Categories
Categories
Paronyms
One of the problems in communicating new ideas lies in what we might call paronyms. The word ‘Hitler’ for example is a paronym because when I use it I refer to, let’s say, what I have been quoting from Simms’ book and my views on it. If I use the word ‘Hitler’ with a normie, he automatically understands something very different: the Hitler of propaganda.
Another great example is the word ‘Jesus’. When I use the word ‘Jesus’ I mean the fictitious character from the devious pen of the Jew Saul (Paul), a character to whom, when the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, another Jew, Mark, added anecdotes of his own invention. But for the normie, the word ‘Jesus’ means something quite different. Christians believe that ‘Jesus’ is the incarnation of the god of the Jews who came down to save us and, although atheists don’t believe that, many are under the impression that he existed as an ordinary man.
Something similar happens with the word ‘autobiography’. Yesterday’s trollish comment prompts me to clarify something.
The word ‘autobiography’ means, to me, something very different from what it means to ordinary people. Let’s suppose that a reader holds my book Hojas Sususrrantes in his hands and out of its five chapters decides to read the second and fourth chapters. He would be surprised to notice that almost the entire content of those chapters is a debunking of the mental health professions and a presentation of psychohistory, where my life is almost absent (see for example my translation of the fourth chapter in Day of Wrath).
What kind of ‘autobiography’ in the normal sense of the term is that? It’s like Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago where, while the Russian writer uses anecdotes from his life as a pivot, the point is not to talk about his life but about the Soviet Union’s forced labour camps, where tens of millions died (something Putin cunningly omitted from his historical review when interviewed by Tucker).
So beware of words that mean very different things to different people. Words like ‘Hitler’, ‘Jesus’ and ‘autobiography’, plain and simple, lend themselves to tremendous confusion. That’s why I almost always add the adjective ‘deep autobiography’ to the literary genre I would like to inaugurate, which, I believe, could cure people like Marco, about whom I have spoken in my series on narcissism (see my postscript on Monday).
But in real life not even admirers of the Führer who have suffered from mental disorders want to do this work, not even one of them whom I knew personally (see for example this comment from January). I think the late Alice Miller was right on this point. Trying to heal psychological trauma requires work. I would add that it is work similar to the time it would take us to write a doctoral thesis, with the difference that in this work we pass the microphone to the wounded child that still dwells deep in our psyche.
Hitler therefore espoused ‘socialism’, but not as the Social Democrats, the Independent Socialists or the communists knew it. ‘National’ and ‘social’, he argued, were ‘two identical terms’. ‘True socialism teaches the most extreme performance of one’s duties,’ Hitler explained, ‘real socialism in the highest form of the Volk.’ ‘Marxism is not socialism,’ he claimed, ‘I shall take socialism away from the socialists.’ This was what the words ‘worker’ and ‘socialist’ in the party’s name meant. There was ‘no room’, Hitler said, for ‘class-conscious proletarians’ in the party, just as there was no place either for a ‘class-conscious bourgeois’. He repeatedly reached out to workers. All this explains Hitler’s ambivalence towards communists, whom he regarded not only as good men led astray, but as temperamentally more congenial than the lukewarm bourgeois who clove to the safe middle path.
This is indeed interesting, for it shows the gulf between German National Socialism and American white nationalism: something George Lincoln Rockwell didn’t understand because biographies like Simms’ didn’t exist in his time. (Although this English scholar is anything but a NS sympathiser, his prose portrays the ideals of the Führer better than the crude and simplistic propaganda that was circulated in the US in Commander Rockwell’s time.)
‘I would rather be strung up in a Bolshevik Germany,’ he averred, ‘than be made blissful in a French southern Germany.’ One observer noted that Hitler ‘was courting the communists’, saying that ‘the two extremes, communists and students, should be brought together’. The centre ground, he claimed, was full of useless ‘lickspittles’ (Schleimsieder), whereas ‘the communists had fought for their ideal with weapons and only been led astray’. They only need to be led towards the ‘national cause’. With German communists, Hitler hated the sin, but loved the sinner.
