Categories
2021 thread
Noting that the longest article in the PDF American Racialism we recently published is by Martin Kerr, yesterday I discovered some words by Kerr about Harold Covington, published in the comments section of The Occidental Observer, which are worth quoting:
It is disturbing to see that an attempt is being made to rehabilitate the deservedly poor reputation of Harold Covington. I had hoped that after his long-awaited death in 2018, the memory of him would quickly and mercifully fade away. Sadly, I can see that my hopes were in vain.
No one did more to harm the cause of pro-White advocacy than Covington. From the mid-1970s until his death, he did everything he could to weaken, harm and destroy that cause. Earlier on in his benighted career he devised a two-part modus operandi.
He attacked whatever pro-White leader who was receiving the most public recognition at any given time. He only attacked those who were trying to do something. Those who limited themselves to writing books or articles he left alone. But those who were in the public arena, actively trying to build a pro-White movement, he attacked relentlessly and ferociously. Among those he sought to undermine and destroy were Dr. William Pierce, David Duke, Matt Koehl, Ben Klassen, Kevin Alfred Strom, Dr. Edward Fields, Will Williams and—towards the end of his life—Richard Spencer. I am sure that there are others whom I have forgotten about.
The rustic Covington wanted to become the alpha male of the tribe, but instead of earning that position the hard way he resorted to very dirty tactics, inconceivable in a true Aryan.
Covington was a pathological liar, as anyone who knew him personally can attest. He would lie simply for the sake of lying, even when there was no advantage to it. But in his efforts to sabotage White leaders and their organizations, there is no falsehood or calumny, no matter how despicable or outlandish, from which he would shrink. Typically, he would accuse White leaders of murder, homosexuality, alcoholism, race-mixing, theft, corruption, collaboration with the FBI and/or ADL and Jewish or other non-Aryan ancestry. He never provided an iota or proof for any of his accusations: how could he, since they were completely imaginary in the first place? Instead, he would issue new and similar attacks against anyone who sought to challenge his lies.
I am ashamed to say that when I read Covington’s tetralogy and got excited about this revolutionary scenario, I was unaware of the novelist’s terrible flaws. But from that discussion thread I would like to respond to what Edmund Connelly said:
C.T., thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful reply. I would, however, like to take exception to this claim: “[I]n the West there are more traitorous whites than subversive Jews.”
Numerically, you may well be right, but the equation ends up wrong because you cannot equate one White with one Jew. All the evidence shows that a tiny number of Jews can sway whole gentile societies, so you have to weigh specifically what each subversion Jew (redundant, I know) accomplishes. How many goys would it take, say, to equal one Sigmund Freud? Or a Norman Lear? Jewish gurus wreck havoc among gentile nations in untold millions of lives. That’s what makes them so destructive. While there are far too many White useful idiots, it is, I would maintain, their manipulation by Jews that starts the train wreck in motion.
In 2021 I had already responded to what Connelly said in his article, but now I would like to respond to what he said directly to me, quoted above. First of all, it should be noted that, as a good white nationalist, Connelly lives under the assumption that the Jews are the primary cause of our misfortunes. I believe it is us.
Connelly’s argument would make sense if the Jews were capable of subverting the Islamic world—even though in Israel they are surrounded by them—which they obviously can’t. Nor are they capable of subverting India or China. They weren’t even capable of subverting Whites before the advent of Judeo-Christianity. We can imagine what would have happened if a Jew wanted to subvert Sparta, Republican Rome before the Punic Wars or the Viking peoples! They only managed to get their Trojan horse in when Constantine handed over the Empire to his bishops, many of Semitic origin. All this I have said many times before, but it bears repeating because here lies the huge difference between the POV of this site and the Judeo-reductionism of white nationalism.
Connelly assigns, in the quote above, superhuman powers to the Jews, but what happens to the Aryan could be analogised to a physical accident.
Let’s imagine we fall off a motorbike and terribly scrape our arm. Without proper care, the arm becomes infected with microbes. Judeo-reductionism would be analogous to saying that microbes are the primary aetiology of our infection. I say that the primary aetiology is the accident. Without the accident and poor care of the arm, there would have been no opportunistic infection. The microbes are secondary or even irrelevant.
Likewise, without the treachery of Constantine and other Aryan emperors who followed him (see Deschner’s first volume on the history of Christianity in the featured post), Jewish ideology wouldn’t have infected the West for 1,700 years. The West would be as immune to subversive Jewish ideas as China, India or the Islamic world. But the worst thing is that through Christianity and ‘neo-Christianity’ (see again the featured post), each generation of whites recreates the biker crash, so to speak. They aren’t allowing the body to heal!
Worse still is that white nationalists themselves are party to this ill-treatment of the infected body as they are incapable of repudiating Judeo-Christian morality. This too, I have spoken at length on this site and it isn’t worth repeating except to invite new visitors to read the books and/or PDFs in the featured post.
