American racial right Autobiography Deranged altruism Theology

I don’t think your Lord exists

by Gaedhal

Schopenhauer famously said that the sun sees so much carnage on its daily course that it were better if the earth, like the moon, were still in a crystalline state and not able to call forth the phenomenon of life.

I agree with the carnage bit. I disagree with the notion that a crystalline dead universe is superior to a universe with life in it.

Just personally I think that not existing forever is an unimaginable concept. Hitchens said that every attempt to imagine the extinction of our own personal consciousness fails. Alan Watts, a non theist, said that not existing forever is not an experience that you can have. The atheist Epicurus said that death does not concern us. Where we are, death is not; and where death is, we are not. Thus, as opposed to Benatar, I propose, instead, making the best of a bad situation. Existing on this Hell Planet of parasitism and predation is a bad situation.

However, Schopenhauer’s point that no decent God would claim this Hell Planet of predation and parasitism as his own handiwork still stands. The parasites and predators on this planet are no compliment to any decent God. By believing in this Lord of theirs, it sets you up to be duped in so many other ways. If you can buy that today with its rapes, murders, tortures, shootings, stabbings, car deaths, starvations, amputations, acts of paedophilia etc., was created by their Lord, then you can also buy Matt Chandler’s crocodile tears and his extremely sketchy outline of the events that transpired.

There is much more to this story than meets the eye.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: Matt Chandler is a pastor of a church in Texas.

Gaedhal hit the nail on the head when he said ‘by believing in this Lord of theirs, it sets you up to be duped in so many other ways. As long-time visitors to this site know, I only woke up to racial issues after I turned fifty springs in this world. Before that, I devoted myself to understanding a family tragedy caused, first and foremost, by my father.

After decades of thinking about it, I concluded that once you accept astronomical doublethink, as in Christianity with the doctrine of eternal damnation and the punisher being a god who supposedly loves us infinitely, you can believe anything.

I am not going to detail how Puebla Catholicism corrupted my father’s mind in the 1930s and how that is related to a tragedy that happened in the 1970s. Anyone who wants to know about that can read my autobiographical books. But after decades of pondering the subject I see clearly that the original sin lies in the religion of our parents.

That’s why I have hope…

If the original sin is Christianity, the white race can still be saved. Serious would be, as Kevin MacDonald seems to suggest, that universalist altruism is genetic among whites. I don’t think it is, because whites weren’t bananas before Christianity. It was Christianity that made them crazy, like methamphetamine makes crazy those drug addicts we see in the TV series Breaking Bad.

If deranged altruism is genetic, the Aryan is doomed to extinction. If instead it is malware that has taken hold of the Aryan psyche, it is possible to remove the malware from our souls through Nietzschean transvaluation (which includes ‘secular’ values back to Greco-Roman values). See why The Wests Darkest Hour is the only thing worthwhile among the racialist forums? No one but us is proposing the formula Umwertuung aller Werte as the salvation of our souls.

Nota bene: Today I won’t add another article on Deschner’s history of Christianity because I am still very busy correcting the syntax of the book Daybreak.

Day of Wrath (book) Extermination of the Neanderthals Hate

Am I a psychopath?

I would like to add a postscript to my previous post about the book On Exterminationism. Yesterday Autisticus Spasticus asked me:

César, there’s something I’ve wanted to ask you for quite some time. Do you, personally, have it in you to kill non-white women and children in cold blood? Imagine they were lined up before you, black and arab women and children, sobbing, pleading desperately for their lives as you level a machine gun at them. Could you bring yourself to do it? I’m genuinely curious. Have you ever given it much consideration?

The best way to answer him and others who ask me similar questions is through an experiment of the imagination, already mentioned in the final pages of another of my books:

It is enough to see the photographs of mammals in laboratory experiments that are carried out throughout North America and Europe to perceive that the human being is truly a wicked species. I will not incur the rudeness of adding those photographs in this text: a task I leave to my readers.

My exterminating fantasies would not seem unhealthy if we do another thought experiment. In Dies Irae I quoted a non-fiction book by Arthur Clarke where he talked about the ‘judgment from the Stars’ that earthlings could experience. If we imagine that in real life someone similar to a Karellen visited our planet, what is the first thing he would see from his distant silver ships, far above the human tingling? Urban spots. Industries that destroy the environment and, bringing his cameras closer, abject human misery and inconceivable suffering of the other species that share the planet with us. If, as in Clarke’s novel, the visitor also possessed machines to open a visual window to the past to study the species, he would perceive that, besides the hell that the naked apes subject their cousins, through history and prehistory they had behaved in an absolutely horrendous way with their own children. It does not hurt to summarize the revelations of the previous pages.