Alas, any attempt to imitate German NS on the other side of the Atlantic would run into formidable difficulties. Imagine how (almost) impossible it would be to convince the racial right that, for the fourteen words, capitalism is even worse than communism and that the worship of Mammon must be transvalued to these Hitlerian ideals if the sacred words are to be fulfilled (read the last page of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).
To boot, a century ago Hitler was referring to a Germany composed basically of Aryans. In today’s polluted America, such a transvaluation couldn’t even be preached without openly stating that the proposed socialism is solely for the benefit of Aryans. In other words, to implement Hitler’s ideals on this side of the Atlantic the dictators of the new state would first have to become Himmlers to achieve an ethnic cleansing similar to the Pierce Diaries.
Can you see why I no longer visit the sites of the American racial right? Almost all white nationalist information sources are cleverly written to pacify whites back into the Christian and neo-Christian fold. And it all has to do with what we on this site have called slaves of our parents’ introjects. I know no one understands me on this point but my autobiographical findings, or what I have written about mental disorders (for example what I said yesterday in my postscript about narcissism), provide the key to understanding how these introjects still hold the Aryan in bondage.
Categories
Narcissism, P.S.
I haven’t said the last word in my series on mental disorders in general, and narcissism in particular. I refer to the ‘Marco case’, what I wrote from the end of February to the beginning of this month in six posts (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6). I am not finished with the subject because I am convinced that understanding cases of psychoses of specific people sheds light on the folie en mass that the white man in general is currently suffering from across the West. In this, I resemble the logo used by the late Lloyd deMause, whom I have mentioned on my books and on this site: a globe sitting on the couch of the psychoanalyst.
In my series on narcissism I said that it bothered me that some Jewish psychologists made the important findings whereas, if Uncle Adolf had won the war, those same findings would have been made by Aryans. Today I discovered the channel of YouTuber Richard Grannon, who, like Vaknin, delves into the aetiology of narcissistic disorder although, unlike Vaknin, Grannon looks like an Aryan man.
From this point in his video until before minute nine, Grannon mentions a theme I have touched on in passing: Even though narcissists distort reality astronomically, mental health professionals have been very reluctant to call them psychotic. Grannon doesn’t say why but I say it now.
Academic psychiatry is based on the lie that neuroses have an environmental aetiology for a victim, i.e. a toxic environment and psychotherapy may be useful here; but that psychoses have a biological aetiology and therefore those suffering from this condition have to take their meds. This is the only way Big Pharma can do its multi-billion dollar business (as psychiatrist Peter Breggin has pointed out, the American Psychiatric Association and Big Pharma are business partners—it’s as simple as that!).
But someone who doesn’t buy into the myth that neuroses and psychoses have different aetiologies can better understand not only the various psychoses but realise that in narcissistic disorder the subject is clearly out of touch with reality; i.e. he is psychotic as Grannon tells us in his video linked above. Orthodox psychiatry doesn’t like to acknowledge this because it is known that narcissism has an environmental aetiology (extremely poor mothering), and official psychiatry will never, ever concede that a single psychotic disorder may have an environmental causation. Its collusion with Big Pharma dictates its ideology.
Much of the evil that the West suffers is the same that the common narcissist (or psychotic subject) suffers. The contemporary Westerner has created a false self-image, as can be seen in the highlighted post ‘Myth’, linked to the top of this page in red letters. Just as the psychotic subject is unable to abandon his false self and return to the world of the sane, the common Westerner doesn’t renounce the folie en mass that has been infecting the white man’s mind since World War II.
As I have already said, biography and history are the same, whereas History is simply the galaxy of individual biographies: billions of stars gravitating towards each other.
Categories
Canaille!
Il y a une autre canaille à laquelle on sacrifie tout, et cette canaille est le peuple. —Voltaire
In my recent articles, and on this site in general, I have expressed myself in a very derogatory way about the masses (and the System that empowers them: democracy), whom I have called as Voltaire called them, canaille, and I have also called them in a much worse way.
After years of not seeing it, I have just watched one more time the 1995 film Indictment: The McMartin Trial, starring James Woods: one of the very few films I can recommend in this dark hour for our civilisation.