Categories
On Allied criminals, 2
STRANGE RITUAL IN DRESDEN
The bombing of Dresden is a strange case, with no military explanation. It occurred when the Allies had already won the war, two and a half months before the unconditional surrender was signed. All the more so because Dresden had no military objectives at all. The case is all the more inexplicable because Dresden had a population of 600,000 and then became congested with thousands of women and children fleeing the savagery of the Soviet army invading eastern Germany.
It was in these circumstances that it was bombed on 13 February 1945. There were 3,250 Allied tetra-motor flights, involving 33,000 aircrew and mechanics. Squadrons flew 5,500 kilometres and tens of millions of dollars were spent to drop 5,000 explosive and 400,000 incendiary bombs.
Women, with their children, were turned into human flares; some were thrown into the Elbe River, but they still burned because water does not extinguish the fire of liquid phosphorus. According to low estimates, a quarter of a million women and children perished. According to high estimates, such as David Irving’s, it was half a million, far more than the two atomic bombs that killed 155,000 Japanese. Was it a ritual bombing, straight out of the Old Testament? According to Exodus chapter 29, the Jews say that Yahweh asked them to burn animal flesh because the smell of burning flesh was very pleasing to him. In Dresden, the smell of burning meat rose thousands of metres high.
One of the phases of Winston Churchill’s personality was that in the conduct of the war on land, he left Marshals Auchinleck and Montgomery, and General Desmond Young, completely independent. The fighting in the air, on the other hand, was a war of his own, conducted with special care to cause as many casualties as possible among the German civilian population. As soon as the residential area of one German city was devastated, he had already set his sights on achieving ‘victory’ in another city, large, medium or small. Sir Arthur Harris, the bomber commander, was similarly determined.
The English historian Veale considers that Churchill and Harris went from civilised warfare to barbarism. In the House of Commons, Churchill announced on 21 September 1943 that ‘to put an end to Nazism there will be no extremes of violence to which we will not resort’ (F. J. P. Veale, The Crime of Nuremberg, 1954).
Categories
Resistance to NT criticism
See the video uploaded today interviewing Richard C. Miller here.
Mimesis criticism is a method of interpreting texts in relation to their literary or cultural models. Mimesis, or imitation (imitatio), was a widely used rhetorical tool in antiquity. Mimesis criticism looks to identify intertextual relationships between two texts that go beyond simple echoes, allusions, citations or redactions. The effects of imitation are usually manifested in the later text by means of distinct characterisation, motifs, and/or plot structure.
As a critical method, mimesis criticism has been pioneered by Dennis MacDonald, especially in relation to the New Testament and other early Christian narratives imitating the ‘canonical’ works of Classical Greek literature.
Categories
The will not to know
Mexican José Barba Martín, born in 1937, spent two decades studying philology in the United States. He earned a master’s degree in Romance languages at Tufts University, a doctorate in Romance languages at Boston College and, finally, a doctorate at Harvard University in Hispanic literature. Barba was one of the victims of the powerful Catholic paedophile Marcial Maciel. Decades after Maciel abused him, Barba, along with other victims, began a campaign to expose the abuses. Because of his persistent activism, he has been called ‘José Barba: the man who defied two popes’.
Yesterday I saw a video interviewing Barba where he said, at this point in the interview (my translation), that the abuses committed by Maciel were not only sexual, ‘that he did not abuse only through the body, but through the soul: through a system that will take over the psyche; from children, adolescents, young people until the moment when one is no longer master of one’s own words, and then not even of one’s thoughts’.
Barba is not an apostate from Christianity; just a critic of the Catholic Church, even critical of two popes—John Paul II and Benedict XVI—who protected paedophiles in the Church. But what strikes me about Barba is his almost complete lack of insight into his words I have just translated. Barba has failed to realise that the very teaching of the doctrine of eternal damnation, which comes right from the Gospels, is abusive to the souls of children. (Those who have seen the film Angela’s Ashes, or read the autobiographical memoir of the same title, remember that class in which a priest terrorises Irish children with horrific hellish imagery.)
Since I have spoken to Barba several times in Mexico City, I would like to add something to what I wrote about him in my January 2022 article, ‘On Alberto Athié’. As an autobiographer, I keep records of a few encounters with acquaintances. Little of my many diaries appear in my eleven autobiographical books. But from time to time I can exhume, from those diaries, some anecdotes for publication on this site.
On 30 March 2018 Barba came to my house and what I told about him in the article ‘About Alberto Athié’ happened. The following year, on 2 November 2019 to be exact, I met Barba in the café of the old Librería Gandhi that the intellectuals of the Mexican capital used to frequent (now the old bookstore is closed). Barba was talking, in Latin, to one of my chess-playing friends but when I sat down at their table they switched languages and spoke to me in Spanish. As the Gandhi Café closed relatively early, we then moved on to a restaurant.