With his machines to literally see the human past this hypothetical extraterrestrial would be taken aghast by the magnitude of infanticide: nine percent of all human births. He would see thousands of young children slaughtered ritually, offered to the goddess of Babylon. He would see the infant sacrifices of the Pelasgians, the Syrians, the sacrifices in Gezer and in Egypt of the centuries that the earthlings call 10th to 8th before Christ. And let’s not talk about what the visitor would see with his machines when focusing on the ancient Semites of Carthage, where the burning of living children ordered by their own parents reached levels that surpassed the exclamation of Sahagún. Something similar could be seen by our visitor about other Phoenicians, Canaanites, Moabites, Sepharvaim, and ancient Hebrews: who in their origins offered their firstborn as a sacrifice to their gods. With his magic to see our past, the alien visitor would learn that both the exposure and the abandonment of infants continued in Europe until a council took action against the custom of leaving the children to die in the open.

With technology based on unimaginable principles the visitor would also see much worse behaviour in the lands of coloured people: thousands of babies, mostly women, abandoned in the streets of ancient China, and how those babies that were not abandoned were put in cold water until they died. He would see how in feudal Japan the baby was suffocated with wet paper covering her nose and mouth; how infanticide was systematic in the feudal Rajputs in India, sometimes throwing the living children to the crocodiles; and how in pre-Islamic Arabia they buried alive not a few new-borns. The visitor would also see that the sub-Saharan inhabitants of Africa killed their children much more frequently than other races did. He would even see that the sacrifice of children in Zimbabwe was practiced as recently as the beginning of the century that the earthlings call the 20th century. The window to the past would also make visible the incredibly massive slaughter of infants among the natives of the countless islands of Oceania, New Guinea and even more so among the extremely primitive aborigines of Australia, Tasmania and Polynesia. He would realize that in the American tribes, including the redskins, infanticide continued at a time when the practice had been abandoned in Europe. The same happened not only in Central American and South American tribes, but also in the civilizations prior to the Spanish conquest: where the ritual sacrifice of women and children suggests that they did it out of pure sadism. Finally, the visitor would see how, after the Conquest, the sacrificial institution of the Mesoamerican and Inca Indians was forbidden only to be transferred to the animals in the so-called santería in times when our visitor no longer has to use his devices to open the Complete Book of History and Prehistory of the species he studies.

It’s clear where I want to go… If it is legitimate for this hypothetical extraterrestrial to remove from the face of the Earth a newly-arrived species whose haughtiness blinds them from seeing their evil ways, how can it be pathological for an earthling to arrive at identical conclusions? Just because, unlike the visitor, he lacks technological power? The sad truth is that the infanticidal passion and cruelty of primitive humans have not been atoned, only transferred to our cousins.

In answering questions like those of Autisticus Spasticus, it is essential not to fall into stereotypes like the films that Jews make about Nazis.

Unlike the archetypical Hollywood Nazi, in the real world the scenario I imagine would mean liberating various zones in the US, and, from there, launching calls for white males who want to fight in the HRWs, and white women who want to procreate, to flee to the liberated zones—away from the archipelago of Gomorrahite cities that are about to be punished. Once those whites who want to survive take their families to the liberated zones, cut off electricity to the degenerates and deprive them of oil. It is obvious that those who stay in Gomorrah would start dying like flies. (In the sacred book of the Jews it is Yahweh who punishes and exterminates; in the HRWs it will be the Aryan man who does it, whose religion will no longer be Judaic but panentheistic.)

As you can see, none of this resembles the stereotype of the Hollywood Nazi, especially if all this is done in the name of the 4 words, like the alien of our Gedankenexperiment. On the contrary: it is something that could be done with the utmost coolness and preferably without eye contact with those who are about to be exterminated, or with as little contact as possible. I call what the Gomorrahites would suffer necessary suffering (remember that the four words say something else: eliminate all unnecessary suffering).

It’s the same as starting to exterminate the gangs of killer whales that torture a whale calf for hours by drowning her slowly. By shooting them with Apache helicopters, the object wouldn’t be to make them suffer, but to eliminate the whale calf’s unnecessary suffering. That the gang of orcas would suffer during the slaughter (let’s imagine that even one would evade the rockets and survive, traumatised) is what I call necessary suffering. Needless to say that after exterminating the offending species there will be no need to use the Apaches in the oceans.

With the Neanderthaloid versions of humans we would proceed in exactly the same way. The distinction between necessary and unnecessary suffering is fundamental to understanding our point of view.

Democracy Evil Theology

On solving the problem of evil

by Gaedhal

I get the ‘Hell Planet’ idea from Dr. Robert Morgan who is an explicit atheist and an explicit determinist and an explicit ‘eliminative materialist’. I on the other hand am a bit more of a Sheldrakean, on these points. Morgan has read Sheldrake and rejects him, which is his right so to do. He has also read the antinatalist pessimist atheists Benatar and Schoppenhauer more in-depthly than I have.

