web analytics

Tag: 4 words

Categories
Exterminationism Hate Hellstorm Holocaust

Infinite hate

A recent comment from Simon Elliot in my previous post prompts me to say something before I close the comments section at midnight.

In one of my recent posts I said that my friend Paulina is the only person in the world who knows me. She’s very well aware of my exterminationist ideology and, as the ultra-feminine lady she is (there are not many like her in the West anymore), she couldn’t be more contrary to this unusual mix between NK and Bran.

The serious thing that I see in Western men today is that they are exactly like my friend Paulina. For example, Simon confessed to us that reading Tom Goodrich’s Hellstorm made him wish for the annihilation of all Aryans so that they won’t suffer again that hell inflicted by the Allies on the innocent German people.

Compare that yin stance with my Yang hatred, who have said on this site that if I had the power I would force all Americans to change their language to German in addition to destroying all their churches and institutions; and if they become reluctant to follow my new world order, besides all non-whites I would kill all white Christians too.

In a sense, and I don’t think anyone has understood me to date, the religion of the four words is the religion of infinite hatred: the primal fire that arises from the core of what Jung called the Self. See what Zweig wrote about Nietzsche to get a slight idea of what I mean.

I must keep this last entry short for posting it soon, as these last twelve hours before midnight, Mexico City time, will be the last chance for commenters to respond.

Categories
Exterminationism Friedrich Nietzsche

Between ice and fire

In the comments section where you can ask me anything before the end of the year, this morning I learned about a philosophical position. By following the links I came across a video by an ‘efilist’ that inspires the deepest nihilism. I also read ‘On efilism’ on the site The antinatalist, which explains it better:

Efilism addresses the objective fact that all lifeforms are a byproduct of a needless chemical reaction that occurred around a billion years ago.

Through unintelligent design, we evolved nervous systems some 500 million years ago; enabling us to feel pain. In turn, we became addicted to the burdens of chasing wants and needs in order to escape suffering.

Our nervous systems are hardwired to experience suffering far more than pleasure; both in intensity and duration. This brutal functionality of nature motivates all species to stay alive long enough to pass their DNA to the next generation. This would also explain why sex is so pleasurable.

Life evolved to torture and to be tortured. We are all victims and predators. There is no justification for nature’s cruel design. It’s wasteful, needless, and causes suffering. As Gary put it, ‘life is more friction than function’.

Efilists hold a sentiocentrist worldview. We recognise that the welfare of all living creatures (be it a frog or human) are of equal importance. This is juxtaposed to speciesism; which values one animal over another, which is irrational. We were all born to be slaughtered. No sentient being is immune. Without humans, other animals will continue to suffer just like they have been for millions of years.

The main difference between human and non-human species is our capacity to understand the futility of existence and right from wrong. We have the intellectual ability to see the meat grinder for what it really is. We are all in this rat maze together.

With knowledge comes responsibility. We must be janitorial, not wasteful in our endeavour to eliminate harm. As far as the red button scenario goes, I wouldn’t press it unless it painlessly and instantaneously evaporated all life on Earth—from men to microbes; including myself. And only if pressing that button had a guaranteed fail-safe that would prevent life from re-emerging.

I do have an idea on how we could end all life on Earth peacefully without dropping some mega bomb. In 100 years, we could have the technology to produce self-replicating nanobots. Each microscopic machine would be programmed to enter, then euthanize all lifeforms on Earth. After all life is erased, the nanobots would keep self-replicating with the goal of preventing the re-occurrence of life.

Efilism is a truly atheistic way of viewing reality. We don’t justify nature by believing in fairy tales nor do we worship nature and our own genetic codes.

This is the most extreme form of anti-life philosophy that we can imagine. It is true that I am an exterminationist, but only in the sense of ‘eliminating all unnecessary suffering’ (the four words) by dispatching the vast majority of humans due to their ‘Neanderthalism’, and a large number of animal species: the theme of my last two books in the eleven-book series From Jesus to Hitler.

Using the word I learned today, the Night King of Game of Thrones was apparently an efilist. HBO’s interpretation failed to honour George R.R. Martin as in The Song of Ice and Fire there is no arch-villain, not an absolutely evil Sauron as even in the evilest man there’s always a corner of good. And in the most benign man there is always a corner of evil. The HBO series failed to show the benign side of the Night King, falling precisely into the infantile Manichaeism that Martin criticised so much about The Lord of the Rings. The benign side of the Night King would be the noble goal of trying to forbid all suffering, however deluded he might be in my eyes.

Before the last season some Game of Thrones fans speculated on their YouTube channels that Bran the Broken was the Night King. But they were wrong: in the end it was revealed that they were two different entities. But on this website and in my last book I took up those speculations when trying to convey my idea: between efilism and a Nietzschean ‘Yes to life’ there is an Aristotelian golden mean.

Since this is the theme that for decades led me to come up with my philosophy of what I call ‘the extermination of Neanderthals’, presently I’m experiencing a flow of ideas that I can’t do justice to in a simple post. Those interested could start reading my texts that have been translated into English, especially Day of Wrath (see sidebar). But I’ll try to approach the subject in such a way that at least a slight taste in the mouth remains about what I have written in a more formal way.

Years ago I began to translate for this site several texts by the Spaniard Manu Rodríguez, who in more recent times abandoned all racism to dedicate himself to an idea that he already harboured since 1976: the New Age philosophy that revolves around the Gaia hypothesis. I mention Rodríguez because I was shocked by his abandonment of what I had been translating from his site. But it must be recognised that it is not easy to transvalue values: the magnet that Normieland exerts on those who are stunned in the middle of the Rubicon is formidable.