Barba mentioned the book I had lent him the previous year when he visited my house, Summer 1945 by Tom Goodrich, but didn’t say a peep about its contents. Apparently, the erudite man didn’t experience the slightest cognitive dissonance with the holocaust perpetrated by the Allies, as narrated by Goodrich. Although he mentioned nothing of the book’s content, he commented, as a good thing, the impeachment of Donald Trump planned by the Democrats.
The Catholic Barba is a liberal philo-Semite even though he has no Jewish background, and that night he called Dutch politician Geert Wilders an ‘extremist’. When I pointed out that, according to the Jew Ron Unz, a whole constellation of conservative authors on the Second World War had been cancelled, Barba said that perhaps these authors had been victims of McCarthyism! (and recommended me a book on McCarthyism). I was flabbergasted. Unlike the chess-playing friend who accompanied us, Barba couldn’t even conceive that he had in front of him an Other ideologically speaking: someone who was reasoning from a completely different POV.
In the Gandhi Café, before going to the restaurant, I told Barba about Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together; then, at the restaurant, I told him about the contents of the book. When I got home, I sent him an email with the link to 200 Years Together, as well as a link to Unz’s article.
On June 4, 2022, I saw my chess friend and Barba again, this time near the park where, as a young man, I used to play chess. I talked to him for a long time but I was shocked that, once again, Barba couldn’t conceive of the existence of a creature ideologically different from him. Barba is one of those old-fashioned men who believe that we younger people see them as repositories of ancestral wisdom. But I don’t see him that way. The religious manner in which he spoke to those present, without first inquiring whether they were atheists or not, could only mean that he was treating us as if we were his pupils. There was a moment when Barba mentioned the alleged deeds of Jesus’ apostles, and I replied that to me that was literary fiction.
Barba reacted by saying that this was extreme scepticism, and I was perplexed because Barba had read Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart Ehrman. How could Barba have been unaware that the fundamentalist Christian Ehrman became an atheist after his New Testament research? The fact that Barba gave four copies of Ehrman’s book to his Catholic friends, in another occasion, gave the impression that he wanted to convince them of a more sceptical approach to the historical Jesus. But Barba not only swallowed the aforementioned story from Luke’s book as real history, he did something that puzzled me even more.
When I asked him if he was familiar with the field of critical NT studies that started in the Enlightenment, he said he was (Ehrman himself is part of that field). But Barba didn’t seem to realise that New Testament studies had moved several exegetes to lose faith since the seminal works of Reimarus, who flourished in the 18th century, and David Friedrich Strauss, who flourished in the 19th century. I could not believe that the very learned Barba, who reads the NT in the original Greek, would ignore facts relating to authors whose books he has given as presents!
And it is not a case of senility, for when I last saw him near the park of old chess friends, Barba was perfectly lucid. It is a matter of being locked in a theological bubble to the extent of being unable to hold a friendly discussion with the unbeliever in front of him. In ‘On Alberto Athié’ I omitted that Barba ignored my argument that women have less cranial mass than men—and that’s why, in chess, they compete against each other, parallel to the men’s tournaments so that men don’t massacre them in the science-game. Similarly, Barba ignored or didn’t know, that there are scholars who believe that the Acts of the Apostles is a religious novel rather than real history.
I could write pages and pages about my latest disagreement with Barba. But I don’t think I need to. Perhaps I will do so in the comments section if someone asks me for more detailed information about those disappointing meetings. What I am getting at is that scholarship is not wisdom and that someone can be highly respected in the media—like Barba—and yet be enclosed in such a bubble that he dissociates the existence of the dissenter in front of him. It is not that I want to convince Christians like Barba that the NT is fiction. It is simply the inability to communicate the fact that there are scholars who believe it is fiction that alarms me!
All this sheds light on what I was saying about the holocaust perpetrated by the Allies: something that normies, even when confronted, are unwilling to know as Barba did when I lent him, for a year, Goodrich’s book.
Alberto Athié, Barba and Fernando González wrote the book La voluntad de no saber: Lo que sí se conocía sobre Maciel en los archivos secretos del Vaticano desde 1944 (The Will Not to Know: What was Known about Maciel in the Vatican’s Secret Archives since 1944). Published in the context of Benedict XVI’s visit to Mexico, this book reveals the Vatican’s documents on the Maciel case demonstrating that, for more than sixty years, the highest authorities of the Catholic Church knew about the criminal conduct of the founder of the Legionaries of Christ.
But these guys have another kind of will not to know. They lack the will to know that several New Testament scholars say that the NT accounts are pure fiction, including the Acts of the Apostles, or that what the Establishment would have us believe about WW2 is rubbish. Likewise, millions of Westerners don’t want to know that the fact that we have different brains from women refutes feminism and the dogma of equality.
