web analytics

Tag: 4 words

Categories
Arthur Schopenhauer Philosophy

Schopen quote

If you imagine, in so far as it is approximately possible, the sum total of distress, pain and suffering of every kind which the sun shines upon in its course, you will have to admit it would have been much better if the sun had been able to call up the phenomenon of life as little on the earth as on the moon; and if, here as there, the surface were still in a crystalline condition. [Schopenhauer, Essays and Aphorisms, page 479]

Schopenhauer lived in a time when it wasn’t yet known that, in the distant future, our sun will become a Red Giant: eliminating not only what we call unnecessary suffering, but also the necessary suffering that every creature that wants to live must endure.

As far as the commenters on this site are concerned, only Benjamin, Gaedhal, and I have rationally ventured into this topic. I don’t count Autisticus Spasticus because he suggests getting rid of a hundred per cent of humanity at once.

In contrast, I hope that only the Aryan race, in its Nordic version, will persist in the future and that some super-beautiful Nordids (I recently learned that actor Björn Andrésen from Death in Venice passed away this year) will become followers of the religion of the four words, and inhabit the paradise of girls on rocks painted by the American Maxfield Parrish. Spasticus’ solution isn’t rational because it would allow, say, killer whales to continue tormenting whale calves once Homo sapiens became extinct. Instead, the priest of the sacred words suggests exterminating the killer whale gangs that are doing this.

With its trillions of galaxies, the universe is the mystery of mysteries. What seems to reign everywhere in the Milky Way is precisely this “crystalline condition”, to rephrase Schopenhauer, of the planets of all stars, except our own. Trying to conquer the universe for our religion seems impossible.

But modestly speaking, it is theoretically possible to try to implement the sacred words—Eliminad todo sufrimiento innecesario—at least on this planet. And for that, we need Hitlerites like Ben and me (remember that the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was to ban vivisection).

Categories
Holocaust Vegetarianism Welfare of animals

4 words explained!

Editor’s Note: A visitor of this site sent me this some time ago:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

This book is available on Amazon.

Germany and the United Kingdom are the two European countries where animal protection has undoubtedly had an earlier development. In the German case, though, the animal protection and nature conservation provisions, at the centre of the first legislative measures taken by the Nazi regime, were characterised by a non-negligible degree of detail and systematization. Indeed, the animal protection and nature conservation agenda was first developed in 1933, with Adolf Hitler’s ascension to power and the institution of the Reich’s Association for Animal Protection (Reichstierschutzbund). Undeniably, the resulting laws covered aspects that were only touched upon much later by similar EU legislation, such as welfare measures during transport or at the time of slaughter. This shows the validity and scientific character with which the Nazi animal legislation was planned.

Whilst Nazi symbology disappeared, dragged along by the damnatio memoriae of a regime that imposed a heavy burden on Germany’s international reputation, the animal protection legislation, although repealed like the rest of the laws enacted during the Nazi period, have proven as a foundation for the current animal protection laws of Austria and Germany. This constitutes a good proof that said laws were a faithful reflection of a mentality deeply rooted in the Germanic spirit.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
After the seizure of power by the National Socialists, new hopes aroused and German conservationists lobbied for new pieces of legislation to protect the Heimat (homeland), its animals, and its nature.

Indeed, in the first two years of the National Socialist regime, from 1933 to 1935, the government enacted a wide series of specific animal and nature protection laws. Extensive new legislation came into force in the fields of animal welfare, hunting and environmental law, while forest law has never been completed. These could be built on the existing legal bases at the level of state laws and local decrees, as well as on the draft laws of the Weimar Republic.

The first legislative steps of the Reich’s government aimed to finally settle the debate on animal protection with a comprehensive legal text. It is impressive, in terms of speed and promptness, that the Nazis were able to emanate three pieces of legislation regarding animal welfare and protection, namely the Law on the Slaughter of Animals (RGB1139/1933), the Amendment to the Criminal Provisions (RGB1 156/1933) introducing the provision on animal abuse, and the Reich’s Law on Animal Protection (RGBII 132/1933). Within less than a year, from April to November 1933, the Reich’s Cabinet ended the long lasting issue and promoted the new legislation with extensive propaganda measures.

Then in 1934, and again 1935, the legislator’s focus shifted from farm animals and pets to wildlife, as the main concern started to be the extinction in Germany of animals such as bears, wolves, bison and wild horses. In fact, unlike governments overseas and in other European countries, in 1934 Germany became the first nation in modern times to place the wolf under protection.

The objective was to create conservation and breeding programmes and pass new and more uniform laws on nature and species conservation, as well as hunting. This objective was met on July 3, 1934 and on June 26, 1935 when the Reich’s Law on Hunting (RGBI I 73/1934) and the Reich’s Law on Nature Conservation (RGB1 I 68/1935) came respectively into force.
 

German Romanticism

Of utmost importance for the construction of the German national identity were certain notions and theories regarding man’s connections to nature and animal life that were expressed by the German romantic poetry, music and social thought. Being at the height of Romanticism, the German Volk was longing for the absolute, ready to subordinate the welfare of the single individual in the battle for life.

Collective identification was conveyed throughout the cult of genius, the veneration of nature, nostalgia for the remote past, the exaltation of passion, the suspicion of science, and salvation through art. [emphasis by Ed.] These ideas shaped Nazi thinking. All late Romantics—from Charles Darwin, or better Ernst Haeckel in Germany, to Richard Wagner—had venerated nature as an inexorable power that produced storms and earthquakes that annihilated entire species and peoples; industrialisation reached that point where human beings began to claim such power for themselves. Rather than a social movement, nature conservation was to be considered a sentiment.