But the mention of Rodríguez is spot on. After his conversion to Gaia I wrote to him some time ago asking if he had read my exterminationist essays and he replied that it was surely a joke of mine (it is not). That was the end of our correspondence.

Now, the fact is that Rodríguez’s Gaia philosophy, which he writes in Spanish, is the perfect antithesis of efilism (‘nor do we worship Nature’ says the efilist in the long quotation above). My philosophy of the four words represents the moderate position between the two extremes, as Rodríguez naively accepts all earthly life, without considering the astronomical magnitudes of suffering that many living creatures experience (In my opinion, this contributed to Nietzsche losing his sanity. As he suffered greatly in his solitude, his ‘Yes’ to life short-circuited his mind.)

I said that ideas come to me in droves on a topic that is impossible to do justice to in a post, but rather it takes a series of entire books to convey the main idea. For the moment, the interested visitor could read the article ‘A postscript to my prolegomena’ that appears on pages 104-106 of my Daybreak (PDF on the sidebar).

But not even if someone read my eleven books means that we would agree, as what makes someone say a resounding ‘Yes’ to life (Bran the Broken); a resounding ‘No’ (the Night King), or somewhere in between depends on how you were treated in your childhood. In other words, this is a psychogenic problem, not an ideological one. The only thing that occurs to me at the moment, when most of my books are untranslated, is to recommend the first novel by Arthur Clarke, Against the Fall of Night, which takes us to a utopia in a very distant future where unnecessary sufferings have already been eliminated on Earth (although Clarke never uses the four words).

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…

Categories
Child abuse Hojas Susurrantes (book) Psychiatry Sigmund Freud

Nobody wanted to listen, 9

Ronald Laing and anti-psychiatry

What’s written above leads me to a corollary to my book How to Murder Your Child’s Soul. The universal stubbornness or blindness about the ravages resulting from parental abuse is the cause of the existence of psychiatry. Because parents are taboo, for more than a century the profession has tried to find the source of mental disorders on the wrong side, the body. Parents are not only publicly untouchable: we are not even allowed to see their actions in the solitude of our bedrooms. So, when uncontaminated by social underpinnings, a child dares to say that his parental kings go naked, society completely loses its cool and labels the sane one who has told the truth as crazy. Through the involuntary administration of drugs it assaults the brain not of the disturbed parents, but of the child (analogously, in the former Soviet Union it was the sanest people, the dissidents, who were injected with antipsychotics). This was the tragedy that I tried to denounce in my previous books, and it is perfectly explainable if we start from the fact that the whole society strives to be blind on this matter.

A world that insists on seeing things in photographic negative can only (1) attack the child victim, or (2) ignore the adult in a literary search for his lost time. If such a vision in photonegative didn’t exist, bio-psychiatry wouldn’t exist: our eyes and hearts would make us see the toll that abuse entails. Psychic disturbances would be the province of the psychologist, and it would be seen as nonsense that they would be the province of the physician. It is more than ironic that the greatest critics of psychiatry have contributed, with their blindness, to perpetuate the pseudoscience they try to debunk.

To explain this situation, I would like to mention that in 2005 an American wrote me a letter. After reading ‘Why Psychiatry is a False Science’ published as an appendix to my previous book (the article that Laurence Simon refused to publish), he complained that after so many decades of activism critics of psychiatry hadn’t made a dent in the public conscience. The key to understanding this is that the critics themselves suffer from a blind spot in the centre of their vision: something similar to the black strip that appears on pay-TV channels. If the critics refuse to see what is central, that parental abuse causes neuroses and psychoses, and if it is from this black strip that it is intended to enlighten others, it shouldn’t be surprising that the public conscience hasn’t awakened.

______ 卐 ______

 
Interpolated note for this site:

Exactly the same happens to white nationalists, as Mike has told us on this site: ‘Whatever you want to call it, thinking you can aid in saving the white race while, at the same time, bending the knee to Jewish deities (Yahweh and Yeshua) is some kind of combination of insane, dishonest, cowardly, naive, or very stupid. To bottom line it, it won’t and can’t work’.

I used Mike’s words to debunk MacDonald at the end of my Daybreak.

______ 卐 ______

 
To clarify this point, I will now refer to those professionals who didn’t suffer from this blind spot. Unlike Szasz and Breggin’s epigones, Lidz, Laing, Arieti and others pointed to parents as responsible for the psychoses in their patients. But even these and many other psychiatrists didn’t sympathise with the victim with the integrity and empathy that Miller and I do. For example, in the Letter I quoted Theodore Lidz:

I also find it very distressing that because the parents’ attitudes and interactions are important determinants of schizophrenic disorders, some therapists and family caseworkers treat parents as villains who have ruined the lives of their patients.

Although I barely caught a glimpse of it when I wrote the Letter, now I clearly see in this sentence the typical fears to speak, without mincing words, of parental guilt. By resisting saying that abusive parents are what they are—the villains in the child’s movie—Lidz advised taking the victim away from his parent. The difference with Miller cannot be greater, who advises keeping the aggressor away from home. What’s the point of moving, say, a pubescent girl raped by her father if the aggressor stays at home, waiting for the next little sister to grow up to molest her too? But sexual abuse isn’t the most common.