Pine Creek Doug once was asked that if an asteroid were inbound that would destroy the Earth, and if he could press a button to restart abiogenesis and evolution on another planet he would do so. He initially said: ‘yes’ but then said ‘no’. I would say ‘yes’… However, in so doing, I will be fully cognizant of my calling into being all manner of evils: plagues, famines, paedophilia etc.

However, I would hope, that at the end of it all, intelligent sentient beings might find a way to solve the problem of evil. Instead of antinatalism, solving the problem of evil is a better use of our time because, for all we know, the Cosmos might call forth the phenomenon of life somewhere else. Antinatalism doesn’t actually solve the problem of evil. It just turns this small corner of the Cosmos into a sterile place devoid of life. Benatar wants eventually for mankind to nuke itself out of existence. I hope that I am not misrepresenting his position. Type in ‘Alex O Connor / antinatalism’ into YouTube for a discussion between Benatar and O Connor. I would link to it but I don’t want to. Antinatalism terrifies me. I want to give it a wide berth.

I am not a classically theistic God, which is why it is okay for me to press the abiogenesis button on an Earth 2 somewhere in the Cosmos.

However, as Dr. Robert Morgan correctly points out: a classically theistic God who would use evolution to bring about life would be a sadist. Robert Morgan links people to videos of animals being eaten alive. This truly is a Hell Planet, and if a classically theistic God created it then He is evil by our reckoning; he is a sadist and a voyeur by our reckoning. With the misotheists, we should hate such a God.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note:

Sharp theological thoughts by Gaedhal! Regarding what he says, ‘Instead of antinatalism, solving the problem of evil is a better use of our time…’, I can’t help but remember how my religion of the four words, that dovetails perfectly with Hitler’s panentheism, is the solution to the problem of evil.

These days, as I said, I have been very lightly revising my Daybreak Press books to publish them as PDFs. But I will make an exception for most of what I have written in my mother tongue. For that, it will be necessary to obtain the printed volumes (fortunately they have not been censored, and I plan to translate them into English). It is the only way to understand how, in the end, we plan to solve the problem of evil, at least on Earth.

‘However, in so doing, I will be fully cognizant of my calling into being all manner of evils… I would hope, that at the end of it all, intelligent sentient beings might find a way to solve the problem of evil’, said Gaedhal above. I would add that, if there is one word that defines my religion, it is exterminationism but obviously we do not mean all creatures on Earth. Hence I prefer the term ‘panentheism’ to the term ‘pantheism’ that Weikart used in his books on Hitler.

Gaedhal now changes the subject to more mundane matters:

______ 卐 ______

Jordan Peterson is a peculiar fellow. He is too intelligent to believe in the supernatural claims of Christianity himself; however it is extremely lucrative for him to give the impression that one day he might very well get down on his knees and start pleasing Jesus.

The Bible, which is, as Hector Avalos puts it, an outmoded obsolete worthless document, Peterson constantly pours praise on. I am sure that Peterson is intelligent enough to privately concur with Avalos in his heart as to the utter worthlessness of the Bible. However, heaping laud upon this outmoded and obsolete compendium of tawdry superstition is extremely lucrative. Peterson cynically praises the Bible for shekels. Sam Harris called Peterson out on this in one of his debates with him. What Peterson does for money Trump, Nixon and Reagan—crypto-atheists in my view—do for political power.

This is what makes Christianity so dangerous. Christians are self-avowed ‘fools for Christ’s sake’—and fools and their money are easily parted as Peterson has found out, to his profit. Christians are a self-avowed flock of sheep that cynical demagogues can easily stampede in whatever political direction they want their herd of voters to be stampeded into.

If you believe in democracy—and I don’t—then democracy cannot function properly when you have such a stupefying religion as Christianity poisoning and warping the minds of the electorate.

David Irving Heinrich Himmler True Himmler (book)

True Himmler, chapter 2

Editor’s Note: Below are excerpts from the second chapter, ‘Flawed’, of David Irving’s book on Heinrich Himmler (available through Irving’s bookstore here).