The daycare sex abuse hysteria was a moral panic that occurred mainly during the 1980s and early 1990s and brought charges against completely innocent daycare providers accused of committing various forms of child abuse, including satanic ritual abuse. The McMartin preschool trial was a typical case. Members of the McMartin family, who ran a preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, were accused of acts of sexual abuse of children in their care.
Since the mid-1990s, the phenomenon has been discredited to such a degree that criminalists and law enforcement authorities have recognised it for what it was: a witch hunt that led to imprisonment and ruined the lives of many innocent adults. The film Indictment: The McMartin trial masterfully shows how a moral panic psychotised the masses in the decade I lived in California.
In its heyday in the 1980s and early 1990s, similar in some ways to the Salem trial of 1692, such allegations reached grotesque extremes. Using invasive adult techniques in the interrogation of kindergartners, therapists elicited confessions riddled with fantasies: that the children had been kidnapped and taken through a network of hidden tunnels to a cavern beneath the school; that they flew in the air; and that they saw giraffes, lions and the sacrifice of a rabbit to be returned to their unsuspecting parents at the kindergarten. Needless to say, no forensic evidence was found to support such claims, so the final verdict was: not guilty.
After the legal catastrophe that was McMartin and other similar cases (years in prison for this type of accusations before and during the trial with the accused being completely innocent!), children have never again been interrogated with the aggressive techniques that induce them to fantasise so wildly.
Indictment is the best example of how the masses—yes: the canaille—react when they are in a moral panic: they simply trust the Jew-controlled media. The film vindicates why I speak so disparagingly of the masses or rabble and why I can only love the dissident individual.
Categories
Intertwined pyramids
The inverted pyramid symbol is perfect for understanding the darkest hour (as I say in Hitler #29). The canaille, the Neanderthals to power—the dictatorship of the masses, the base of the pyramid… at the top!—, while the greatest politician in Western history, the top of the pyramid, is slandered like no other man: the tip of the pyramid to the bottom. That President Bush took many photos of himself with the American flags flanked by Israeli flags showing these two pyramids intertwined (a normal triangle and an inverted one) speaks for itself.
Hitler rejected the ‘purely economic way of looking at things’, which he called the ‘greatest mistake of German policy in the past decades’. ‘The hoped-for peaceful seizure of [world] power through our economy,’ he continued, ‘has been a failure.’ ‘Industrialization [and] the peaceful capture of the world,’ Hitler claimed, were doomed to fail, because one ‘did not consider that there can be no economic policy without the sword [and] no industrialization without power’. ‘The economy,’ he explained, ‘is only of secondary importance.’ ‘The main thing,’ Hitler stressed, ‘is national pride, [and] love of country.’ The primacy of politics in Hitler’s thinking could not have been more clearly expressed.
Calvin Coolidge was born in Massachusetts, a state founded by English Puritans. Compare the above quote with that famous phrase by Coolidge, the 30th president of the US: ‘The business of America is business’ in the sense that his was the nation of pure materialism. I remember, when I lived in California in the 1980s, the words of President Ronald Reagan, who wanted a globalised world where ‘the market reigned supreme’.
The key question, Hitler stated, was not the state form itself, but what arrangement served the German people best in its quest to escape external subjection. Here there was remarkably little shift in his views throughout the early 1920s. The issue was not, he argued in April 1920, whether Germany should be ‘a monarchy or a Republic’, but rather ‘which state form was best for the people’. ‘We need a dictator of pure genius if we want to rise again.’ ‘We do not fetishize forms of government,’ he explained in November 1921, ‘the only thing that is decisive is the spirit which sustains it. The only consideration must be the welfare of the entire German people.
Compare this with the forums of American white nationalism, which endorse democracy and in recent years have suggested that their visitors vote for this or that candidate. And the racialists on the other side of the Atlantic are no better. At the only BNP rally I have attended I spoke to a couple of senior members, who informed me that their aims were strictly democratic, not fascist.
He called for the nationalization of the entire banking and financial system, and thus the ‘breaking of interest slavery’, a term he had borrowed from Gottfried Feder. His aim here was not so much public ownership in the Marxist sense, as national control over the levers of international financial manipulation. Hitler had not yet called for the physical destruction of world Jewry, but the elimination of German Jewry was already implicit, at least in the context of a future war, in case they might once again act as fifth columnists. In the Gemlich letter of September 1919, he had already called for the ‘complete removal of the Jews’, and in a letter of August 1920, one correspondent reports that Hitler believed that ‘the bacillus’ must be ‘exterminated’ in order to ensure the survival of the German people. One way or the other, his domestic policy was essentially foreign policy.