According to the German biologist and environmentalist Walther Schoenichen, member of the NSDAP since 1932 and Head of the Reich’s Office for Nature Conservation until 1938, “The idea of conservation is essentially an outgrowth of Romanticism.”

In this context, the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche was influential. His works had been adapted and selectively used by Nazism, especially his rejection of intellectual culture and the embrace of the animal instinct in humans. In particular, great importance on the animal origin and character of man, was placed on Nietzsche’s conception of the “blond beast” or Raubtier, namely of man as a predator. By celebrating the beast in man in a mythical way, as a type of “secret idol” with qualities like vitality, unscrupulousness, blind will, and obedience, the new Germans were to be part animal, rejecting a certain side of their humanity. The compassion normally reserved to humans was to be redirected toward animals [Wow! This sentence sums up my ethics in a nutshell! —Ed.], and the cold aggressiveness of animal instinct became the model rigorous German. This was, in fact, part of the intent of the animal protection laws.

Another important argument was the one regarding the moral status of animals—a preoccupation that influenced Nazi thinking, calling for a remedy to early wrongs towards animals and calling for the protection of nature as a moral imperative. To this extent, the critique of Ernst Haeckel —German biologist, zoologist, philosopher of the late 19th and early 20th century, and highly influential populariser of Social Darwinism (he wrote at a time when the application of Darwinism to psychological and social phenomena was still in its infancy)— “religion is emblematic to understanding the Nazi transposition of this idea.” Haeckel attacked primarily Christianity for putting man above animals and nature, and for isolating man from nature and generating disrespect towards animals. He believed that man and animals had the same natural and moral status and that much of human morality stemmed from animals. Furthermore, he maintained that humans had much to learn from animals, like using the laws of nature to reform human society, the function of which—like animal societies—was to survive and biological fitness was essential to both. Not surprisingly, he supported “racial hygiene” through euthanasia.

Clearly, Hitler and other exponents of National Socialism endorsed and adapted this, as well as other main theories of the so-called Social Darwinism. Heredity, struggle, and natural selection were fundamental to their conception of both the natural and the social realms. It was the task of Nazism to create a community in harmony with the eternal laws of nature. As Goebbels commented in his diaries:

Man should not feel so superior to animals. He has no reason to. Man believes that he alone has intelligence, a soul, and the power of speech. Has not the animal these things? Just because we, with our dull senses, cannot recognise them, it does not prove that they are not there.

A third significant Romantic concept, particularly expressed by philosophers such as Richard Wagner, promoted synthesis over analysis, unity and wholeness over disintegration and atomism, and Volk legend over scientific truth [compare Wagner’s approach with American “race realism” —Ed.]. According to this view, an organic unity should not be mentally analysed and physically dissected. Therefore, mechanistic science was perceived as destructive for dissolving the whole into fragments, thereby losing the invisible force that makes the whole more than just the sum of its parts.

By defining it as the “curse of vivisection”, Wagner urged the closing down of laboratories and the removal of scientists and as both evil and Jewish, and associated it to the capitalists torturing the proletariat.

Nazis assumed a critical attitude towards science and opposed to this particular approach to it, which was attributed to the Jews, because it represented the separation of man from his connections with nature and ultimately from his own spirit. As Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax state, Nazis wanted a science that was influenced more by Goethe than by Newton. A science closer to poetry and art:

As Man stands to Nature, so stands Art to Man. When Nature had developed in itself those attributes, which included the conditions for the existence of Man, then Man spontaneously evolved. In like manner, as soon as human life had engendered from itself the conditions for the manifestment of Art-work, this too stepped self-begotten into life.

 
Rejection of anthropocentrism

The Nazi traditions of nature preservation and their romantic longings can be recollected into one essential aspect, which explicitly characterised their strict provisions on animal protection, i.e. the rejection of the anthropocentric view [this is very important to grasp our religion of the four words! —Ed.]. Animals were not to be protected for the sake of human interests but for their own sake. However Nazi ideologues apparently replaced the anthropocentric conception with a hierarchical one, which not only met the Nazi requirements of organizational efficiency but was also a way of fitting into the cosmic order, a way of being part of a whole.

According to the Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalaffny’s philosophy of biology, organisms were, by definition, organised things. As the founder of the General Systems Theory (GST) and member of the NSDAP since 1938, Bertalaffny related his views to the totalitarian ideology of Nazism and to the Führerprinzip in particular.

More concretely, his theory developed a new scientific doctrine of “wholeness”, replacing the philosophical Theory of Categories. He considered it indisputable that sociological phenomena, thus the human society, should be ordered in a hierarchical manner, like nature. He also praised the law enacted by Hermann Göring, which placed all decisions regarding the administration of nature under total centralised control.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
It is not a coincidence that in a famous caricature, Göring is portrayed as the liberator and leader of all lab animals that give him the Nazi salute in sign of gratitude. On this matter, he is remembered for another extreme political statement:

I […] will commit to concentration camps those who still think they can continue to treat animals as inanimate property […]. The fairy tales and sagas of the Nordic people, especially the German people, show the spirit of close contact, which all Aryan people possess, with the animals. It is the more incomprehensible, therefore, that justice, up to now, did not agree with the spirit of the people on this point as it did on many others. Under the influence of foreign [i.e., Jewish] conceptions of justice and a strange comprehension of law, through the unhappy fact that the exercise of justice was in the hands of people alien to the nation […] the animal was considered a dead thing under the law […]. This does not correspond to the German spirit and most decidedly does not conform to the ideas of National Socialism.