At the time of reviewing this chapter, as of mid-2008, twenty-eight nations have prohibited corporal punishment of children. The dates indicate the year the legislation came into force, starting with the country that provided the example: Sweden (1979); Finland (1983); Norway (1987); Austria (1989); Cyprus (1994); Latvia (1998); Croatia (1999); Bulgaria, Israel and Germany (2000); Iceland (2003); Romania and Ukraine (2004); Hungary (2005); Greece (2006), Chile, Holland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Uruguay and Venezuela (2007); Costa Rica, Italy, Japan, Malta and South Africa (2008). In Iceland, a country that illustrates Miller’s advice, the penalties for parents go up to three years in prison or a high fine. Note that these countries have omitted to include psychological and emotional abuse, which can be equally destructive, or even more so, since all bruises are internal (think of the Helfgott case and countless other schizogenic parents). Despite these legislative advances, these societies still cannot see other forms of undermining the emotional integrity of the children. Laing, who did focus on internal injuries, was closer to Miller than Lidz when he came to blatantly blame the maddening parents. But like Szasz, Laing philosophised from an ivory tower: cold and distant reason from the victim and his feelings, as was fashionable in the existential philosophy of his time. Much more reached the real person those who, without any philosophical ballast, addressed the issue of domestic violence: a revolution in psychology that began in the 1970s and 1980s and isn’t yet over. In the first chapter of The Divided Self (1960) entitled ‘The existential-phenomenological foundations for a science of persons’ Laing wrote:

It seems extraordinary that whereas the physical and biological sciences of it-processes have generally won the day against tendencies to personalize the world of things or to read human intentions into the animal world, an authentic science of persons has hardly got started by reason of the inveterate tendency to depersonalize or reify persons.

Laing refers to mental health professionals in particular and the social sciences in general.

If it is held that to be unbiased one should be ‘objective’ in the sense of depersonalizing the person who is the ‘object’ of our study, any temptation to do this under the impression that one is thereby being scientific must be rigorously resisted. Depersonalization in a theory that is intended to be a theory of persons is as false as schizoid depersonalization of others and is no less ultimately an intentional act. Although conducted in the name of science, such reification yields false ‘knowledge’. It is just as pathetic a fallacy as the false personalization of things.

In philosophising about the autobiographical genre, I came to these conclusions on my own. Animism and bio-reductionism are antithetical psychopathologies, one primitive and tribal and the other sophisticated and urban. And this objectifying people reminds me of the dehumanised language of the analyst Solbein: ‘Those are common clinical experiences’. [Interpolated note for this blog: See also Krist Krusher’s recent comment on this site.] Laing continues:

It is unfortunate that personal and subjective are words so abused as to have no power to convey any genuine act of seeing the other as person (if we mean this we have to revert to ‘objective’), but imply immediately that one is merging one’s own feelings and attitudes into one’s study of the other in such a way as to distort our perception of him. In contrast to the reputable ‘objective’ or ‘scientific’, we have the disreputable ‘subjective’, ‘intuitive’, or, worst of all, ‘mystical’. It is interesting, for example, that one frequently encounters ‘merely’ before subjective, whereas it is almost inconceivable to speak of anyone being ‘merely’ objective.

So far I’m in perfect agreement with Laing. Remember the passage of the two universes, the empirical and the interior; and that the existence of the subjective universe is so real that it is enough to think about our death to verify it [mentioned in the first part of the book]. However, Laing adds:

The greatest psychopathologist has been Freud. Freud was a hero. He descended to the ‘Underworld’ and met there stark terrors. He carried with him his theory as a Medusa’s head which turned these terrors to stone. We who follow Freud have the benefit of the knowledge he brought back with him and conveyed to us.

As I pointed out in my previous book, for Jeffrey Masson psychoanalysis was born as a betrayal of women. The Oedipus complex was nothing more than a grotesque attempt to cast guilt on the victims who came to Freud’s office to tell him stories of incest. Analytic theory is the diametrically opposite of wielding the head of the Medusa. If there is such a thing as the antithesis of the hero, that was Sigmund Freud: an ethnic Jew who, although he reached the threshold, was afraid to enter the Underworld and face pure terrors (remember my dreams when commenting on Giorgio de Chirico’s painting). Laing, an idol in my twenties, portrayed Freud in photographic negative and saw the dark as bright. Like many intellectuals of his day, Laing was seduced by the apotheosis of the Vienna quack, something in which Szasz was much more cautious.

When I reread Laing, I did so with a renewed mind after reading Masson, Szasz, and other critics of the psychoanalytic movement. In my rereading of the last chapter of The Divided Self I realised that Julie, one of Laing’s patients, was admitted to a psychiatric ward for almost a decade. If Laing himself hadn’t suffered from the scientific objectivity that he criticises, he would have empathised with Julie denouncing those who locked her up. True, in stark contrast to Szasz and Simon, Laing blamed mothers like Julie’s for their daughter’s psychosis. However, in The Divided Self he never made it clear that the mere fact of locking her up could aggravate her condition. In what I am close to Laing is that when reading his essay one is left under the impression that Julie’s mother, more than psychiatry, ‘murdered a girl’. These are the words of Julie speaking parabolically about herself: she meant that her mother murdered her tender soul. Now, the person Julie, not the object of Laing’s essay, needed to be taken away from the psychiatric hospital and from the mother who committed her; to take her to live far from her ‘murderer’. When she began her psychotic crisis at seventeen years old and said ‘a little girl was murdered’ Julie thought that she should inform the police about the crime.

