web analytics

Tag: Solitude

Categories
Arthur Schopenhauer Videos

Still normies

“Deep thinkers aren’t rejected because they are wrong, but because they are right too soon”—yes, but I disagree with a couple of things in this video:

Alan Turing, mentioned in the video, played a crucial role in deciphering the intercepted messages that allowed the Allies to defeat the Germans. This means that the normie who uploaded the video doesn’t know that the homosexual Turing was an agent of Evil.

The other issue is that sometimes intelligent people can’t find anyone to talk to about profound topics. Socrates had quorum but none hearken to Nietzsche’s voice.

In these videos by normies for a normie audience there’s still a certain naiveté in understanding what Savitri used to call “a Man against his time”.

Categories
Correspondence Racial right

Silencio

The tragedy of Friedrich Nietzsche’s life was that it happened to be a one-man show, a monodrama wherein no other actor entered upon the stage: not a soul is at his side to succour him; no woman is there to soften by her ever-present sympathy the stresses of the atmosphere. Every action takes its birth in him, and its repercussions are felt by him alone. Not one person ventures to enter wholeheartedly into the innermost sanctum of Nietzsche’s destiny; the poet-philosopher is doomed to speak, to struggle, to suffer alone. He converses with no one, and no one has anything to say to him. What is even more terrible is that none hearken to his voice. —Stefan Zweig

Today, Benjamin sent me an email containing this paragraph: “I’m disappointed no one else even seems to have clicked my link to the page though (or if they have, from my analytics they haven’t stayed more than two minutes—odd with an easy-access layout one-page site containing many hours of content). Bar the psychiatry focus, and the veganism, I thought I was basically covering topics we talk about all the time on WDH. I don’t understand (my perennial problem: trying to analyse the apathetic) why they’re not interested. Maybe they haven’t got 6 quid. I hope not, or our movement is screwed”.

This is something that, in the past, has seemed like an extraordinary phenomenon to me, and I would like to respond to Benjamin in the second person singular:

As I’ve told you several times, even years before you found my site, when I posted quite insightful entries and thought some of them would have a large quorum, no one said a peep, and over time I invented a saying that I used to say to myself in soliloquies: “Here come the silent ones…!” in the sense that they left me talking to myself, over and over again.

It was so exasperating that, occasionally, as I’ve also confessed to you, I let the insulting trolls’ comments slide because I preferred the insults to have the racialists apply what the Germans call “death by silence” tactic. (My family, relatives, friends, therapist and acquaintances “killed me with silence”. No one wanted to know anything about what was happening at home, and it was precisely because no one wanted to listen that I dedicated myself to writing about the family tragedy.)

As I told you by email, the silence of the visitors began several years ago, when it became clear that my criticisms of white nationalism were going to be incisive, constant, and persistent. That scared everyone away. And they are fundamental criticisms: I was trying, and am trying, to shift the paradigm from the JQ to the CQ. And I do this not because I side with the Jews: I believe they should be expelled to Madagascar, Hitler’s original idea (or to Israel, although that country has already become a precarious place, and the war with Iran could evolve into a regional war).

I suspect that the relative silence in the comments section is due to what Thomas Kuhn said about a paradigm shift. The old guard first ignores the new paradigm (admirably summarised in yesterday’s post, citing your book!). When it’s no longer possible to ignore the new paradigm, let’s say if voices like yours were to multiply (obviously, we’re not there yet), the old guard fiercely opposes the new paradigm. Finally, the new paradigm is accepted as the most natural thing, although that only happens with the biological death of the old guard who controlled the boundaries of discourse. The new generations are seeing that the old paradigm was wrong or at least incomplete: something that, to preserve their egos, the older generations were reluctant to concede.

It’s similar to what Scott Peck says about narcissistic parents who never admit that they might have made a mistake with one of their children. It also reminds me of the case of a girl diagnosed as schizophrenic in one of Ronald Laing’s books. Laing wrote that it was precisely because the mother was incapable of accepting an ounce of guilt that her daughter was so disturbed.

The same thing happens with white nationalists: they are incapable of accepting that our civilisation took the wrong path many centuries ago. These nationalists maintain a working hypothesis that resembles a religious dogma: Jewry is responsible for our misfortunes. We say: Jewry is very powerful in the West and very subversive: but whites empowered them by destroying the religion whose Gods represented the Aryan collective unconscious, replacing it with the Judeo-Christian collective unconscious. As Emperor Julian saw when the transition from one collective unconscious to another was underway, “Why were you so ungrateful to our Gods as to desert them for the Jews?”