Like water splashes, the relics of Himmler’s life lie splattered around the globe. His household papers and some diaries are in Russia, his childhood epistles to his parents are stolen property in Israel, and his photo albums in Stanford, California – taken illegally by American Red Cross girls billeted in his lakeside villa in Gmund; the scores of letters to his mistress ‘Hedwig’ are owned by a soldier’s son who lived in Chestnut Street, Chicago, where we read them. Each tells us something about Himmler’s character: The Nordic runes he used to sign those letters… the manner in which he wrote a neat caption for each photo in ink using a Gothic script that is all but illegible now to his countrymen…

His interests were manifold. In early years he set aside time to immerse himself in archeology, in the occult, and the religions of the Far East. For Christmas 1938, he sent over to Hitler a book entitled Death and Immortality in the World View of Indo-Germanic Thinkers. He hoped it would mark a high point in the festivities, and signed it personally for his ‘Fuhrer’… In May 1938 Himmler despatched a year-long expedition to Tibet, headed by German zoologist Ernst Schäfer, to explore the story of a primaeval Germanic race which had inhabited the region.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: With the benefit of hindsight, and taking into account what I said yesterday about Robert Morgan’s interpretation of the American Civil War, it seems clear to me that the German expedition shouldn’t have been directed at distant Tibet, but at the United States of America, home of the Jewish golden calf in NY, Hollywood and media that would so influence the war, and of the Anglo-Saxon traitors who, led by Lincoln, had already waged a fierce anti-white war on the other side of the Atlantic.

______ 卐 ______

The British lies about Himmler, and his unseemly end, would outlast many who believed them. We shall find a different picture of Himmler emerging from the pages which follow…

SS Standartenführer (Colonel) Hans Lingner, commander of the 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division was heard to remark months before the end in 1945: ‘It is generally said that Himmler is hated by the people. But that isn’t the case at all.’ He had heard of a speech Himmler once made with great applause to armament workers. ‘Afterwards even the most plain-spoken fellows went up and asked him to shake hands with them, it really came straight from their hearts. He’d be the right man for post-war. I believe, too, that he’d be able to make the change­ over. He would be able to see that everything has gone to the devil anyway, that our first duty now is to maintain the bare existence of the people…’

Carl Jacob Burckhardt remarked at the League of Nations to Roger Makins, Britain’s man in Geneva, a few weeks later that Himmler was ‘disgusted by the anti-Semitic outrages.’ Makins learned that Hitler too was ‘not pleased’ by the Kristallnacht… Himmler’s chief of staff Karl Wolff would say years later that he had become harder only as the Second World War progressed. He was an amiable human being who became what he was only as a result of the war’s rising climate of barbarism and brutality, said Wolff. His concern for his men was genuine, but carefully calculated. He knew how to ingratiate by a display of compassion and understanding…

There was one aspect on which all the sources agree. Himmler acquired no personal wealth. Even army officers admitted that he was incorruptible, and stood out from others in that respect. ‘He is the only man about whom you don’t hear anything bad,’ Major-General Bock von Wülfingen was heard admitting, to nods of approval from his fellow generals late in 1944. ‘He has neither lived in luxury, nor in great style.’ Himmler regarded financial wrong-doers as the worst, and punished them ‘mercilessly’ (as his bodyguard Josef Kiermaier put it). ‘Money spoils the character,’ he was heard to scoff. It was a paradox that Himmler, whose Operation Reinhardt from 1942 to 1943 would involve robbery on an unparalleled scale, should display anger at the petty thieving of others…

Himmler had bought a small lakeside villa at Gmund after the National Socialists came to power, on the shores of the Tegernsee lake in Bavaria; it cost around 65,000 Reichsmarks, not an impossibly large sum, but his income was only modest and it took him six years to clear the debt. Visiting him in 1938, his Ordonnanzoffizier Diether Lönholdt found the villa set some way back from the road, on the southern exit from Gmund; it was a two-storey building, with Himmler’s office on the ground floor. Josef Kiermaier, the police bodyguard who joined his staff in June 1934, often saw him there – usually in the summer or at Christmas. ‘Staying down at Gmund the Reichsführer lived with his wife and daughter, whom he adored,’ recalled Kiermaier. The Himmlers were popular with their neighbours: ‘His modesty and simplicity in dealing with the locals helped him gain their respect’…

In peacetime Berlin, Himmler’s routine had hardened. He was at his desk at ten, and his adjutant began showing in visitors – a late visitor would find his appointment cancelled – not just postponed. At two p.m. he and his circle ate in the canteen, a simple repast after which he worked on until eight p.m.; after supper he carried on until one or two in the morning. He recorded his punishing routine remorselessly in his diary, and once even repeated it to his mistress. ‘He’s a glutton for work,’ grumbled an army major, ‘and expects the same from others. They don’t have any private life.’ Asked where Himmler lived, the major revealed: ‘In Berlin, only he’s always rushing around elsewhere, he is totally driven, he works almost more than the Fuhrer.’ (The awed almost is to be remarked upon)…

______ 卐 ______


Editor’s Note: A true ‘priest of the fourteen words’!


______ 卐 ______

‘Foreign countries,’ said Meyer, with a trace of pride in his voice, ‘have realised that Himmler is top dog in the Reich. Goring is just a child.’ Kurt Meyer is now seen as one of the finest division commanders that Germany produced; when he died in 1961 fifteen thousand people attended his funeral in Hagen.