The way Barba treated me the few times I saw him is the way the normie treats the dissident: simply ignoring everything he says.
Categories
Dear César,
I read your Salvador Borrego excepts shared yesterday on Allied criminality and thought sadly of Hitler’s magnanimous optimism and grace towards his reluctantly engaged enemies, more a beautiful, radiant Sun personality than quite enough of a Lightening one, as Savitri describes it. Certainly there should be no tolerance of historical national pride for modern Anglo European countries. By coincidence this week I had been reading a copy of F.J.P. Veale’s Advance to Barbarism in the background having just finished Ulrich Merten’s The Gulag in East Germany: Soviet Special Camps 1945-1950. I have a copy of Savitri’s Hitler-dedicated devotional poems and laments arriving shortly.
As I am accustomed to a few times a week, I checked in at the Unz Review. I rarely find anything of interest that I want to read there, always put off by the Christianity and the standard conservatism, and with little to no interest in internal American politics and current affairs.
Andrew Anglin’s titles and crass, irreverent writing style jar with me, as does any support of Third Worldism or complimentary affection for non-Aryans. I saw there was a fairly recent article discussing ‘Anglophobia’ with a photo reference to the BLM vandalism and removal of British statues, such as a figure of Winston Churchill, and the American confederacy and founding fathers monuments. I had no interest in reading that as I imagined it would be full of self-pitying excuse-making and a defensiveness regarding neochristian miscegenators and classical liberal friends of Judaism, small-town rural Trump supporters and Bible belt conservatives nostalgic for the 1950s, and all our unpunished war criminals.
I hate their ignorance and their smugness, yet more confident boors convinced that they are good people, acting steadfast as their own defence lawyers, just like all the terrible, cruel, lazy acquaintances and cowardly, dispassionate friends across my own life who have always been convinced instinctively that they are good people, and will not hear otherwise or accept fault for anything.
All these ideologues of the right-wing have beyond anyone else is a superficial awareness of race at all. [Editor’s emphasis] If appalling action can’t be denied altogether then we are told only that it doesn’t matter, and that whites—always in a big equivocated line—have nothing to be ashamed of. So very much of society is lost to me, so dispassionate and feral and moronic; all these proud good people and their pathological face-saving.
It’s the same with Patriotic Alternative, who occasionally send a newsletter to my email box. They have a recent campaign browbeating their audience with moralist propaganda.
Today’s letter informed me that a 98-year-old Second World War veteran has been forced out of his home into a temporary shelter at the same time as the debilitating long-term government immigration policy increases exponentially, all hostile aliens granted preferential accommodation and fast-tracking into the benefits system. Much is made of his war veteran status. I don’t deny that the government’s cruelty towards any very elderly man would be completely unacceptable, just as everything else they do to us is completely unacceptable, but I wish there was no patriotism and respect for these veterans among nationalists, and indeed no support of the modern British Army either, given its sole operation in unnecessary anti-white puppet wars, and its subversive presentation, and the readiness with which it could be turned on the citizens.
I found myself wondering what this old veteran had done in the war, what crimes he may have committed or covered for, and what he may have turned a blind eye to, or just gone along with and never reflected on at all, and been praised for then, and been praised for now, and at all times in between, having served a murderous traitor alliance above the wellbeing of his own European folk, utterly devastating a far superior society with infinite cruelty, and damning the future, razing European hope. What he did do (or didn’t do), for Jews, capitalist Christians and the competitive warmongers of greedy Anglo-Saxon empires.
I don’t see any hope for these people. Their hideous pride cannot be knocked from them. [Editor’s emphasis] When the global economic system does fall apart, in the true onset of an openly collapsing environment, I dread what they will do, as inimical to the health of their own people as any immature leftist movement, or any activism on any matter, another subset of normal people filled with that vast unemotional ignorance and all the brute carelessness of the orthodoxy. I forever hope that they remain disorganised, and most certainly never bring themselves to a position of power. I know they will make it dangerously worse as everything becomes unmanageable.
Having bought some 2×4 gravel-board planks, I’m dedicating the next few days to designing and building a couple of garden chairs from scratch. Something long-lasting as plastic chairs are flimsy and unattractive. I went for a long walk into the Mistley woods today with Abby. A large, beautiful, hilly woodland.
The centuries-old trees were awe-inspiring, stretching numerous and tall into a thick leafy canopy, natural collonades of elms and hazels and ash trees and the giant desiccated trunks of ancient English oaks, and I appreciated that opaque softness to the misty air, and the brilliant white sun in a pale off—white sky falling into the pastel clearings in straw—hued beams, from between dark rainclouds in pleasing chiaroscuro, an abundance of subtle green shades to the deeper foliage and a coldness and freshness to the forest air, up and down hills and beside little freshwater trickles, away from people and everything urban and modern, the only sound being the creaking of branches, the chirps and calls of birds high above, and occasional rustling in the leaves; and that intangible natural sound beyond placement that one only experiences in the very depths of woods when anything of human imposition is no longer present.