Editor's interpolated note: The hatred I feel when I hear a Judeo-Christian say that God (the nonexistent god of the Jews) put animals in the world for our benefit, makes me write my "four words".

Hitler once declared:

I have always known to be of the opinion that there is nothing better than being a lawyer for those who cannot defend themselves. In the Third Reich there must be no more animal cruelty.

______ 卐 ______

 
Their vision of the future included a world where animals would not be unnecessarily harmed. Hunting became a symbol of the past civilization, meat eating became a symbol of decayed peoples, and vegetarianism became a symbol of the new, pure civilization that was to be Germany’s future. We also know from direct testimonies, that Nazi leaders took pride in presenting themselves as friends of the animals; as Heinrich Himmler—the Reich’s Head of the SS (“Reichsführer-SS”)—stated, Germans were:

[…] the only nation of the world with a decent attitude towards animals.

Also Hermann Göring was of the same opinion, when he stated that:

The German people have always shown their great love of animals and the question of animal protection was always near their hearts. For thousands of years the German people have always looked upon their household and farmyard animals as their companions, in the case of horses as their fighting companions… To the German, animals are not merely creatures in the organic sense, but creatures who lead their own lives and who are endowed with perceptive facilities, who feel pain and experience joy and prove to be faithful and attached.

Indeed, the Holocaust itself may have depended on this unique cultural conception of what it meant to be human in relation to animals as a metaphor of what it meant to be Aryan in relation to other races. From this newly acquired perspective, one can conclude that what is considered to be as cruel and inhumane behaviour toward human beings by today’s standards, was seen by the Nazis as acceptable behaviour toward “subhumans”. What may be regarded as paradoxically humane behaviour toward animals, in light of the human tragedy, was seen in Nazi Germany as quite consistent given the belief of a common stem of certain higher humans and animals and their special bond with nature. Therefore, racial and eugenic laws on one side and the animal protection and nature conservation normative complex on the other, did indeed have a common denominator, which is mostly visible when studying the emanated laws in the context they were created in.

It is evident that the Nazi German identity relied on the blurring of boundaries between humans and animals, as well as constructing a unique phylogenetic hierarchy that altered conventional human-animal distinctions and imperatives. This blurring was visible, for example, in the abolishing of moral distinctions between animals and people, leading to the result that animals could be considered “higher” than some people. This was also apparent in the highly-debated concern for animals held by many prominent Nazi Germans.

On the one hand, animals were considered virtuous, innocent, and embodied ideal qualities absent in most humans, to the extent that to hunt or eat animals was defiling, a sign of decay and perversion. People, on the other hand, were seen with hatred, dread, and disappointment. In fact, to kill certain people was part of the quest for purity. Additionally, this blurring was evident in the Nazi alliance with animals, both portrayed as victims of their Jewish oppressors, i.e. the vivisectionists and slaughterers.

Finally, this blurring was visible in the animalization of German Nazis, in how they represented themselves as well as other humans. To cope with what they considered as the threat of genetic pollution of their pure, holistic, natural Volk, Germans were encouraged to fight with the same hard-headed determination as any other species in nature.

Categories
Child abuse Welfare of animals

Sacred words

The 4 words (ethics)

Eliminate all unnecessary suffering

These words are my invention and could only be fully understood after reading the autobiographical trilogy I wrote in my mother tongue. However, here I can illustrate what I mean with a couple of examples. The first thing the Nazis did when they took power was to ban cruelty to animals. And for those aware of how abusive parents murder the souls of their children, the Hitler Youth offered them a window of escape. So eliminating the unnecessary suffering of children and animals is the priority in my fight against human Neanderthalism.
 

The 14 words (aesthetics)

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children

These are the words of David Lane (1938-2007), evoking an 88-word paragraph from Mein Kampf (it is always good for a cause to have a slogan with few words). The American anti-white establishment put Dave Lane in jail, where he died. Although his words are self-explanatory here we could over-explain them as follows.

Unless Aryans wake up, due to mass immigration throughout the West, white North Americans, Europeans, Australians and New Zealanders will become a minority in their own countries, facing subsequent extinction.

Categories
Child abuse

Consumption, 10

Book 2

Chapter Two

Though I hoped I would have learned from these incidents, I am afraid to say that (to my mind) I had cause to fight with my father a third time in these cold, desperate weeks. My father does not learn or change. Of all the incidents, it was the most severe. It lingers with me even today in a mind that has by now forgotten most of my childhood and adolescent pain, blotting it out over long years of blood and agonising tears, if only for survival, and to the point that most of my anecdotes are hard to recall, and require concentrated thought to recount, even when the vague circumstances of them are still intrusive enough psychologically, and as if on the tip of my tongue.

I was in the car with my mother and father this time, being driven back from Chelmsford one Saturday afternoon, where we had attended the shopping centre. Due to my leg length, I sat in the front seat of the family Škoda and my mother in the rear on the right, behind Dad’s seat. My friend Ami was in the back seat behind me, and Dad was talking with her at the time, discussing her troubles. For once, he seemed empathetic in a manner that he would never have been with me if I had mentioned my own misery to him.