Her delirium was closer to Miller’s posture than to the psychiatric that locked her up. The laws of a nation should seek to lock up the maddening parent, not the victim (who, in a state of florid psychosis, would have to be cared for in a non-repressive enclosure like the one that Laing presided over). In a just society that doesn’t see reality in the photonegative, this would naturally be done through the police. But in her chapter on Julie, Laing never suggests this. In fact, both the word victim and an exhortation of justice are the great absent in The Divided Self. Also, Laing doesn’t denounce the psychiatric re-victimisation of other women clearly maddened by their family. In another of his famous books, The Politics of Experience, he limits himself to reproaching society for misunderstanding psychoses. Sometimes Laing even seems to participate in the universal fear of touching the parent. Speaking of Julie’s mother, Laing mentions one of the fashionable concepts in the 1950s, the ‘schizophrenogenic mother’ but is quick to add that, fortunately in his opinion, there was no other ‘witch hunt’ in history: an equivocal comparison with women labelled witches centuries ago. If there is one thing the world needs, through the law that Miller outlines, it is to bring to justice every parent who murders children souls. The basic pathology of our society is that this crime, and this crime alone, must remain not only unpunished but invisible. For example, Silvano Arieti, Laing’s colleague across the Atlantic, talked a lot about psychotherapy in Interpretation of Schizophrenia. But he never proposed any social engineering to redress the problem of maddening parents; and he didn’t do so despite the fact that Arieti blames them for the psychotic state of his patients.

‘To my mother and father’ reads the dedication of Laing’s The Divided Self. ‘To my parents’, the dedication of Arieti’s Interpretation of schizophrenia (etymologically, schizophrenia means a divided self). Naturally, the most sophisticated thinkers of insanity also had parents. (In my next book we will hear a class about the problem of attachment with the perpetrator that explains the lukewarmness of Laing, Arieti and others.) Not until the middle of The Divided Self Laing speaks openly about abusive parents. In contrast, Miller and I do it from the first page of our writing, and passionately.

After reading The Divided Self, the best of Laing’s essays, I was convinced that there can be no such thing as a science of subjects. Seen from the outside, the subject inevitably becomes an object: an offense for those who want to speak with their own voice. This is precisely the foundational flaw of academic psychology. If science is the study of the empirical world there can be no such thing as a ‘science of persons’, only people writing about their lives. Although Laing had much more heart than Freud, and this puts him on a higher level to understand the tragedy of the person in crisis, he starts from the same objectivist position. His essays and those of Lidz are, at best, a solidary approach to the disturbed subject. It’s funny that in The Divided Self Laing quotes Sartre: ‘I am not fond of the word psychological. There is no such thing as the psychological. Let us say that one can improve the biography of the person’. I would go further. The direct study of a soul in psychotic hell can only come from the pen of someone who, like Modrow, speaks in the first person singular.

Categories
Child abuse Day of Wrath (book) Human sacrifice Neanderthalism Psychohistory

Blaming mankind

On this site I have quoted a lot from Robert Morgan. Although he’s right about Christianity, Morgan seems to be saying that technology was something like the apple of knowledge that men ate and were expelled from paradise. That vision of man presupposes the Golden Age of humanity, which for some reason was corrupted in the Bronze Age and eventually in the Iron Age: a myth.

Morgan’s mistake, blaming technology for everything, is due to his lack of knowledge of my appropriation of psychohistory, as massive child sacrifice in pre-technological civilisation speaks horrors of humanity. (In our time there is almost no ritual sacrifice of children, but society allows parents to mistreat their children’s egos to the extent of schizophrenizing them.)

Morgan’s position reminds me of Marxists who blame capitalism, as if before capitalism there had been no horrors in the world (see for example what I say about schizophrenia and pre-Columbian Amerinds in Day of Wrath). The only thing technology does is empower even more a modified ape that does very bad things for the reasons outlined in my book: the ‘long childhood’ that lends itself to all kinds of parental abuse, traumas and a pandemonium of cruelty and severe mental disorders. However, under another pseudonym Morgan used to comment here without reading Day of Wrath where I explain psychohistory.

The trick is not only to blame capitalism, Jewry, technological civilisation or even Christianity but man himself or rather what I call ‘exterminable Neanderthals’. And only the Aryan race has the potential to leave human Neanderthalism behind.

When Morgan commented here, to rebut his technological reductionism (‘Eve’s apple’) I pointed out to psychohistory. He said something to the effect that I had focused on Amerindians. But pure whites also did similar things.

Among Scandinavians, the practices of throwing living offerings in holy waters began in the Stone Age and continued during the Bronze and Iron ages. There was never a Golden Age, as shown in the remains of sacrificed children even in the days of our pre-human ancestors.

By the 3rd century BCE whites were already offering human lives in Scandinavia: hundreds of men, women and children have been found in lakes that were sacred. In 1839, a Danish newspaper published an article about the exhumation of a body from a peat bog in Jutland, and to date several hundred mummified bodies of Scandinavians who had been dumped in the bogs, slaughtered 2,400 years ago, have been exhumed.

The 1974 book The Northmen by Thomas Froncek and the team of Time-Life shows several photographs of those victims, including the mummified body of a girl who, preserved by the peat bog, shows that she was a beautiful young blonde woman, who was attached to a large stone to drown her. Her entire body was found in 1952 at the bottom of a Schleswig-Holstein bog.

Why did even the beautiful Nordics do these things with their crown of the evolution they had created through sexual selection (the Aryan woman)? Recently a commenter sent me a very good edition of James George Frazer’s The Golden Bough. But Frazer lacked the tool of psychohistory because it did not exist when he lived (1854-1941). In his truly encyclopaedic work Frazer was unable to explain why on earth can people sacrifice their own children or their women, a practice that sometimes included torture.

As psychohistory explains, everything has to do with the traumas caused by ‘the long childhood’ in our species: traumas that demand not only repetition, but also sublimation of the parents onto figures of demanding gods (or a demanding monotheistic god).