Perhaps the private sound of the woods themselves, essentialized. There were black and white cows sheltering in the gloom among the chestnut trees at the edge of the lower meadow. Some young rabbits grazed near the blackberry brambles. A cricket hopped across our path and into the ferns. I relish time in the woods as a somehow sacred feeling. Relaxing as much as the only experience that brings me genuine psychological healing, rarely present in my life…
I’ve gone on for far too long. I’m not sure if you’ll ever have the time to read this. I’m very bad at laconic thought, getting worse the more isolated I feel—and I acknowledge that I am in true physical actuality in total alienated isolation and under thick environmental pressure—knowing that I am always on my own with my thoughts and yearning to get them all out of the way in one go each time. Aside from Abby, who doesn’t really get me, much as she’s also increasingly hostile and frustrated, you’re the only person I’m in conversation with at all, and I’m sure I offload far too much. The silence seems to kill me, and then I just type too much. I’ll leave this here.
I despise the society, and the huge, sprawling mobs of cold, desensitized, destructive people, the multitudinous rabble of subhuman slave beasts with European skins, none of whom give a shit about each other. I wish I was strong enough even to hate them more effectively.
In all my life in this country I have met no more than two single solitary people genuinely worthy of brotherly love, honour, and respect, both unconnected men, both long dead at their own hands, and with long tearing grief on my part, realising over cruel spans of pain that I can no longer find human racial compassion here, in a nation of some money and no love.
I have never met a family in this country worth saving, though so much I had used to wish I could, that wracked hope gone only these last five months. Maybe they still exist. If not by now, it seems I will never get to know if they are there. You are literally the only friend who does not wound me and turn me away. A distant warmth. The only friend at all, and I know no one else but family torturers, and my only circle of unrelated acquaintances a fierce string of condemnatory professional adults, paid well for their work. I am scared to push my luck with you.
Best regards,
Benjamin
Categories
Antipodes
Michael Jones and Tom Holland
Almost at the beginning of this interview, Tom Holland said: ‘Christianity has so kind of saturated the meaning of words in English that it was incredibly difficult to use them’ in his books, ‘and get back to a pre-Christian world’. So saturated that ‘even being opposed to Christianity has Christian roots’! We can see this among those racialists who are ostensibly secular but who ultimately subscribe to Christian morality. Holland even claims: ‘Atheism… is very very Christian in its impulse.’
This is why I hate atheists.
Then up to minute 22, Holland says that the notion that anything secular has existed in the West is a delusion: that the secular and the religious have always been two sides of the same coin. Westerners have been unable to see this because they don’t realise that, axiologically, secular values are essentially religious values. (Holland mentions Richard Dawkins, whom he accuses of unconsciously moving within a matrix of Protestant values.)
After 37 minutes, Holland talks about how difficult it was for Anglo-American Christians to tolerate racialised slavery in their colonies. For, according to Christian teaching, all human beings are equal. First, the Quakers began to hammer away at this issue, then Evangelical Episcopalians followed until abolitionism emerged.
‘Slavery is a monstrous sin,’ says Holland rephrasing the Christians of another age. But this is where you see that even contemporary white nationalism is, still, a Judaic creature. I have already mentioned, and it is worth mentioning again, that in a discussion between two of them it seemed very obvious to the ‘secular’ racialist that the Christian racialist’s question was beyond the pale: ‘What’s wrong with slavery?’ referring to Old Dixie.
The sad truth is that the anti-Semites on the WN forums are still servants of the Jews. They obey Judeo-Christian-inspired precepts which, from their origins, were always aimed at demoralising the pagan Roman and convincing him that he had better worship the god of the Jews. From this angle, The West’s Darkest Hour is the only authentically Jew-wise site in existence today. Even the critics of Christianity on the racial right are not authentically Jew-wise because they fail to recognise that any Aryan who subscribes to Christian morality is even worse than a subversive Jew, for the internal traitor is worse than the external enemy.
After 42 minutes, the interviewer asks Holland a central question: What would the world be like if Rome had not succumbed to Christianity? After an historical prologue, by the 47th minute Holland answered: ‘Why do black lives matter? Because historically in the United States, black people were enslaved… Or why there are trans rights roiling countries of Christian heritage in a way that they’re not roiling in countries with other [emphasis in Holland’s voice] heritage?’ Given that values have been inverted throughout the West because of Christianity, Holland adds that it is their victimhood what ‘gives them credit; being a victim becomes a source of privilege.’