“So why do you think your own life isn’t going well, Ami? What’s getting you down?” my father said, asking her about her problems openly and in a warm manner that disguised the forwardness of his statement. She had been in his company a few times before, but he did not know my friend well, bar to know that we had both been in Brookside together. Ami had now moved back to her parents’ home in Loughton.

“Well, Billy,” she replied, more openly than I would ever have been able to, having been given a chance I never had to open up already in the hospital, and thus perhaps more used to intimate life discussions, talking to him as matter-of-factly as to a familiar therapist, lines that she had said out loud many times before, “I’m afraid I’ve had problems since I was a child. My mother was an alcoholic, and my father didn’t deal well with this. Aside from that, I was raped when I was younger. It shattered me. I’ve got OCD now, and Depression, as well as Dissociative Identity Disorder. I share my head with a woman named Anna and a couple of other people, and she talks to me with them, and in my own voice at times, too.”

Dad gasped a little and then nodded understandingly. Unused to psychiatric ideas as I knew he was, I was taken aback by his patience, as if Ami had announced the most normal and straightforward thing in the world. Embarrassing to my conscience, a brief stab of jealousy shot through me as I realised then that if I had said something similar, Dad would have scoffed as he always did or given me a quizzical look. Then, a sudden irritation entered his tone, bordering on great anger, “That’s awful, Ami. Who was it? Who did this to you? Tell me his name; I’ll kill him! I’ll kill him!”

Dad continued his gesture of rage all the rest of the way down the road until we reached the front door of number 44. The vengeful promise on his part seemed genuine and unforced. I sympathised with Ami very much, already aware of her life circumstances and to far greater detail, but I was silently annoyed at my father by then, and very much. He would never have responded the same way had it been me reporting to him. Later that day, this thought was pressing on my mind, so I mentioned it to Ami, hoping she would not take my worries as an offence. Thankfully, she seemed to understand me and said, in a small yet supportive voice, “Ben, I know what you mean. I’m really sorry to hear. To be honest, please don’t get upset, but I think your Dad is a real arsehole to you… so many times I’ve seen him picking on you, and he speaks to you like total sh*t…”

A great tide of emotion welled up in me then. I thanked Ami profusely for what she had said. It was the first time someone had ever mentioned Dad’s long conduct towards me openly. Then she said, “It’s probably because he doesn’t know what happened to you; perhaps you should tell him. I know it’s hard, but when I told my father, it helped me a lot, and then I found I could open up to Mel and the rest of the unit staff back at Brookside… tell him in your own time. But definitely open up. At the moment, he’s cold and rude towards you because he doesn’t understand.” I nodded. It seemed she was right.

In the evening, Dad was kind enough to drive Ami back to Loughton and drop her off at her father’s luxury property. Saying my goodbyes to her on the front step of our house as I was exhausted from the day, I lingered at home nervously, waiting for him to return. My mother was still in the kitchen, preparing his evening meal. She didn’t know what I had in mind. She was busying about out of my way as I sat on the futon in my room preparing myself, unsure of his response but having taken what Ami said seriously and knowing it would help me, in the long run, to have this chat with him about my abuse, and as soon as possible.

Just under an hour and a half later, Dad returned to our house. From my corner bedroom, I heard the familiar sound of his engine pulling up and switching off, the car door slamming as it always did, and then him hurrying up the steps and the key in the front door. He was panting a little as he entered the house. I gave him a chance to get his breath back, but then, perhaps too soon, excited from all the thoughts welling up in my mind, I went over to him as he was again sat in his chair in the corner, waiting for his dinner to arrive, having been in the house about twenty minutes, and stood beside him on the new laminated wood-effect floor, and in a quiet, polite voice said: “hello Dad, can I have a word with you please?”

His voice was harsher than I expected and snappy, replying, “What? What is it? Can’t you wait? I’m tired tonight”, to which I replied, “I’m sorry, Dad, but it’s important, do you mind if I speak to you?” and heard him say again, in peeved agitation, “OK. What then? Come on. Get it over with!”, words which did nothing for my confidence. But I went on, plucking up all my courage, “Dad, I wanted to tell you about Tariq.” “Well, what about him?” “He abused me, Dad. When I was at school at the Prep school, he beat me up a lot, and then he touched me, and tried to have sex with me, and did other things…”

I was tailing off, not knowing how to continue. My father was still glaring up at me, motionless, not providing a very comfortable atmosphere at all. Instead of surprise, or supportive words, like those he had offered Ami, all he said to me was, “Look Benjamin, I’m very tired tonight. Can this not wait till some other time? I haven’t been in long, and I want to have my tea.”

He got up out of his chair and went out of the room, blundering down the unlit hall to the toilet to freshen up. I was in shock. More than this, I was very hurt. I followed him, still trying impotently to speak in his ear. “Dad, listen to me; this is important! Tariq hurt me! Tariq hurt me very much! Listen to me, Dad!” but all my father could say, distractedly over his shoulder, was, “Look, leave it now. I’m tired, and I need to get ready for tea. Stop getting yourself in a state.” I was heartbroken then, but there was nothing I could do. Clearly, he did not want to listen to me and was not taking me seriously. Anger erupted in me again, a great, huge, coruscating anger.