Lloyd deMause, who died this year, figured out much of the why such horrible rituals cropped up in all human races since prehistory. But who among the commenters is interested in my work? DeMause was such a deranged liberal that I had to take over his psychohistory, turn it, and use it as a tool for the priest of the 4 and 14 words.

Categories
Lord of the Rings Monarchy Plato

Empathy

Only the overman will be able to develop empathy at the level of what in my books I call the priest, or rather ruler, of the four words. But without going so far, the philosophical problem of who should govern arose from the times of Plato.

In popular culture that has reached the masses, only fiction writer George R.R. Martin apparently has dealt with the problem of this philosopher-king. The viewership for the finale of Game of Thrones, ‘The Iron Throne’, included 13.6 million people who watched the episode on HBO at 9 p.m. Sunday about a year ago, making it the most-watched telecast in the network’s history. But of all these millions of normies only one understood Martin’s philosophy: the vlogger who correctly predicted who would be crowned in the finale.

Below is a transcript of Yezen’s ‘Why Bran Stark will be King’ video, which was uploaded twenty days before the finale. Compared to Yezen, all the fans of the famous series who keep commenting on YouTube seem Neanderthals to me. Not only did they fail to predict who would be the king: they were angered by the finale because they don’t understand why only someone with sovereign empathy must rule.

For those who have already seen the above-linked video and are interested in a transcript, let me say that the emphasis of the red words is mine. Yezen said:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

First off, I want to say how much I appreciate all of the support this channel has been getting in the past couple weeks, so today I’m gonna try to drive everyone away by giving one of my more controversial predictions. In the end of Game of Thrones, the person who will sit in the Iron Throne and rule Westeros is… Bran Stark.

Yup. King Bran the Broken. The Bird Kid, First of our POV’s, Lord of the Awkward Stare, and Producer of the Memes, because ‘Chaos is a ladder’. And Bran is the best at climbing. Also, he’s the best at sitting… [LOL!]

Okay, but really, without getting into Children of the Forest conspiracies, or a convoluted lecture on the line of succession for Harrenhal, let me explain why it’ll be Bran. And before I get a million comments reminding me that he’s not Bran anymore—I get it, he’s not totally Bran. But it’s also not that simple. The actor Isaac Hempstead Wright has confirmed that there is some Bran ‘left over’ in the Three-eyed Raven, so it’s a complicated entity.

Anyways, hang in there. Here it goes.

Tommen: ‘It means I’ll become King’.

Tywin: ‘Yes, you will become King. What kind of King do you think you’ll be?’

Tommen: ‘A good King?’

Tywin: ‘Huh. I think so as well. You’ve got the right temperament for it. But what makes a good king, hmm? What is a good King’s single most important quality?’

In many ways, Game of Thrones was intended as a response to The Lord of the Rings. Bran is Frodo. Aegon is Aragorn. Arya is Aeowyn. The Night King is Sauron. Sam is Sam, and Sean Bean dies.

And George R.R. Martin’s equivalent for the titular Ring of Power has always been the Iron Throne. Like the One Ring, the Iron Throne is the central object of absolute power, around which the narrative revolves. Though not inherently evil like the Ring, the Iron Throne is isolating; it brings men to war, and tends to destroy those who hold or pursue it. And, at the end of The Lord of the Rings, the ring is cast into the fire that forged it, and destroyed forever, ridding the world of its corruption, and restoring moral order.

So why can’t we expect the same from Game of Thrones? Why can’t the Iron Throne simply be destroyed in the dragon-fire that forged it, thereby ending the evil of war?

Tommen: ‘Holiness?’

Tywin: ‘Hmm’.

Well, the answer lies in the differences between how Tolkien and Martin depict good and evil in relation to power.

In Tolkien’s world, good and evil are distinct, and the Ring represents power in a strictly evil sense. All power that is just or lawful is considered to be separate from the corruption of the Ring.

Yet, in Martin’s world, morality is ambiguous, and exists in shades of gray. The Iron Throne has no inherent moral alignment, and represents the power for both good and evil. Though there is certainly symbolism to destroying it; whether there’s a spiky metal chair or not, people will still seek power. And the Seven Kingdoms can still be conquered, and will still be ruled. Melting the Iron Throne isn’t a real solution. Power must pass to someone.

Of course, the obvious candidate would be King Aegon—Jon Snow Targaryen. After all, he is modelled after Aragorn, who is the King that returns. And in the season 8 opener, we already see Davos suggesting the possibility of Jon and Daenerys getting married, binding their alliance and forming a dream-team power couple to rule Westeros better and fairer than ever before.

Davos: ‘What if the Seven Kingdoms, for once in their whole shit history, were ruled by a just woman and an honourable man?’

Yet, as is typical of this story, the fact that someone has predicted this outcome in dialogue, implies that it’s unlikely to come to pass. The Northerners seem outright opposed to Targaryen rule, and whether or not Daenerys can accept joint rule with Jon, the story will not give us an ending exactly as Davos suggested.

And, to be totally frank, there is no way Martin created the feminist icon that is Daenerys Targaryen just to force her to give up her life ambition to her husband, whether it’s by bending the knee or by dying.

While the Lord of the Rings ends with Aragorn ruling, Aragorn is never charged with the Ring. Rather, just as Tolkien begins his story with the Ring passing to Frodo, Martin’s will end when the Throne passes to Bran.

Tommen: ‘Justice?’

Tywin: ‘Hmm. A good King must be just’.