Then Holland talks about his forthcoming book on his trilogy on Rome, but he is completely unaware of the work of scholars that we have summarised here challenging the historicity of Jesus. This is a terrible gap in Holland’s intellectual baggage and reminds me that white nationalists also ignore this issue. Immediately afterwards during the interview with Michael Jones, Holland makes the same mistake in discussing the origins of Islam.
The other issue that Holland doesn’t seem to address in the interview or his book Dominion is that the sexual mores and customs of Sparta, Republican Rome and ancient Germans were different from those of Imperial Rome. Holland seems to judge the entire pre-Christian world by the standards of pagan degeneracy, not when they were healthy.
But after 1:08 Holland confesses something vital that makes him our ideological enemy. While it is clear that we can use Dominion to show that liberalism is a direct child of Christianity and that atheists are de facto neo-Christians, we repudiate what he says: ‘I would say I am much more of a Christian than a theist… uhm, I’ve come to recognise that I am pretty much completely Christian in my values and my assumptions. The problem I have is believing that there is a God, ha!’
Holland even confesses that he only feels God—I would say the god of the Jews—during Passover and Christmas, but that the rest of the year he remains sceptical. But even on those remaining 363 days that is the same problem of white nationalists who presume to be secular: the scale of values of these so-called anti-Semites comes directly from a religion of Semitic origin.
For new visitors, my Dominion excerpts can be found here. Just compare Holland’s position in the above interview with my position at the end of that link. We are antipodes!
Categories
Taylor’s soliloquy
People of the new generations cannot have an accurate idea of the incredible level of degeneration that the last generations have experienced. True, the boomers behaved like traitors, but for non-traitor boomers like us, the culture shock we experience when talking to those of later generations is brutal.
As I tell in Whispering Leaves, one of the most beautiful experiences I had as a child was going to the best cinema with my dad. One of the films that made the biggest impression on me at the age of ten was the first Planet of the Apes (the sequels are endless crap that should be destroyed in their entirety in the ethnostate).
But even in the pure mind of a child, it struck me when I saw it on the big screen in 1968 that it was odd that one of the astronauts was black. It is amazing how a child untainted by the surrounding culture sees things exactly as they are!
The coloured astronaut aside, several lines in that film reflect the depth of the science-fiction novel on which the film was based. Nothing stupid or childish like the next decade would see with the Star Wars trilogy. On the contrary: Taylor’s soliloquies, played by Charlton Heston, and I am referring to the opening lines, could very well come in the literary genre of philosophical autobiography that I want to inaugurate:
George Taylor: And that completes my final report until we reach touchdown. We’re now on full automatic, in the hands of the computers. I have tucked my crew in for the long sleep and I’ll be joining them soon. In less than an hour, we’ll finish our sixth month out of Cape Kennedy. Six months in deep space—by our time, that is. According to Dr. Haslein’s theory of time, in a vehicle travelling nearly the speed of light, the Earth has aged nearly 700 years since we left it, while we’ve aged hardly at all. Maybe so. This much is probably true—the men who sent us on this journey are long since dead and gone. You who are reading me now are a different breed—I hope a better one. I leave the 20th century with no regrets. But one more thing—if anybody’s listening, that is. Nothing scientific. It’s purely personal. Seen from out here, everything seems different. Time bends. Space is boundless. It squashes a man’s ego. I feel lonely…
Emphasis added and YouTube clip here. Of course, later there are some fascinating dialogues from a philosophical point of view, such as Taylor having fled from human civilisation because he could no longer stand it, as we see when he argues with Landon in the desert crossing. Not to mention the wise words of Zaius at the end of the film.
What I would give to be in that world and see the Statue of Liberty in ruins and half buried between the sea and the rocks… If we remember Savitri’s quotable quote, that is the world to which we should aspire.
Categories
On Allied criminals, 1
From the book Alemania Pudo Vencer (Germany Could Have Won, 2009) by the Mexican researcher Salvador Borrego (1915-2018) we present here some translated excerpts in which he talks about the barbarism of the Allies during the Second World War, their criminal leaders, especially Churchill and the psychopathic Eisenhower, against a Germany that was hindering and delaying the implementation of the One World Government, known today as Globalisation:
CHAPTER III: The Advance of Barbarism
In his speech on 21 May 1935 (when there was still no talk of war), Hitler pointed out that years earlier it had been agreed internationally not to use expanding bullets; ordinary bullets were enough to put a soldier out of action without causing painful damage. He also recalled that the Red Cross had once stipulated that prisoners be given medical care, food and shelter. Similarly, he added, it could now be agreed that aviation should not drop bombs outside combat zones. This complemented the 230-year-old tradition that armed forces should only fight against armed forces, not against the civilian population.
In line with his proposal, Germany began to build its wartime aircraft with high-precision aircraft, such as the Stuka, which dive-bombed combat forces.