As he left the bathroom, I thrust my hand out and pushed my father until he stumbled, his body almost falling over, stopped only by bashing into the wall of the hall. He stopped for a second, in shock of his own, not knowing what had happened, and then turned on me with a yell and grabbed out at me. I, too, was snarling at this point, and again, we grappled on the floor, me squeezing his wrists and him trying to subdue me and knock me to the floor. More and more I squeezed, as I called out, in broken, incandescent rage, “Believe me! Believe me! You c**t, you f**king c**t! I hate you! Believe me!” and he ignored my impassioned voice, unclear than I was hurt more than just ‘behaving badly’, and instead managed to free one of my hands from his right arm, giving a little gasp as I squeezed my hardest, trying to cause him pain.

In a second, his right arm free, he screwed up his fist and punched me full-on in the face, his knuckles landing on the bridge of my nose, snapping the soft tissue of the tip to the side with a horrifying crunch as blood started to trickle in a painful nosebleed. I screeched at that point in fear, surprise, and pain and dropped my other hand also, going to cradle my nose, trying my hardest to slide my busted nasal cartilage back into place, in sharp, terrible pain, stinging ferociously, and with the cold, choking drip of blood. Using this opportunity, he stepped backwards and moved back into the light of the living room away from me. But anger was upon me, and I did not stall for long.

Despite my broken nose, I howled as I powered into my bedroom, barrelling over to the shelf to pick up the grip of my spring-powered BB pistol, making sure the magazine was full and slid into place. Then, taking the weapon in my right hand, I charged back into the hall as my Dad had just entered the living room, going across to talk to my mother, who was by now in a fluster, asking him, “What is it? What’s happened?” to which Dad replied, “Get this f**king maniac away from me!” and, on hearing this, I exploded, and shouted, “don’t call me a f**king maniac! You attacked me, you c**t, you f**king bast*rd!” and, to my mother’s horrified gasp, hoisted my arm, and pointed the gun at my father, aiming for in between his shoulder blades.

In a split second, grabbing his key, he pushed past me, knocking my barrel to the side, and fled out into the hallway again, and from there, through the front door and off down the steps around the corner of The Shrubberies and away down Chequers Road, with me following hot in pursuit, screaming my hatred at him, and taking time to stop, aim, and discharge the BB gun at him, aiming close, but making sure always to miss by a little, in ferocious anger, but still held back by something, knowing what the impacts of the weapon felt like from having been shot at with it by Tariq previously, and not wishing similar on my father as much as to frighten him, and ‘teach him a lesson’.

Soon, about halfway down to the Chequers Pub on the corner, I broke off my pursuit and turned back to the house, blood pouring down my face, and went up the steps into the toilet just to the left of the front door and, fetching as much toilet paper as I could unwind, stuffed it around my face and held it there, feeling that ultra-sensitive sting once more, and the first bruising around my right eye.

Not much later, as I was still in the toilet, I heard Dad’s feet on the steps and the door swinging back once again as he re-entered our home. There was silence in the hallway, and he did not call for me or attempt to open the door, though he would have known I was there. Instead, he brushed through into the living room to speak to my mother. Distracted and with my ears ringing, perhaps from his blow, I do not know what words passed between them, but I did not emerge for a long time, and I know they talked in my absence.

When I did step out of the downstairs toilet, I was no longer so angry. I dumped the BB gun back in my room. Then, tentatively, I peeked around the corner to the living room and saw Dad sitting back in his familiar chair. He was eating the dinner Mum had prepared for him as if nothing had happened. There was silence as I entered the room. Then I spoke, my voice affected by the stiffness and pain in my face. “I’m sorry I shot at you, Dad. And I’m sorry I fought too. I didn’t mean to hurt you.”

Tears were forming in my bruising eyes. Dad got up out of the chair slowly. I winced a little, but then he spoke, “That’s ok, son. We know you’re not well.” And, tired of warring with him then, I went to him, my head down again, in clinging sadness, ashamed of myself, and put out my hands in a hug, and, for the first time in my life, my father reciprocated and came to me. I felt him put his big, bony arms around me and then the press of my upper chest beneath his red pullover, and so we hugged, there on the floor, in front of my silent mother. “Thanks, Dad,” I said. “I love you”, and he replied, “And you too, son” Then, exhausted and overcome, and not really knowing what to think, I filed quietly back into my room, my broken nose still unaddressed, though spotted by my mother.

In time, my nose healed, although even these days, it has never re-set fully and still hangs off to the side slightly, lending the centre of my face a disquieting asymmetry, the subtle scar tissue bulky just beneath the bridge, and regularly, I experience slight breathing difficulties and prolonged sinus infections.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

If this, at ultimate conclusion—the 4 words—(the 14 words is a given) is not why they’re fighting as the final beautiful goal, why are they fighting at all? —Benjamin’s email to the Editor.

Categories
Final solution Holocaust

2 Holocausts

People in power put in jail those who question the Holocaust in Europe. In the country of the First Amendment they don’t jail them, but it happened that President Bush deported a Holocaust denier to Europe to let the authorities jail him there!

The Holocaust is a topic that is not usually touched upon in American white nationalist forums either. Unlike the position of Greg Johnson, who believes that the subject should be abandoned—and I refer to what he discussed years ago with Hadding Scott on The Occidental Observer—, I think that the subject of the Holocaust is paramount for the Aryan to reclaim his mental health. It is a very thorny issue and no wonder no one on the racial right wants to address the very core, the ethical part. (The articles Ron Unz publishes on his webzine about the Holocaust and get thousands of hits, and hundreds of comments, fail to address the ethical issue.) So let’s try to address it from my POV, ‘Eliminate all unnecessary suffering’.