Barely noticed amongst his major sins, Himmler had a minor flaw. He displayed not even a passing interest in the arts. Risking disfavour at the highest level, he made no secret of his view that two hours could be spent more profitably than in the concert hall or theatre. This did not escape Hitler’s notice, and in 1945 he dismissed Himmler’s ambitions with one crushing remark: He is totally unmusikalisch – unmusical (or perhaps, ‘tone-deaf’). Albert Speer shared this judgment, saying, ‘He was unable to appreciate art.’

As a full-grown man, Himmler did have some friends – they came to visit, went hunting with him, or succumbed to his passion for fishing. His family albums have pictures of punting parties on their local lake – Himmler clad in felt hat and Lederhosen; Himmler seated on a flower-decked meadow at a picnic surrounded by family and friends, days before the ruinous attack on the Soviet Union. Shown the caricatures appearing in enemy propaganda, of Himmler the hangman, he just chuckled.

In fact he was not devoid of a certain grim sense of humour. At the end of November 1940, he joined a shooting Party in the Sudetenland, including Alexis Aminoff of the Swedish foreign ministry. On the first day, as they set out from Berlin in the customary large limousines, he stressed to Aminoff, seated next to him, the common Nordic bonds linking Germans and Swedes, and the many successful intermarriages including that of Goring for example. Unaware of Himmler’s identity, Aminoff countered that the Swedish press was free, and not in the grip of a secret police, whereupon Himmler identified himself with that jovial grin. The Swede weaseled his way out – he found this hard to believe, surely the real Himmler was always attended by a large bodyguard? ‘Inside Germany,’ the Reichsführer assured him, ‘I have no need of any bodyguard.’

The Party proceeded to wreak due slaughter on some three hundred cock pheasants on an estate formerly belonging to Archduke Frederick of Austria, and then at a shoot near Magdeburg, where one hundred boar(s) and sixty deer were no less sportingly put to death.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: Hitler was astonished to learn of these hunting escapades of Himmler and others. The Reichsführer may have been a priest of the 14 words, but Hitler was the priest of the 4 words as well (‘Eliminate all unnecessary suffering’).

Extermination of the Neanderthals Hate Mauricio (commenter) Transvaluation of all values

Responding to Jamie

by Mauricio

You need to transvalue your views on Hate and War.

Hate is a source of pure, raw power. The best source of Power.

Aryans need to re-learn how to tap into that source and use it effectively to destroy their enemies completely, forever.

It should be obvious by now, that in order for Aryans to continue to exist, all other human races have to die.

Seven billion humans must be exterminated. There is no other way.

And to accomplish that enormous, herculean, multi-generational task, the Aryan Man must adhere to a religion of infinite Hatred.

The Aryan Man must become a remorseless, relentless, genocidal mass-murderer of non-Whites and White traitors, or he will cease to exist; or Beautiful Eyes will disappear forever.

Therefore he must wage War against Non-whites mercilessly.

War is Chaos, and Chaos is Nature’s way of determining who is Strongest.

Hatred is Strength, and Strength is Power.

To win the War, Aryans must religiously Hate their non-Aryan enemies enough to carry out a Hundred Year Race War of Extermination of 7 Billion. Infinite Hatred.

Kill all sub-humans until there is no more dark skin and dark eyes on this Earth.

I can’t explain it any simpler than this.

Blood Purity will bring the ‘End of Unnecessary Suffering’.

Anything else will inevitably lead to the extinction of White Beauty.

Anything else means Whites were not fit to exist.

Carl Gustav Jung Extermination of the Neanderthals Mauricio (commenter) Savitri Devi William Pierce

Pallas Athena

Mauricio’s words yesterday, that he will echo Savitri’s:

… call with a resounding prayer worthy of the 4 words:
Death to America! Death to China! Death to Russia! Death to all nations!
Death to all the Subhuman Scum of this world!
May the Great Suffering come in our lifetimes!
May it bring the End of this long Cycle of Unnecessary Suffering!
May it bring the Beginning of a new Cycle of Necessary Struggle!

—remind me that Jung said that the ultimate archetypal symbol for wisdom was represented by goddesses like Pallas Athena. How is it? Let’s compare for a moment the best post-1945 racialist thinkers, Savitri and William Pierce.

While it is true that Pierce reached the highest heights a pro-Aryan could reach with Who We Are and The Turner Diaries, he failed to say in a non-fiction book that the vision of his Diaries, where billions are exterminated in a race war, is the noblest goal we can imagine as long as the surviving Aryans live up to the 4 words (‘eliminate all unnecessary suffering’).

Never forget the measures the Third Reich took against cruelty to animals! It is key information why the ultimate symbol of wisdom has to be represented by a compassionate woman, like Pallas Athena / Savitri Devi, in the darkest hour for the fair race that began in 1945.