Meanwhile, plans were being drawn up in Britain to build large four-engine aircraft, capable of carrying up to 4,000-kilogram bombs but lacking the characteristics required to participate effectively in battles of armed forces against armed forces.
The Second World War began on 1 September 1939. The British and French empires lined up against Germany. Churchill took command on 11 May the following year and immediately ordered the German city of Freiburg to be bombed.
The British Air Minister, J. M. Spaight, says in his book that the English began to bomb German cities before the enemy proceeded in the same way against them and adds that this is a historical fact which must be publicly admitted as a splendid decision.
There is strong evidence that the Jew Alexander Lindemann advised Churchill to concentrate bombing preferably on residential areas, as this could cause many thousands of casualties among women and children, i.e. the families of soldiers on the front lines. Churchill rewarded Lindemann for his advice by making him a Lord, later known as Lord Cherwell.
Perhaps such advice was unnecessary, for Churchill had a tremendous hatred of the Germans. He went so far as to say that he was anxious to conquer a piece of German territory to piss on it. The English General Fuller was struck by the fact that massive bombing raids were carried out on cities that had no military objective, as was the case with the city of Hildesheim, a perfect example of a medieval city, which had not the slightest military significance, for even the railway junction was outside the city.
Following the entry of the United States into the war, American commanders began to select German military targets for destruction, but Churchill opposed this tactic. At his meeting in Casablanca with President Roosevelt, he asked that American tetra-motors join British aircraft in intensifying their attacks on German residential areas. Roosevelt agreed. Churchill was delighted. Marshal Harris reports that on the night of 28-29 March they set fire to a whole German town, Lübeck; its buildings were much easier to set fire to, given their nature.
Churchill’s profile was not that of a Genghis Khan; not even of a Cromwell. He was highly educated; he was a good orator and his bearing was that of a gentleman. Yet he had no scruple of conscience when he sat down to dinner and his customary glass of brandy in the evening, knowing that his liquid phosphorus bombs were turning thousands of helpless women and children into burning torches and that other mothers with their children were suffocating in the high heat of the fires.
Sir Arthur Harris, the bomber commander, endorses the following account of the Hamburg bombing claiming that 63.5 per cent of the city was destroyed, including its residential areas, ad that due to the combination of thousands of fires, the air became so hot that it created a vacuum which in turn sucked in the surrounding air with an unstoppable centripetal force. The temperature was 600 to 1000 degrees Celsius. The air circulated with immense force, carrying with it incandescent beams and roofs. A hurricane of flames formed, of a violence never seen before. The next day, a cloud of smoke and dust still hung over the city, completely blocking out the sun. This was a greater catastrophe for the Germans than the two atomic bombs against Japan. In Hamburg, 80,000 apple-bursting bombs were dropped, along with 80,000 incendiary bombs and 3,000 cans of phosphorous to fuel the fires. Trees were uprooted and there were 7,196 tons of bombs from British aircraft, plus those from American tetra-motors. From German sources, 40,000 were reported dead, including 5,000 children, plus 120,000 wounded. The Americans said that such figures were far lower than the reality.
Harris commented that the attack on Hamburg had been one of his greatest successes. And much the same in Berlin, Cologne, Stuttgart, Munich, Nuremberg, Essen and hundreds of other large, medium and small cities. In the preface to a book by Liddell Hart, it is said that several British generals deplored the inhumanity of the bombing ordered by Churchill, but kept silent for fear of damaging their careers.
In short, one million and 350,000 tons of bombs were dropped on living areas in 164 cities. More than half a million civilians were killed and more than a million were seriously injured. 3,600,000 homes were destroyed. Thirteen million inhabitants were deprived of shelter. After each bombing, water, sewage or heating services were reduced or stopped altogether until firemen and civilians rushed to repair them (Hans Rumpf, The Bombing of Germany).
Categories
Morelos
I have written about the Mexican-Jewish intellectual Enrique Krauze both in The Occidental Observer and on this site. But I have never quoted him at length and would like to do so now, although I will have to translate one of his articles into English (the article in Spanish can be read here). Originally published in the newspaper Reforma on 25 September 2016, the following text is an excerpt from Krauze’s speech delivered that same month when he received an award from the Congress of the state of Guerrero:
The good shadow of Morelos
Guerrero is an open wound in the feelings of our nation.
Already in the first sentence, Krauze omits to talk about the Afro-mestizo population on the Mexican coast of Guerrero: the ethnic reality behind the violence that has afflicted that state for a long time. As a topic, race and IQ is as taboo in Latin America as it is in the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia (see the latest article by Ron Unz and Mike Whitney on the ferocity of this taboo). Krauze continues:
The incuriousness of the governments condemned this state to a condition that only now, in the 21st century, can we see in all its drama. Guerrero shows the cruel face of abandonment: crime, drugs, poverty, malnutrition, emigration, social disintegration, discord. How to reverse the situation?