First of all, for Hitler’s willing executioners the suffering the Holocaust caused wasn’t unnecessary but necessary. When I was a new-born, one of them even tried to justify himself with these words to those who had any moral qualms:

Menschenkinder, verflucht noch mal eine Generation muss dies halt durchstehen, damit es unsere Kinder besser haben! (Damn it!: A generation has to go through this so that our children will fare better.) [1]

Against Hollywood and even Russian film propaganda (see for example this scene from the Russian movie Come and See where some Belorussian Jews were holocausted in their own village), when one begins to familiarise oneself with the historical literature one is struck by how difficult it was, psychologically, for many Germans to commit genocides. Himmler himself lowered his eyes when he witnessed one of the typical open-air machine-gunning massacres: one of those that so often occurred in the conquered territories. (Much of what is called the Holocaust occurred in the open, relatively far from the villages so as not to frighten the locals.)

Given the awfulness of the work that the killing entailed, Himmler loved the idea of setting up group therapy sessions for his executioners: sessions that were filled as much as possible with a homey atmosphere, food and music, though no alcohol; and some men were relieved of the uglier tasks of killing men, women and children so that, as one diary keeper wrote, ‘they could retain their humanity’.

But the central issue is: If the Jews are not the sole cause of Aryan decline, which is my view, how can the Holocaust be justified?

Believe it or not, there came to be some executioners who were neither monocausalists nor ‘bicausalists A’, but approached ‘bicausalism B’ (see my post of the day before yesterday). On September 17, 1941 the Einsatzgruppe, already overwhelmed by the intensity of its genocidal task, suggested that the extermination of the Jews would not solve all the problems:

Even if it were possible to eliminate 100% of the Jews, we would not eliminate the fundamental danger. The Bolshevik work is carried out by Jews, Russians, Georgians, Armenians, Poles, Latvians, and Ukrainians; the Bolshevik apparatus does not coincide completely with the Jewish population. Under such conditions, we would not achieve the goal of political security if we substituted the main task of destroying the Communist machine for the relatively easy task of eliminating the Jews.[2]

The sticky post on this site links to an article that recommends reading the book that recounts the astronomical genocidal atrocities—a true Holocaust—that the Allies committed on the German people even after 1945: something that Westerners are unaware of because the ubiquitous anti-Aryan propaganda only mentions one of the two holocausts. On the other hand, for the Holocaust deniers, the Jewish Holocaust is a hoax, something that didn’t happen: a myth created by the Jews. But what should we do when a Gentile that allegedly witnessed the Holocaust confronts us with his memories?

Few know that a few hundred British prisoners of war were sent to Auschwitz. One of them was Arthur Dodd. I dare not say that Dodd is to be believed in everything he tells, for at times his story sounds like something out of a Hollywood movie script. But neither can we say that what Dodd tells is a Jewish tale, since ethnically he was English. As the Russians approached Auschwitz Dodd recounts that, in desperation, the guards committed a real atrocity:

SS guards were shouting and whipping a number of Jews who were being forced to throw the carcasses of dozens of their dead comrades into a bonfire. The ground on which the fire was built had been hollowed out and so the bodies and materials were being thrown down to the flames.

Suddenly, Arthur was horrified to see small children being brought into the yard. He felt the bile rise in his throat as the children were kicked and booted into the fire… Arthur staggered back to his hut, the screams of the children still ringing in his ears.[3]

Later Michael Evans, the author of the The Times article, writes: ‘Auschwitz is still the first thing he thinks of every morning’.

I clipped this newspaper story when I lived in Manchester. What to make of these memoirs? The most straightforward answer is that, if Arthur Dodd’s account is true, the mainstream media will never mention the equivalent cases of the other Holocaust, the one the Allies committed that year and up to 1947. (Recall, for example, Tom Goodrich’s account in his book of how the Soviets themselves crucified German babies—literally crucified them—in a Prussian village as their Red Army advanced. )

All this horror, on both sides, could have been avoided if Churchill hadn’t declared war on Hitler, since the latter’s original plan implied non-genocidal Jewish deportation to Madagascar, which could have happened if WW2 hadn’t been declared. Pat Buchanan says this in his book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World.

I am pleased that, in times much more recent than the publication of the Buchanan book, Tucker Carlson has invited a revisionist who sees in Churchill, not Hitler, the real villain of our movie, the West’s darkest hour with its millions of migrants to bastardize the Aryan race. But for our ideology to become more rhetorical for the normie’s Overton window, rather than denying the Jewish Holocaust I think it is more astute the path chosen by Goodrich: to talk about the other Holocaust, the Holocaust that almost nobody talks about.

 
_____________

[1] Ulm court case against Bernhard Fischer-Schweder, August 29, 1958, Ks 2/57.

[2] RSHA IV-A-1, Report on Operations in the USSR, No. 86, NO-3151.

[3] Michael Evans: ‘An Englishman at Auschwitz’, The Times, 2 November 1998.

Categories
Racial right

Quietness

by Benjamin

I feel very frustrated that comments on WDH have on the whole tailed off. Where did they all disappear to? Or were they timewasters in the first place? I didn’t think so. I dislike the quietness. It’s like they’ve all lost their spines. I don’t know if they’re demoralised, or simply ideologically opposed all of a sudden when National Socialism didn’t turn out what they wanted it to be/didn’t turn out to be ‘hardcore’ WN with swastikas. I imagine it’s the Christian question, but more so especially the trauma model and animal rights that gets them the most—most people are cruel; I’ve gathered that, and resent being forced to high moral standards.