Compare this with the first American president, who stated that it would be bigoted, in the new nation, to discriminate against Jewry. So who caused their empowerment in today’s world?
Unlike the Judeo-reductionism in vogue in white nationalism and even the Gemlich letter of September 1919, the conceptual framework for understanding the West’s dark hour can already be gleaned from texts by Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill.
In On Liberty Mill concludes that in former times, when it was proposed to burn atheists, charitable people used to suggest their confinement in a madhouse. Mill said that he wouldn’t be surprised if they saw that in his day because of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ that Jefferson and Madison so feared: a tyranny that doesn’t tolerate eccentricity.
And this is the central problem, since egalitarian tyranny is based on the feelings of the majority, and that feeling was programmed in the Aryan collective unconscious since the time of Constantine, with those Pauline words that there is no longer a Jew or a Greek, etc.
In On Liberty Mill didn’t so much propose to defend the rights of the eccentric individual—an atheist in Victorian England for example—against the state. He proposed to defend his rights against society itself: a giant Leviathan. That is why the First Amendment has failed utterly, in the US, to defend us. The majority society, even without the arm of the state, can cancel the dissenter (as it cancelled the previous incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour when it was hosted elsewhere).
For Mill, his great mission was to say what he thought of modern society, especially of the power of public opinion over the outsider. As in Christendom, the collectivist solution proposed by Rousseau and post-French Revolution Europe fears the Other and allows no edges. However, a homogeneous construct determined to establish a norm of equality is a form of despotism. Liberal collectivism is opposed not only to National Socialism but to Pindar’s ideal Become what you are!, realise yourself; and it is also opposed to the Romantic ideal of the individual’s right to unfold his full potential, exemplified in Goethe.
On social pressure (which, if we use the parable of the sower, prevents the National Socialist seed that Rockwell wanted to sow in the US from blossoming) Tocqueville wrote that the kind of oppression by which democratic nations are threatened is very different from what has ever existed. He added that we shall find no prototype of this in historical memory; that he sought in vain for an expression to convey the idea of this new socio-political animal, and that the old words ‘despotism’ and ‘tyranny’ were inappropriate. ‘We are faced with something new’, he wrote.
Tocqueville’s remarks left a deep imprint on the thinking that Mill would express later in On Liberty, who confessed that he had noticed that the aim of democracy wasn’t, as claimed, to protect the interests of everyone but simply the interests of the majority (what Voltaire called canaille, and I call Neanderthals).
Tocqueville and Mill noticed some unintended consequences of modern democracy. In democratic nations the political force of the majority, the canaille, has become a force that surpasses that of the old tyrannies; though the manner of exercising such force is far more subtle, and infinitely more difficult to detect than that of a classical tyranny. The reason for this is that the values of the majority surround us as much as the ocean surrounds the fish. The invisibility of this soft totalitarianism is the corollary of democracy, the rule of the demos: the omnipresent people or mass.
The mass, the ‘Neanderthals’, form their opinion through the school and the Jew-controlled media. Mill believed that the self-educated individual was the antidote to this new form of mass control. For example, no organisation denounced the Inquisition over the centuries of its existence. It was individuals, often isolated individuals, who saw the crimes of the Imperial Church; and from Mill’s century to ours only individuals like Solzhenitsyn have been able to expose, in a big way, other kinds of crimes. That’s why Mill loved the distinct individual so much and feared the blind masses, and he was suspicious of democracy as potentially the most oppressive form of government.
The predominant note in Mill’s writings is not utilitarianism. On Liberty is the clearest exposition of the views of those who desire a tolerant society for the different individual; for example, he who advocates race realism. Mill was the intellectual answer to Rousseau. What he came to value most was the spark of individual genius, the human anomaly; and in On Liberty, which he began writing in 1855, he loved the independent thinker, the solitary worker; the dissident, the eternal questioner of established values, the one who questions the dogmas of the masses and their prejudices; in a word, the outsider who today is personified in he who doesn’t subscribe to the dogma of egalitarianism of race, gender and sexual orientation.