I do not, of course, have the magic wand, nor do I believe it exists. And I am not naïve. I know the numbers and I have seen the Dantesque crime scenes in Guerrero. I know that blood calls for blood. Nor am I unaware that today’s violence is not linked to ideas or ideals (as in Independence and the revolution) but to vast, dark, despicable economic interests, and that it is expressed day after day, with unprecedented cruelty, in the streets, the squares, the roads, the beaches of Guerrero.
But we cannot be satisfied with this terrible reality being permanent. If the country turns southwards to reach out to the wagon left behind, it may not be too late to move closer to the essential fraternity envisioned by Morelos in the ‘Sentimientos de la Nación’ (Sentiments of the Nation). Luis González y González called that document ‘the moral primer of Mexico.’ It was read here, in this church in Chilpancingo, 203 years ago. Let us listen to his words, each one, in all their gravity: ‘I want us to make the declaration that there is no other nobility than that of virtue, knowledge, patriotism and charity; that we are all equal…’
The emphasis in bold above and below is mine. It is at this point that the strength of The West’s Darkest Hour comes into full view, especially if we consider a PDF abridgement of Tom Holland’s book on how Christian morality infected, to the marrow, the soul of the West. Krauze’s hero, Morelos, waged the war of independence against Spain. He is considered the most important leader of the second stage of the Mexican War of Independence. Morelos’ ideas of equality were rooted in liberal ideas which are ultimately Christian-inspired (those who haven’t read the excerpts from Holland’s book should read them now). Let’s continue reading Krauze’s quote from the document by Morelos:
‘…for from the same origin we come; that there be no privileges or ancient lineages, that it is not rational, nor humane that there should be slaves, for the colour of the face does not change that of the heart nor that of the thought; that the children of the husbandman and the sweeper be educated as those of the richest landowner; that all who complain for justice have a court to hear them, protect them and defend them against the strong and the arbitrary… let it be declared that what is ours is already ours and for our children, let them have a faith, a cause and a flag, under which we all swear to die, rather than see it oppressed, as it is now, and when it is free, let us be ready to defend it.’ [end of Morelos’ quote]
Morelos—let it be noted—was not moved by hatred. Nor was he driven by intolerance, ideological fanaticism or a thirst for revenge.
This is false. Morelos killed many Iberian white civilians, even entire families, during his war of independence. The American equivalent would have been for a mulatto to order the killing of a good many English families during the American Revolutionary War: something that didn’t happen. Krauze’s eulogy follows:
Morelos was driven by love, but not romantic, mystical or abstract love. He was moved by fraternal, egalitarian, free love, and love that is reflected in practical works. In the middle of Tierra Caliente (one of the scenes of today’s horror) that modest parish priest built the church of his parish with his own hands, helped the needy and even recreated, in his letters, the dreams and fantasies of his parishioners. But that same priest (merciful, active, humble, sympathetic) conceived, organised and sheltered—in times of war and in that same area—the promulgation of a Constitution that would be the mould of Mexico that never quite came to fruition: a liberal and democratic republic.
Those ‘Sentiments of the Nation’ are those of today: the ancient moral philosophy of Christian equality and natural liberty which—in the lucid analysis of Don Silvio Zavala—founded Mexico. We must consolidate the modern republican institutions founded and respected by Morelos.
But there is one more sentiment that is not only current but urgent: that of a sovereign country. To our problems, we must add the threat of an economic and diplomatic war of enormous proportions, provoked by the United States if Trump (that despicable tyrant candidate) becomes president. That is why we must reclaim our love for our homeland. But—once again—I am not talking about an operatic love that is reduced to singing the national anthem, shouting ‘viva Mexico’ or waving our flag. I am talking about defending, with all the diplomatic, legal, political, economic and media resources at our disposal, the millions of Mexicans at home and abroad who could suffer the consequences of this unjust war.
If those men who surrounded Morelos did not falter in his hostile and merciless time, it is cowardly for us Mexicans of the 21st century to falter, given to discouragement or cynical selfishness. We live, wrote Luis González, under ‘the good shadow of Morelos.’ Let us be worthy of it.
In another of his Reforma articles, Krauze lets us know: ‘Every Friday, at twilight, my maternal grandmother sanctified the coming of Saturday; she lit her candles…’ However, one of the reasons I don’t inhabit the white nationalist Judeo-reductionist paradigm is that, if you listen to Mexican intellectuals who aren’t ethnically Jewish, they say the same thing Krauze says above about Morelos. And I mean both mestizos and ‘Mexican Criollos’ (those born in Latin America but of European origin, without Jewish blood). In today’s Mexico all mestizo, Criollo and Jewish intellectuals subscribe to the official story about Morelos (the exception was a great Mexican intellectual, José Vasconcelos, but he died in 1959).