I had an obvious thought as to the commenters, and commenters in general. I notice the most responses are always to the ‘what was done in the war/what could have been done instead in the war’ topic set. It’s because, I think, this topic is basically abstract, and doesn’t require personal change. One can mull over nerdy history perspectives all day long, massaging tiny new snippets of information in.

But to discuss ethics is more of a quality than a slew of mere information, and brings the person in question into the debate, not just the abstract at arms length, and thus is harder to massage into their already-rigid position, as, for once in their lives, coming from the dissident right in general as they are, they are encouraged to see ‘the mentally ill’ not as hate objects, but as victims of parental cruelty, and, more than that, are encouraged to realise that by eating meat they are causing unnecessary suffering, and are so evil in some sense.

That takes too much effort to change over compared with editing in a tiny new snippet of historical insight here and there, or piping up with more. I don’t personally know a huge deal about that point in history (though like to learn), and I don’t have an endless fascination with regurgitating facts one could find in a book if they wanted.

I think that’s the root of it, qualities versus facts-by-rote. It’s a hard situation to get around.

If I wanted endless Jew-bait, as I call it (a pun on click-bait), I’d just go to The Unz Review. Don’t get me wrong, I consider it a problem, but Jews don’t really play on my mind much these days, unlike Christianized whites. The more they look at Jews, the more excuse they have, and the less they see themselves. Only when they see themselves, and tackle themselves, can they mount any sensible attack on their enemies.

I hope you have some new blood soon. At one point there were over 40 people, right? I count loads of commenters, and I get frustrated when the ones I like drop away. They should understand, as you say, that yes, the Jewish Question is a given, and we’ve all done it to death (if not, the SS Pamphlets cover it pretty well) but the Christian Question encapsulates everything. If not for the latter, these ignorant mercantile commenters really are no different to Jews in my eyes. They worship and obey the principles of the same alien god.
 

Editor’s 2 ¢:

I think the Christian issue has really alienated the dissident right from this forum, and the fact that I barely mentions Jews.

The position of this site, following the four words, is: Be kind to abused animals and children, and tough on the exterminable Neanderthals who abuse them. Conversely, the WN position in general is based on Christian ethics: Love one another, and exterminationism is unthinkable anathema.

To the commenters:

I wonder, if Ben and I launched a podcast talking about all of this (a WDH transformed from written word to spoken word, inviting listeners to speak to the show), would you come back?

Categories
Axiology Racial right

Neonormies

Or:

On Old and New Tablets

A passage in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ‘On Old and New Tablets’, inspires me for this post. But before I continue with the routine of this site (perhaps my next post will be one more passage from Irving’s book on Himmler), I would like to clarify something about today’s previous post.

The pair of four words, Gens alba conservanda est (White people must be preserved) and ¡Eliminad todo sufrimiento innecesario! (Let us eliminate all unnecessary suffering!), define the two commandments, or new conception of right and wrong, in our new Tablets of the Law.

The second commandment is given because of the colossal hells that some abusive humans inflict on their children, or the defenceless animals at their mercy.

That doesn’t mean that only those who already have these two commandments as their religion can be my comrades. Although Hitler was surprised when Himmler confessed to him that he still practised hunting with other Nazis, Uncle Adolf couldn’t have formed a political movement if he repudiated them. But it is obvious that a priest of the holy words has already taken his vows to fulfil both commandments (vows that non-priests aren’t yet capable of fulfilling because they lack the compassion we have developed).

Another thing I would like to say today is something else about my eternal quarrel with the American racial right. Yesterday I saw a video by Jared Taylor about the recent attacks in Germany perpetrated by a sandnigger. Taylor mocks the fact that the Eurocrats have been ‘speechless’ and ‘stunned’ after the massacre of civilian Germans. However, as a good Christian or secular neochristian (Taylor has never confessed whether he still believes in the religion of his parents) he fails to realise that these Eurocrats have taken Christian morality to its ultimate consequences (forgive your enemies, never allow yourself to hate them, turn the other cheek if they attack you, etc.).

While I watched the entire Taylor video, I didn’t read the recent Counter-Currents article on the massacre. I merely read the first two comments in that thread, where the first thing a couple of commenters did was say ‘Merry Christmas’.

Apparently, neither the commenters nor the author of that article are aware that it was precisely that Christianity that they still celebrate at Christmas that caused not only the massacre, but the previous massacres perpetrated by the jihadis that Taylor mentions in his video, and the massacres that other sandniggers will perpetrate in the future! Just as George Washington and the other Founding Cucks enabled Jewish infection in their brand new country, so the religion that conquered the Aryan soul has imposed on whites Semitic commandments diametrically opposed to the two commandments of our Tablets of the Law.

No, there was no point in reading either C-C’s article or the rest of the comments. The only thing to reiterate is that those on the racial right are neo-normies, not 21st-century National Socialists who have woken up to the real world.

Categories
Art Neanderthalism Welfare of animals

‘Emergency’

I was going to post another Might is Right instalment today but I got to thinking about my recent exchanges with Benjamin in various threads, and I feel I should say a few things.