After the catastrophe of the ending, House Targaryen as well as most of the other Great Houses, will be brought to ruin. And in the wake of that ruin, the Seven Kingdoms will need to restructure its leadership. And so, the Wolves [the Starks] will have their time.

Bran ‘I’m-not-Bran’ Stark, will be the enigmatic, apathetic Fisher King.

Sansa ‘I-learned-a-great-deal-from-her’ Stark, will leave Winterfell and govern the Seven Kingdoms through Bran, just as Cersei once governed on behalf of Tommen.

And Lady Arya ‘don’t-call-me-that’ Stark, will inherit the North and rule as the Warrior-Lady of Winterfell.

Essentially, Bran, Sansa and Arya, will be the Stark version of Aegon, Rhaenys and Visenya. Just without the dragons or the incest.

In the books, this is set up pretty early on by Ned Stark, who after Robert’s rebellion, inherits the life and position meant for his elder brother, who had died during the rebellion. This is also set up pretty well by Littlefinger, whose life goal is: ‘…a picture of me, on the Iron Throne, and you [Sansa] by my side’.

In the end, this vision will sort of come true. It just won’t be Littlefinger on the throne. But that’s all the time I’ll spend on evidence, because whether I’m right or wrong, there’s only about a month until we see this play out.

Tommen: ‘What about strength?’

Tywin: ‘Hmm, strength…’

On a fundamental level, Game of Thrones is an exploration of power, and different characters coming to power convey different messages about what it takes to rise up in the world.

The rise of Daenerys emphasises strength and justice and ambition.

Jon champions honour and righteousness.

Someone like Littlefinger, deception and opportunism.

While Cersei emphasizes ruthlessness and vanity.

Meanwhile, King Brandon would convey a more mysterious meaning that, although strength, lineage, deception and ruthlessness each play a part, all of them are bound up by FATE.

Not in a divine sense, but in the sense that, regardless of our flaws or virtues, the universe is chaotic and beyond our control. What may be in one place in time a virtue, is in another a flaw. And whoever rises to power is, to some extent, a consequence of being in the right place at the right time. Just as the Targaryens, Baratheons and Lannisters had their time, the Starks will have theirs, and so the throne will pass to Bran.

Tywin: ‘So, we have a man who starves himself to death, a man who lets his own brother murder him, and a man who thinks that winning and ruling are the same thing. What do they all lack?’

This ending would serve as a strange marriage of idealism and cynicism. In many ways, Bran begins the story as the most powerless character, lacking even basic bodily autonomy. And as fate would have it, Bran ends up the most powerful. Yet that power comes at the cost of isolating Bran from his own humanity, and never gives him the thing that he really wanted.

Arya: ‘He wants to be Knight of the King’s Guard. He can’t be one now, can he?’

Ned: ‘No’.

The story which built itself on the tragedy of the Starks will end in their triumph. But despite that triumph, the Starks never really get back the home or the innocence they once had. Yes, there’s the physical place [of a home], but never the feeling of having a complete family. Never the trust, innocence, or joy of childhood. In the deepest sense, what is lost in war, is never truly reclaimed in war.

And look, I know you probably still don’t buy it, or you still think it’s gonna be Jon, and you really might be right about that, but hear me out just a little longer, because there is a glimmer of idealism to this ending.

Though many will die, and the wheel might not break, Bran just might make a good king after all. Despite having lost so much of himself to the Three-eyed Raven, Bran, perhaps more than any other character, has grasped one of the most essential lessons of the story, which is the importance of EMPATHY.

Tommen: ‘Wisdom?’

Tywin: ‘Yes!’

Tommen: ‘Wisdom is what makes a good king’.

Tywin: ‘Yes, but what is wisdom, hmm?’

Despite their history, Bran is able to look at Jaime Lannister, the man who once shattered his life, and to see good in him, to see Jaime as a man who was protecting the people he loved. And to not only forgive him, but to protect him. This simple act of understanding demonstrates what the war-torn kingdoms of Westeros have been so lacking: not strength, or cunning, or even honour, but real wisdom.

For a world that’s been so damaged by people’s inability to see from one another’s perspective, maybe a broken boy is the right ruler to heal a broken kingdom.

Maybe not the one you want, certainly not the one we’d expect, but the one the ending needs. After years of war and hatred, I think maybe the Kingdoms of Westeros will get the little bit of understanding that they deserve. And that is an encouraging thought. [Music]

Bran: ‘Theon’,

Theon: ‘…’

Bran: ‘You’re a good man. Thank you’.

But okay, despite what I said earlier, don’t leave, stick around. If I’m wrong, which I probably am, you can come back later and leave a comment to tell me.

So you better subscribe just so you don’t forget. In the meantime, there is more to come. So, until next time. Peace.

Categories
Ancient Greece Ancient Rome

Colour, pranks and psychoclasses

Yesterday I discovered some YouTube videos that make us laugh out loud, especially those involving children. From a collection of pranks for example, the one that almost killed me of laughter was a ‘scary’ kid: here (see also this one of a girl apparently pregnant by her child husband!).

I compared the volume of visits from those dying LOL videos with this site, and concluded that I have been wrong about something fundamental.

If we think about the white advocates’ sites, Andrew Anglin’s has been the most popular: just the closest, within racialism, to those prank videos: some of which already have more than 100 million views.