Extermination of the Neanderthals Hate Human sacrifice Neanderthalism

Reply to Franklin Ryckaert

Hi Franklin,

I am pleased to see you commenting here once again. Although it seems an obvious contradiction what you tell me—:

So you are proud of your ‘exterminationism’, but at the same time you keep on complaining about the crimes of the Allies against Nazi Germany and about cruelty against children and animals. Is that not a contradiction?

—there really isn’t.

Have you read what I say in the fourth of my eleven books about pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and the clash of psychoclasses with the Europeans that destroyed it? If my books were already all translated into English, I would suggest you read them. In context, they explain the difference between ‘unnecessary suffering’ and ‘necessary suffering’, especially the last book (see, e.g., the translation of the final chapter of the fourth book here).

For example, from the point of view of the priest of ‘the four words’ (‘eliminate all unnecessary suffering’), the Carthaginians and their culture had to be exterminated so that those Semites would not be roasting their children alive (bibliographical references on the reality of infanticide can be found in another part of my book, translation: here). My exterminationist passion has to do precisely with compassion for those who suffer, especially animals and children at the mercy of human monsters, and the draconian measures that must be taken to save them from such unnecessary suffering.

But that to save them it is sometimes necessary to leave no gene upon gene of a race, no stone upon stone of their horrible civilisation (as happened in the Punic Wars—Carthago delenda est!), seems obvious to me. Otherwise, those Semites might even now be burning their children alive. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Mesoamerican civilisation, which lasted three thousand years, was fortunately destroyed by the Europeans. But even before the Mesoamerican civilisation, the Peruvian Indians committed atrocious human sacrifices, as I reported a year ago (here).

That destroying one of these cultures makes those who belong to a lower psychoclass (say, the Carthaginian Semites, the Amerindians) suffer at the time of the Conquest is not a matter of doubt. Nevertheless, those conquests represented necessary suffering to save their children, literally, from the torment of the flames. See for example what I wrote about the Maya in one of my eleven books (English translation: here).

It all has to do with the distinction between necessary suffering (the Spanish Conquest made some Amerindians suffer, although it saved others) and unnecessary suffering (e.g., it’s unnecessary to martyr cows at the slaughterhouses). It may seem paradoxical, but my exterminationist passion has to do with my compassion for those who unnecessarily suffer because of others.

In a nutshell, the overman’s hatred of what he calls ‘Neanderthals’ is directly proportional to his love for those who suffer.

Daybreak (book) Daybreak Publishing Deranged altruism Liberalism

Liberalism as a heretical movement

Yesterday I changed the subtitle of this site by replacing the word ‘fourteen’ with ‘sacred’. Thus I also include the four words (to understand the latter the visitor would have to familiarise himself with my eleven books). Yesterday the thought also came to me that liberalism, which is now in its final metastasis in all former Christian countries (not only the originally Aryan countries, but Latin America as well), is ultimately a heresy.

As we have said several times, the Christian notion of the equality of men in the eyes of God was transformed, after the American and French Revolutions, into the equality of men under the law. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, this was transmuted in the US into equality for blacks and women; and, in the new century, into using the power of the State to denigrate the white male and achieve—at last!—equity.

The secular psychosis of today’s world only affects those countries that were once traditional Christian. Ethno-suicidal liberalism doesn’t affect the billions under Islam, the Chinese regime or the Indian people who still embrace Hinduism. However, that doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is legitimate. It means that a heretical faction of traditional Christianity, insofar as it secularised the gospel message (i.e., secularised the inversion of values in the New Testament), has taken root in all former Christian countries.

I have already discussed this in ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’ which can be read on pages 181-184 of Daybreak. But my initiative to call ‘heretics’ secular liberals, whose most extreme form today are the ‘woke’ people, came to me yesterday. That, heretics, is what they really are. The image of St. Francis is explained in the referenced article from Daybreak: a book which, by the way, remains unavailable in printed form as we haven’t raised the funds to solicit the services of a printer that won’t deplatform us.

Adolf Hitler Aryan beauty Galileo Galilee Genuine spirituality Metaphysics of race / sex Nature Richard Wagner Roger Penrose

‘Time here becomes space’

Sir Roger Penrose, born in 1931, is a British mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science and Nobel laureate in physics. I recently mocked the old German philosophers’ trick of obscuring prose to start philosophical cults, as in the case of Kant. As Leszek Kołakowski said at the beginning of his monumental demolition of Marxist theory, Hegel’s ideas had already been developed earlier but in simpler language: language whose aim was to make metaphysical ideas comprehensible. That’s the way to go, rather than the artifice of deliberately obscuring the language so that philosophical ‘science’ cannot escape the walls of university scholasticism.