I sometimes check the number of comments on old threads, back when WDH was hosted for free by WordPress, and I’m surprised that there were threads with dozens of comments. Since I started criticising American white nationalism, calling it deficient compared to German National Socialism, and shifting my paradigm from regarding the Christian problem as infinitely more serious than the Jewish problem, the visitor traffic has collapsed.

This is compounded by the fact that, as an immense admirer of Hitler myself, the German Chancellor’s sensitivity to art and animal welfare is something that simply doesn’t exist on the American racial right.

The immense dilemma I find myself in is that this sort of thing cannot be explained by pure reason, say, by solid race realist articles like the ones Jared Taylor has been publishing for decades. It has more to do with what we might call emergent psychogenics, which I have already discussed in Day of Wrath (a book that is nothing more than a translation of some chapters of my trilogy).

Psychogenic emergency is either felt or not. Or rather: either one belongs to a higher psychoclass, or one doesn’t belong to it. As I said, it is not something that can be demonstrated by pure reason. On seeing a work of art, such as the Lorraine canvas I saw on my last trip to London, the museum visitor either feels the emergent aesthetics compared to the architectural Neanderthalism of the largest city in Europe, or he feels nothing at all. Those 18th-century Englishmen like Henry Hoare who were aesthetically emergent even designed their gardens in imitation of the Italian painter’s architecture. Either you feel art or you don’t.

Incidentally, the bridge in Stourhead’s garden whose image I posted in June in this article was also used by Kubrick in one of the scenes in Barry Lyndon: a film whose images were inspired by canvases of the period like very few films I have seen. (Perhaps the sole exception is 1956’s Lust for Life in which the director used the actual sites in Holland, Belgium and the French countryside where Vincent van Gogh lived.)

The fourteen words have to do with aesthetics, in that the white race is the only truly beautiful race from the point of view of the Gods of Olympus. The other issue is ethics, the four words, Eliminad todo sufrimiento innecesario. Like great art, you either feel the four words or you don’t. Either you are a Neanderthal (Benjamin sent me an email today describing experiments on rabbits that I don’t even want to describe) or you are an overman like Hitler, and Göring who forbade tormenting those animals.

The sad truth is that most American racialists have not reached the psychogenic level of the Führer in terms of ethics and aesthetics, and that those emergent qualities cannot be induced by arguments, criticisms or diatribes like the ones I have used in this blog. Either you start psychogenically emerging as a child or an adolescent (cf. Kubizek’s memoirs of Hitler when they were both teenagers) or you won’t.

Categories
Nature Welfare of animals

Thaw

As some of my regular visitors know, what I fear most in the event of the Aryan man becoming extinct is the fate of the animals at the hands of the more primitive versions of humans that would survive him, which in my soliloquies I call ‘Neanderthals’.

I have been watching amazing videos of a whale shark asking for help (oh how can it do so without verbal language!) from divers to remove a piece of rubbish attached to her body. Yesterday I saw other similar videos of a whale that also had rubbish stuck to him and another one with some orcas that got entangled in a human net. The non-verbal way in which these creatures call for help is striking! It is obvious that they have an intelligence of their own; and the compassionate instinct to help an entangled animal, a task that cost divers hours of hard work, is absent in non-Aryans.

The rescuers of these animals are always Aryans. If the race disappears, we can imagine the fate that awaits the animals on a planet that only the coloureds would inhabit. For example, we can already imagine the Chinese inheriting the Earth if the Aryan suicide is consummated…

The catastrophes we have predicted will only affect human societies: the collapse of fiat currencies and the energy devolution resulting from the gradual depletion of oil fields. But I have not discussed global warming on this site.

Yesterday I was watching videos about the melting of permafrost across the Arctic (e.g. this one). The social catastrophes we have talked about would not exterminate Homo sapiens, let alone the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. But if the permafrost in Siberian Russia, Canada and the rest of the Arctic melts, the methane that the microbes would expel into the atmosphere would cause the Earth to warm up to a runaway greenhouse effect.

So if the Aryan goes extinct, Nature itself could take care of exterminating the surviving Neanderthals.

That’s my Good News, my gospel! Remember that the four words are not only Gens alba conservanda est but Eliminad todo sufrimiento innecesario: whereas only the most psychogenically emergent Aryans have behaved nobly towards our biological cousins. If Aryan man sinned in repudiating Heydrich and Himmler’s noble project of ethnic cleansing, Nature herself would see it through.

As Savitri Devi observed, you cannot denazify the Gods.

Categories
Martin Kerr

Edited

I have edited the featured article ‘The Wall’ originally posted on January 1st. It originally contained this sentence:

How many are legitimate heirs, like Savitri, of the religion bequeathed to us by the avatar of Vishnu? None that I know of, if we take into account Martin Kerr’s definition of National Socialism: a way of life devoted body and soul to the fulfilment of the sacred words!

Emphasis added. I have changed that sentence to this one:

How many are legitimate heirs, like Savitri, of the religion bequeathed to us by the avatar of Vishnu? Apparently there are two of us, if we consider Martin Kerr’s definition of a genuine National Socialist: a way of life dedicated body and soul to the fulfilment of sacred words.

The reason for this change is the recent visit I received from a European, as we saw in the entries ‘Ancient Mexico’ and ‘Teotihuacan’. So I have reposted ‘The Wall’ this August day, with the above modification.

Taking vows before the sacred tree.

If you want to take your vows and become the third priest of the sacred words, you know the price…

Gens alba conservanda est

Eliminemos todo sufrimiento innecesario