What I have been wrong about is not realising that the psychoclass to which I belong is not only sidereally different from the psychoclass of those to whom I would like my message to reach. I come from a tragic family that destroyed three persons, of whom two died and I am the only survivor to tell their story (so I will be busy the rest of the month reviewing the syntax of my books). This experience has developed in me a gravitas character in the sense of serene sadness before life. Those who give literally hundreds of millions of clicks to those videos are not only different: they are my perfect antipodes. Not because laughing is wrong (laughing is very healthy even under the laws of Lycurgus): but because in dark times the most relevant is the gravitas of the ancient Romans.

My mistake has been treating people, even some visitors to this site, as if they are psychologically structured in a similar way to mine when, actually, their happy mode cannot contrast more with the hard Roman ethos. Perhaps the best way to understand it is through analogy.

A couple of days ago I discovered the videos of colour-blind people who see colours as they actually are for the first time in their lives, for example: this one. In this other one a dad sees the red hair of his children the first time.

It’s like an emotional atomic bomb to see colours as they are for the first time in life! See, for example, only the first case that starts here (moving tears of dad and little son) and this other of two colour-blind brothers. A third video of a boy crying when seeing the world in full colour can be seen: here.

This one, seeing the beautiful flowers as they are for the first time, is very revealing (although the interlocutor spoiled the satori of the initiate with cold questions). This man cried when he saw the colour orange for the first time and was amazed at the skin colour of his white mother. Others had not seen the purple (last example: here).

Exactly the same happens with existential pain. It produces abysmally different minds, let’s say, the life of someone who had a mother like the one of the film Joker compared to the happy mode in which a good portion of white Americans currently live. Like colour-blind people, there is no way to make anyone who has not gone through it big time to see the full range of the colours of existential suffering.

In other words, trying to sell the idea of ‘eliminating all unnecessary suffering’, my philosophy of the four words, is more than a hard sell: it is a fool’s errand if my audience is that of the common American. You have to wait for the catastrophes that people like Martenson have been predicting to converge.

Only after the United States is destroyed will white survivors begin to see the colours that, south of the Rio Grande, I have been seeing for the past few decades. (A subtitle for this article might say: The ancient Greeks knew tragedy, drama, and comedy; today’s colour-blind Americans only drama and comedy.)

Categories
Exterminationism Film

On Barton Fink fans

There is something I want to say about the recent discussion thread of Savitri Devi’s article.

Some things can be told rhetorically on a blog and other things cannot be said rhetorically. Exterminationism, ‘the religion of the 4 words’, is one of the things that cannot be said rhetorically. It is a subject that requires a new Bible, the Bible of the exterminating angel.

A thick novel cannot be read online either, and I dare say that even classics in the pro-white movement, such as the MacDonald trilogy, must be bought and read on paper to make footnotes with our pencils.

I’m going to be honest with my post from yesterday. There are literary styles that I tolerate and styles that I don’t tolerate. Years ago I said that there are books that I throw away if they are written in opaque prose. I also don’t like esoteric literature. When Jez Turner asked me in London if I had read Miguel Serrano, along with Devi the most famous Hitler esoterist, he was surprised when I answered no, although Serrano (1917-2009) wrote in my native language.

Sometimes I make exceptions, as I did with a book by Michel Foucault critical of psychiatry, written in opaque prose. I also made an exception with Devi’s book on animal welfare, written in esoteric prose.

But I am rambling. The reason that exterminationism cannot be blogged rhetorically is that there is no way to create a bridge of empathy in which the normie reader can sympathise with such an apparently extreme stance. (Apparent, I say, because from the POV of the Star Child what is extreme is that there are so many Neanderthals who are causing countless unnecessary suffering.)

I recently made a list of 50 movies that can be viewed in covid-19 quarantine. In two films on my list, 2001: A Space Odyssey and A.I., in one humanity is about to be metamorphosed when the Star Child returns on the clouds with great power and glory, and in the other no human is left over the planet. That is the limit that a normie can access when talking about exterminationism: movies, fiction. But inviting a normie to reason like the Star Child will only result in something that happened here.

Franklin Ryckaert used to comment here. He stopped doing it when I talked about exterminationism. In many ways Ryckaert, a white nationalist, subscribes, like the vast majority of white nationalists, to Christian standards of morality even though he is a secular man.

Well, it is virtually impossible to convey post-Christian ethics to neo-Christians like Ryckaert and most white nationalists. Regarding exterminationism the limit of their Overton Window, or window of discourse, would be precisely the two films cited. Nothing else. Only if someone like Ryckaert read my From Jesus to Hitler would he realise the spiritual odyssey that led me to exterminationism.

I insist: some things can be said in blogs and others can’t. A series of thick books like George R.R. Martin’s saga would not be able to transmit on a blog either. You have to buy at least the first of his books to enter his universe.

It is so difficult to think in exterminationist terms that even people like Andrew Hamilton, and Alex Linder himself, felt some reservations the first time they read The Turner Diaries. On the other hand, when I listened to the novel for the first time (as I listened to the audiobook with Pierce’s own voice) it seemed to me that the author was developing ideas that I had harboured for decades! I was already prepared for such a novel. Axiologically speaking, a normie like Greg Johnson even felt tremendous rejection when he read the Diaries. And a lot of white nationalists, actually neochristians, feel the same revulsion that Johnson felt.

Exterminationism is for very mature men, aged old men in the tree of the human past so to speak, especially those who have suffered the unspeakable and have assimilated that mountain of pain in a long process. Pain is something that cannot be transmitted in blogs, only in long texts. Most white nationalists cannot even face a book whose author suffered horrors in writing, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany. We can already imagine the resistance they would place in order not to face the odyssey of a single individual.

They remind me of the movie Barton Fink, in which a fat Aryan wrestler told a slim kike writer in Hollywood that nobody is interested in hearing about a tortured soul; what the public wants to see is freestyle wrestling.