I would like to end this comment with the words I addressed to Gaedhal on Monday: ‘One of the things that white nationalists have never understood is that Europe should already be under one German Reich. Neither the Europeans nor the Americans nor the Australians are capable of governing themselves without a good Führer, as seen with this triumph of democracy and Judeo-liberal values after WW2. Savitri taught me to see an inverted world like the inverted pyramids, which I even illustrated in her book with triangles on pages 172 and 177’.
Categories
Categories
Interviewing Weber?
What I replied to commenter Alfons yesterday about the so-called Holocaust has given me an idea: Why not ask Mark Weber of Institute of Historical Review (IHR) to give us an interview to find out why he changed his mind from denialist to accepting that perhaps 2 million were executed under the orders of Himmler’s SS?
I wrote to Weber a few years ago and got no reply. (Similarly, a while ago I wanted to purchase a copy of Savitri Devi’s edited book by William Pierce from the National Alliance [NA] and got no reply.)
I guess they don’t respond to me because, unlike David Irving, Mark Weber and the vast majority of white nationalists and even neo-Nazis, I am an exterminationist (cf. my featured post ‘The Wall’). And in general, those on my left don’t want any contact with those who, like me, have transvalued our former Judeo-Christian values to Greco-Roman values. (Remember that in the pagan times of Titus or Hadrian whites didn’t give a damn that Roman legions were genociding Jews in Jerusalem; many even liked it!)
Since I am more or less shunned on the racial right because, unlike them, my Nietzschean transvaluation is genuine, someone else has to do the job of inviting Weber for an interview (I don’t mention Irving because the historian of the Reich’s most notable personalities isn’t in the best of health).
If any of the commenters or visitors to the thread I linked above would care to do that job, I would appreciate it. It’s a discussion that, as far as I know, on serious and notable sites only happened years ago at The Occidental Observer when Greg Johnson argued there with Hadding Scott. I’m referring to an internal discussion about the Holocaust, between people who are more or less sympathetic to the Third Reich (I don’t mean, obviously, discussing the subject with Jews or white traitors).
Incidentally, the discussion between Johnson and Scott in TOO didn’t progress because they both held, in my opinion, irrational positions. Johnson said that the subject of the so-called Holocaust should be abandoned, forgotten completely (something that seems absurd to me, since the System uses the crucified Jew as a psyop to induce feelings of guilt in the Aryan man). Scott, in turn, started from a very peculiar definition of the word ‘Holocaust’, from which he claimed that the victims of the Holocaust had been ‘exactly zero’.
We need to raise the internal discussion to another level. Where are the volunteers? I don’t like to keep sending more emails after IRH or NA didn’t answer me. So it has to be other people: younger people than me who can, with English as their mother tongue, do the right interview.
Categories
Hitler, 28
Hitler rejected the standard solutions to Germany’s predicament. He wondered whether Zionism might be a solution to the ‘Jewish Question’, but quickly came down against the idea. Hitler saw in Jewish aspirations for statehood proof of their sense of national identity, despite all their international rhetoric. ‘The Jews,’ he wrote, were ‘one people’, who ‘identified themselves as a people (Zionists)’. The ‘proof’ of this, Hitler continued, was ‘Palestine’.
Hitler was deeply sceptical, though, that the Zionist project could succeed, because it was completely inimical to the nature of Jewry. The ‘Aryan’ concept of the state, he claimed, was ‘territorial’, while the parasitic Jews could only feed off existing states, not establish one of their own. The Jew ‘cannot build a state’, he argued, because he was ‘incapable of building a state’. Moreover, even if such a state could be erected, Hitler believed that it would merely increase the Jewish threat. ‘The planned Zionist state “Jerusalem”,’ he argued, should not be regarded as an area of Jewish national settlement, but rather as ‘the headquarters for Jewish world power plans for exploitation and nefarious activity’.
For the rest of his life, in fact, Hitler stuck to the view that the establishment of a Jewish state, in Palestine or anywhere else, would simply create another focal point for world Jewry.