One of the things I like about contemporary philosophers is that they write or speak in a way that makes us understand complex ideas, even the most abstract metaphysics. In the film A Brief History of Time Penrose said, ‘I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it’s not somehow just there by chance… Some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along—it’s a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe. I think that there is something much deeper about it’.

A year ago in my post ‘Between Ice and Fire’ I concluded: ‘The dialectic of the song of ice and fire in the universe is the dilemma of whether the universe is to cool down eternally due to unnecessary suffering, or whether it is worth returning to the primal fire that makes Being explode again in countless stars…’

But yesterday I got a surprise in this YouTube interview. Penrose mentions something that had never occurred to me.

Once in the very distant future, where there are no more corpses of stars, and not even black holes that evaporate with time (remember Stephen Hawking’s phrase: ‘black holes are not so black’), leaving only protons in an expanding universe, if time ceases to make sense—then space, in our Newtonian sense, will cease to make sense. The moment time ceases to exist, space ceases to exist as well! And that would mean a new beginning or big bang insofar as astronomically large space would be, without time, nothing: equivalent again to a mathematical point or a new singularity.

I hadn’t thought of that possibility. Will the dialectic of the song of ice and fire not end with the Night King’s dream, eternal oblivion because of our misconduct (other ‘darkest hours’ may well be happening in other galaxies due to similar, astronomic stupidities of sentient beings)? It reminds me of a line from Wagner when Gurnemanz takes Parsifal into the castle to see if he can be initiated, and tells him that in that journey time becomes space:

The king is returning from the bath;
the sun stands high;
now let me lead you to our hallowed feast;
for if you are pure, the Grail
will be meat and drink to you.

Who is the Grail?

That cannot be said;
but if you yourself are called to its service
that knowledge will not remain withheld.
And see!
I think I know you aright;
no earthly path leads to it,
and none could tread it
whom the Grail itself had not guided.

I scarcely tread,
yet seem already to have come far.

You see, my son,
time here becomes space.

See this exact moment in a performance of the Bayreuth Festival: here.

Penrose’s interview is fascinating, and in this other segment he says something I already knew intuitively: that those who fantasise about creating, say in a decade, artificial intelligence by mere computation will be in for a fiasco because consciousness is not algorithmic. As if that weren’t enough, in this other segment of the interview Penrose talks about beauty: an inherent structure in the universe and even in mathematics (remember, ‘mathematics is the alphabet with which God has written the universe’, said Galileo Galilei). This is why soulless computers, which cannot be indoctrinated by PC nuts, have chosen the white race as the most beautiful.

Since the old incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour on blogspot I had chosen a painting, Daybreak by Maxfield Parrish, to sum up in a single image my philosophy. When a woke bitch says that beauty is subjective, she’s ignoring that mathematicians have detected how certain symmetrical relationships explain her beautiful facial features. The Roman sculpture we can admire on the sidebar is not the same as a humanoid ape from our remote past: the universe is evolving biologically according to the mathematical beauty inherent in our tastes for sexual selection.

Only the eternal feminine will lead us to the Absolute. It is no wonder why uncle Adolf wanted so much for his close friends to travel with him to the annual Wagner Festival in Bayreuth. But very few understood him…

Seymour Millais Stone
Parsifal and the Grail

Genuine spirituality Neanderthalism Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 40


Chapter VII

Technical development
and ‘fight against time’

‘What a sun, warming the already old world
shall ripen the glorious labours again
who shone in the hands of virile nations?’

Leconte de Lisle (L’Anathème’, Poèmes Barbares)

It should be noted that the Churches, which theoretically should be the custodians of all that Christianity may contain in terms of eternal truth, [1] have only opposed scholars when the latter’s discoveries tended to cast doubt on, or openly contradicted, the letter of the Bible. (Everyone knows Galileo’s disputes with the Holy Office about the movement of the Earth.)

But there was never, to my knowledge, any question of their protesting against what seems to me to be the stumbling block to any unselfish research of the laws of matter or life; namely, against the invention of techniques designed to thwart natural purpose—what I shall call techniques of decadence. Nor did they denounce and condemn categorically, because of their inherently odious character, certain methods of scientific investigation such as all forms of vivisection.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: They don’t mind tormenting animals because they are Neanderthals; that is to say, they belong to an inferior psychoclass to ours: just as the pre-Columbian Amerinds belonged to an inferior psychoclass to that of the Spaniards. Is this passage from my Day of Wrath remembered (in the chapter ‘Sahagún’s exclamation’)?:

I don’t believe that there is a heart so hard that when listening to such inhuman cruelty, and more than bestial and devilish such as the one described above, doesn’t get touched and moved by the tears and horror and is appalled; and certainly it is lamentable and horrible to see that our human nature has come to such baseness and opprobrium that [Aztec] parents kill and eat their children, without thinking they were doing anything wrong.