Barton Fink is for the Judaised white trash of today. A.I. is a stepping-stone for those who were abandoned in the woods as children and now need to heal. Remember: only revenge heals the wounded soul. And the ultimate revenge is extermination.

I would like to finish this post with some words from another of the 50 films I recommend. I refer to Mitchell Garabedian in Spotlight: ‘This city, these people [Bostonians who didn’t give a damn about the priests who molested kids] making the rest of us feel like we don’t belong. But they’re no better than us. Look at how they treat their children. Mark my words, Mr. Rezendes: If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one’ .

Categories
Arthur C. Clarke

Keto diet and the 4 words

By trying by all means to prevent contagion from the coronavirus these days I discovered the Ketogenic diet, as the general state of health of our bodies is related to the proclivity to contagion. One might think that a diet rich in animal fats contradicts what I call the four words, but it is not the case.

If it is a matter of ‘avoiding all unnecessary suffering’ it is quite reasonable to emulate Hitler’s initiative to eliminate the slaughterhouses, in case Germany won the war (or Goering’s to eliminate vivisections, which was implemented in the Third Reich). There’s no need to torment mammals in the slaughterhouses or in the labs.

But fishing for basic nutrients could be thought of as ‘necessary suffering’ of sea fish for the health of the white man, at least until we figure out a way to synthesise those nutrients in the laboratory. (In my twenties I was a huge science-fiction fan of Arthur Clarke, who in several of his stories imagined a future where meat will be synthesised by artificial means without the need for any slaughter.) So, this day I did not violate the four words when eating tuna after a pumpkin flower soup.

The need to change our unhealthy eating habits through a Ketogenic diet will be explained in my next excerpt from an article that Evropa Soberana wrote in 2013, before this diet gained immense popularity. At the moment I can only advance a single passage from Soberana’s article about how insulin disorder has a negative effect on the immune system:

Insulin remains floating in the bloodstream long after the sugar has been metabolised. Its most well-known side effect is to produce a new episode of sugar hunger, since insulin excess in our blood needs something to do. It ‘gets bored’ so to speak and demands more sugar to burn.

This in turn will release more insulin, in an undesirable vicious cycle that leads directly to compulsive eating, obesity, and diabetes. However, the subtlest and most damaging side effect of prolonged and frequent insulin surges is that it suppresses the release of growth hormone. Growth hormone is secreted by the pituitary gland, and in addition to promoting height, muscle development, bone density, and fat-burning, it is an important immune and rejuvenating agent.

The Spaniard Soberana wrote the article in his native language. If you want introductory information in English about the Ketogenic diet see especially here, here, here and a response to criticism here (he has responded to what another YouTuber says here and here). Wikipedia has a featured article on the Ketogenic diet here.

Categories
Child abuse Exterminationism Pandemics Third Reich Welfare of animals

My rider friends

‘Either Aryans will overcome their prejudice against genocide or self-exterminate’. —Tito Perdue

Today I woke up with a dream in which I mentioned to Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson my idea of dispatching the vast majority of mankind for ethical and aesthetic purposes. We were walking on a street in another country and in the end I got to fly, but when I was awake I realised that I didn’t see either of them in the dream: I was talking to them but they were not actually physically there.

Several times I have been told in this blog that I am not talking to myself. But obviously I am, as no one feels the four words as vehemently as I do.

‘Eliminate all unnecessary suffering’ is a call for exterminationism, as the misnamed Homo sapiens is causing hell in many species not only of animals but among themselves, even from parents to children (the subject of my eleven books).

The vast majority of my visitors have not been through hell. And those who have crossed there dissociate everything and do not write a single post about their experiences (I could mention three of them by real name, but I won’t).

Speaking of the four words this day I leafed through two articles, one from Occidental Dissent and the other from Unz Review, which touch on the subject of unnecessary animal torment. I was disgusted in the latter by some things I read in the comments section, and I can only think of the chasm between these Neanderthals and the Third Reich regarding eliminating unnecessary suffering.

Even if the coronavirus kills the same number of humans of the 1918-1920 influenza, that would only represent a very small fraction of the number that must die this century for survivors to understand the need to implement the four words on earth. Fortunately the four horsemen alluded to in my previous posts will help me in this purpose, even if I also die.

Categories
Pandemics Welfare of animals

Mother Nature’s revenge

No visitor, to my knowledge, shares my philosophy (or religion should I say?) of the four words that I explain by the end of From Jesus to Hitler and, more abbreviated, in Day of Wrath.

One of the most relevant passages of this religion of mine appears in the introduction to my second volume, where I mention that a cute little animal was worth more than the millions of capital residents who drive through the freeway where I live, as they are negatively evaluated in my value scale; and the beautiful forms of life, positively.

Although I would like to burn the Bibles, using Christian metaphors it is as if the first trumpet of the Book of Revelation had already blasted around the four corners of Earth in January and, more recently, the contents of the first cups of wrath begin to be poured out on the sin cities.

Although I rarely watch the television of a culture I wish to be destroyed, recently a 60 Minutes commentator told the great truth about the crisis we are going through: ‘I think this is Mother Nature’s revenge’ (see this pic of bats sold as food in China: a snapshot of the 60 Minutes documentary).

I had been waiting for the shrill trumpet blast since May 1976 (cf. my 1st autobiographical book, the translation of which will appear this month, and even more the 11th). I don’t know if I’m going to die or not because of the Chinese virus. But these days I have been happy because, at last, the revenge will apparently begin to reach these exterminable Neanderthals.