is a difference between Jew and Gentile, between male and female. In Aristocratic Epicureanism, the first are always first and the last are always last. In Aristocratic Epicureanism, the Xenos is not someone to be welcomed, but an enemy invader to be countered. Aristocratic Epicureanism is basically an opposite ethic to that of the sermon on the mount. If you want Europe to return to its former greatness, then re-embrace what Revilo P. Oliver calls the true white western philosophy: Aristocratic Epicureanism.

There are plenty of hucksters out there selling Christianity as a cure-all for all that ails us, whereas, in my estimation, it is the thing that slowly poisoned us to begin with. A philosophy totally at odds with reality: the last shall be first, will eventually doom our civilization.

Starting with the Reformation, Europeans began to take the ethic of the New Testament seriously. Illiterate peasants, prior to the Reformation, probably had no idea what the Sermon on the Mount even was, and, therefore, opperated according to the previous pagan-ethic. The Roman Catholic Church, certainly, did not want to follow the suicidal ethic of the New Testament. However, as Nietzsche points out: when Luther “restored the gospel”, the poisonous suicidal ethic of the New Testament was let loose upon Europe unto its own destruction. The Roman Catholic Church would itself embrace this suicidal ethic at Vatican 2.