Like Sahagún, the priestess and the priest of the four words (‘eliminate all unnecessary suffering’) throw our hands up in horror when the man of today torments defenceless creatures, to the point of precognizing the appearance of a Kalki who avenges them (and us). Savitri continues:

______ 卐 ______

They could not, given the anthropocentrism inherent in their very doctrine. I recalled above that the vision that the esoteric teaching of Christianity opened to its Western initiates in the Middle Ages did not go beyond ‘Being’. But no exoteric form of Christianity has ever gone beyond ‘man’. Each of them affirms and emphasises the ‘apartness’ of that being, privileged whatever his individual worth (or lack of it) whatever his race or state of health. Each one proclaims concern for his own best interest, and the help it offers him in the search for his ‘happiness’ in the hereafter, certainly, but already in this lower world. Each of them is concerned only for him, ‘man’, always man, contrary even to the ‘exoterisms’ of Indo-European origin (Hinduism; Buddhism) which insist on the duties of their followers ‘towards all beings’.

______ 卐 ______


Editor’s Note: Remember my post from exactly a month ago: This very Catholic painter asked me at a family dinner: “¿Por qué los animales todavía existen?” (‘Why do animals still exist?’).

______ 卐 ______

It is, I think, precisely to this intrinsic anthropocentrism that Christianity owes the short duration of its positive role in the West insofar as, despite all the horror attached to the history of its expansion, a certain positive role can be attributed to it. Once weakened and death, the influence of its true spiritual elite—that which, until perhaps the 14th or 15th century, was still attached to Tradition—nothing was easier for the European than to move from Christian anthropocentrism to that of the rationalists, theists or atheists; to replace the concern for the individual salvation of human ‘souls’, all considered infinitely precious, by that of the ‘happiness of all men’ at the expense of other beings and the beauty of the earth, due to the proliferation of the techniques of hygiene, comfort and enjoyment within the reach of the masses.

Nothing was easier for him than to continue to profess his anthropocentrism by merely giving it a different justification, namely, by moving from the notion of ‘man’, a privileged creature because he was ‘created in the image of God’—and, what is more, of an eminently personal ‘god’—to that of ‘man’: the measure of all things and the centre of the world because he’s ‘rational’, that is to say, capable of conceiving general ideas and using them in reasoning; capable of discursive intelligence hence of ‘science’ in the current sense of the word.

The concept of ‘man’ indeed underwent some deterioration in the process. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry has shown, the human individual, deprived of the character of ‘creature in the image of God’ that Christianity conferred on him, finally becomes a number within a pure quantity and a number that has less and less importance in itself. Understandably, everyone is sacrificed ‘to the majority’. But we no longer understand why ‘the majority’, or even a collectivity of ‘a few’, would sacrifice themselves or even bother for another one.

Saint-Exupéry sees the survival of a Christian mentality in the fact that in Europe, even today, hundreds of miners will risk their lives to try to pull one of them out of the hole where he lies trapped under the debris of an explosion. He predicts that we are gradually moving towards a world where this attitude, which still seems so natural to all of us, will no longer be conceivable.

Perhaps it is no longer conceivable in communist China. And it should be noted that, even in the West where it is still conceivable, the majorities are less and less inclined to impose simple inconveniences on themselves to spare one or two individuals, not of course of death but discomfort and even real physical suffering. The man who is most irritated by certain music, and who isn’t sufficiently spiritually developed to isolate himself from it by his asceticism, is forced to endure, in the buses, and sometimes even in the trains or planes, the common radio or the transistor of another traveller if the majority of passengers tolerate it or even more so enjoy it. They are not asked for their opinion.

One can, if one wishes, with Saint-Exupéry, prefer Christian anthropocentrism to that of the atheistic rationalists, fervent of experimental sciences, technical progress and the civilisation of well-being.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: This is true, and the best way to show it is to compare the most famous television series introducing the West: Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation (1969), Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man (1973) and Carl Sagan’s Cosmos (1980). Obviously, the series by Christian Clark has its problems, but at least he transmits the spirit of the Aryan through art. Bronowski and Sagan on the other hand present civilisation from the point of view of science and technology: something that betrays the essence of the Aryan and his notion of the numinous.

______ 卐 ______

It is a matter of taste. But I find it impossible not to be struck by the internal logic that leads, without a solution of continuity, from the first to the second and from the latter to Marxist anthropocentrism for which man—himself a pure ‘product of his economic environment’—taken en masse is everything; taken individually, worth only what his function in the increasingly complicated machinery of production, distribution and use of material goods for the benefit of the greatest number. It seems to me impossible not to be struck by the character quite other than revolutionary and of Jacobinism at the end of the 18th century; and Marxism (and Leninism), both in the 19th and in the 20th.


[1] Offered to the faithful through the symbolism of sacred stories and liturgy.