Contrary to what Hitler privately confessed to his closest friends, today’s nationalists are like the mother of the schizophrenic woman: they don’t accept an iota of blame. Compared to intelligent people like William Pierce, who wrote Who We Are, or scholars like Revilo Oliver, the ideology of today’s nationalists, besides being simplistic, represents a giant step backwards. If we follow the Rubicon metaphor it’s as if, after two solid steps toward the other side of the river—racial realism and becoming aware of JQ—instead of moving forward, these racialists panic about what they begin to glimpse through the fog on the other side. Transvaluing implies genocidal actions against our enemies and, like a magnet pulling them toward Normieland due to their Christian programming, they begin to take steps backwards instead of forward to finally cross the river toward National Socialism.

We can’t do anything with these cowards. We must be very patient. If Kuhn was right, the older generations—in our case, the white nationalists—will have to die. Perhaps those who are now Aryan children, or even unborn minds will have a better chance of seeing things differently: of discovering this site and embracing the post-1945 National Socialist antichristian worldview. But trying to do so with the hundreds of conservatives who comment on, say, The Unz Review and other racialist forums is a fool’s errand.

Since I’m already in my sixties I hope that if death were to surprise me, our work wouldn’t disappear but that I could pass the mantle to someone younger, like you: someone who would maintain the content of this site, especially the PDFs where the vital information is condensed.

And when it comes to the havoc that abusive parents wreak on their offspring, the situation is even worse! The taboo is universal due to the “problem of the attachment with the perp”, a concept explained in my Day of Wrath. However, if it makes you feel better, I received an email today from a Panamanian who asked me to share the link to your site, which I did.

Categories
3-eyed crow

Map

Or:

Why this site receives hardly any comments from racialists

 
Why the silence among the commenters that Benjamin recently complained about?

Looking through the books I read years ago, I see things I already knew but didn’t dare to write about in this public forum out of respect for Hitler and his people. It all has to do with the metaphor I chose for the featured post, ‘The Wall’.

Despite being separated by a Wall, the white nationalists of this century and the National Socialists of the past are very close to each other. The Wall represents either accepting the necessity of genocide/extermination of the racial enemy—pre- and post-Christian ethics (north of the Wall)—or refusing to accept it (Christian ethics, south of the Wall).

If I were merely on the north side of the Wall but close to it, I could get along perfectly with, say, those who comment on Alex Linder’s forum or some of today’s few neonazi exterminationists.

But this is not the case…

I am so far north of the Wall that not even an eagle flying high above the Wall could spot me from its field of vision. I mean that both the National Socialists of the last century, and the white nationalists of the present, regard Jewish subversion as the primary cause of Aryan decline. And I don’t.

I have been very critical of the American racial right for its ‘monocausalism’ but, as I said, I hadn’t dared to confess why I was so separated, geographically, from the classical National Socialists. Perhaps one might get a quick idea of what I mean if we see that Hitler was closer to the Christian Wagner than to the anti-Christian Nietzsche, and I am closer to Nietzsche than to Wagner.

Like Nietzsche, I believe that Christianity and its bastard son (atheistic liberalism) is the primary cause of Aryan decline, not our racial enemies, the Jews. It is precisely Christian ethics, and this already breaks even with Nietzsche’s philo-Semitic stance, that prevents the Aryan from settling accounts with his historical enemies.

From this angle I wouldn’t be a Nietzschean, but a sort of neo-Nietzschean Hitlerite. But neither did Hitler and his ilk know that Christianity was the primary cause of Aryan decline. Most Nazis were monocausalists. Few were type A bicausalists. I, on the other hand, am a type B bicausalist (see this post from a dozen years ago).

Let’s give a few examples, but first let’s be clear that some of the top Hitlerites were aware of the Christian Question. Himmler for example said:

I have the conviction that the Roman emperors, who exterminated [ausrotteten] the first Christians, did precisely what we are doing with the communists. These Christians were at the time the vilest scum… [1]

But unlike me, Himmler was an A bicausalist:

The war we are waging is chiefly and essentially a race war. It is first and foremost a war against the Jew… [2]

And the same could be said of Hitler himself:

[The Jews were] the enzyme of decomposition (Ferment der Dekomposition).

And this, even though in Mein Kampf Hitler claimed that the North Americans held power on the continent, and not the Latin Americans, because the former hadn’t corrupted their blood by marrying Indian women. But in that passage of Mein Kampf Hitler omitted to blame Christian ethics for miscegenation in Latin America, since the Spaniards and Portuguese had admitted mixed marriages since the 16th century. As I have said elsewhere, Hitler couldn’t blame Christian ethics because it would have been political suicide in a Catholic/Protestant Germany. He also said, to his adjutants three days after the Wannsee Conference:

It is the Jew who prevents everything.

I am convinced that the internalised Christian ethics, as a result of an ogre of the super-ego in the Aryan collective unconscious (see my previous post), is what prevents everything. But as I just said, for political reasons Hitler could not speak openly as a bicausalist B, even though there are more critical phrases in Hitler’s Table Talk of Christianity than of Judaism.

The point is: since I am not a politician of my time, like Hitler, but a ‘man against my time’, in solitude I can afford to analyse the Aryan psyche to its ultimate consequences, to the extent that I go further and farther north where only very few will dare to follow me.

That is why this site receives hardly any comments from racialists. Although most are on the south side of the Wall, and only a few have crossed it, no one wants to migrate farther and farther north until they find the raven’s cave.

Even in racism it is much easier not to break with the accepted wisdom than to follow the raven’s lead.
 

______________

[1] P. Padfield, Himmler (NY: Henry Holt, 1990), page 334.

[2] He said this on 21 June 1944 to top military and SS leaders in Sonthofen.

Categories
3-eyed crow Arthur Schopenhauer

Schopen

by Art of Thinking

Why did some of the brightest brains in history prefer to be alone? Why do outstanding intellectuals stay away from social life? For those who possess great intelligence is seclusion a privilege or a curse? These issues were addressed by Arthur Schopenhauer, one of the 19th century’s most gloomy and visionary philosophers who was anything but benevolent towards society.

Schopenhauer believed that the world was full with shallow individuals with small-minded goals and engrossed in pointless discussions and amusements. A natural talent had to distance himself from this unimpressive performance. According to his own words, all great spirits end up alone. Was he correct or is this disdain for social life only a sign of a lack of interpersonal connections? Think about notable individuals who were renowned for their brilliance and their seclusion. Are they merely misunderstood and destined to roam alone, or are they examples of intellects that are superior to common souls?

Let’s examine Schopenhauer’s theories. As the world around him moves forward, picture a genius who is totally absorbed in his ideas and lost in intricate theories. He wonders about the future of humanity [e.g., will Parrish-like Nordids survive?—Ed.]. While everyone else is preoccupied with discussing the weather, he inevitably isolates himself as he attempts to comprehend the nature of being [e.g., the whys of the fair race’s darkest hour—Ed.]. Others engage in frivolous conversations.

According to Schopenhauer this distance is an unavoidable result of intellectual superiority rather than a decision. He believed that the more a person stood out for his intelligence, the harder it was for him to find peers on the same level, with whom he could share his thoughts and emotions. Schopenhauer believes that a natural barrier between the individual and society is created by superior intelligence, because those who have a broader perspective on the world have very different interests and concerns than the majority.

Only in solitude can a man be himself since he can only be genuinely free when he is alone. He cannot enjoy freedom if he does not love solitude. Schopenhauer saw isolation as both a burden and a necessary haven. According to him, social norms and the petty interests of the majority frequently suffocate intelligence. He noted that people with higher levels of intelligence frequently felt uncomfortable interacting with the general public because they were able to see beyond the obvious and comprehend truths that were not readily apparent to them.

Friedrich Nietzsche was another thinker who cherished isolation. But seclusion comes at a cost: a strong sensation of alienation might result from deviating from societal norms. Schopenhauer was aware of this and thought that, although it could be freeing for brilliant thinkers, solitude could also be a weight because they have a deeper perspective on the world than most of us will ever be able to understand. So many of the greatest thinkers in history experience periods of worry and sadness. This is not because they were weak. The crucial question that follows is whether loneliness is a good thing or a bad thing.

For Schopenhauer, it was obvious great thinkers welcome their solitude as a blessing. Their greatest achievements might be possible if they are isolated, enjoy silence, and are free from social mediocrity.

Categories
3-eyed crow

Solitude

Eight years ago I published an entry here under the title ‘Solitude’, in which I quoted some passages from Nietzsche’s poetic prose and then commented on them. I would like to recite some of those quotes and comment on them again, but from a more mature perspective.

Now Zarathustra looked at the people and he was amazed. Then he spoke thus: ‘Mankind is a rope fastened between animal and Overman – a rope over an abyss. What is great about human beings is that they are a bridge and not a purpose: what is lovable about human beings is that they are a crossing over and a going under’.

The lovely thing about white nationalists is that they are a crossing over and a sinking, indeed. But they don’t yet go under completely into the river so the nymph helps them finish crossing it.

‘I love the great despisers, because they are the great venerators and arrows of longing for the other shore. I love those who do not first seek behind the stars for a reason to go under and be a sacrifice, who instead sacrifice themselves for the earth, so that the earth may one day become the Overman’s. I love the one who lives in order to know, and who wants to know so that one day the Overman may live. And so he wants his sinking in his sunset’.

If anyone has read the central book of my Hojas Susurrantes, that dream I had as a child with an impressive celestial ship in the shape of a pencil and my family in the foreground in a bucolic environment, and how as a child I wanted to be in the big rocket that I saw on the horizon more than on that beautiful field day, you should know that a few years ago I transvalued my childhood values and realised that we must be faithful to the Earth since it is through self-knowledge that one can truly know the universe and become the overman.

‘I want to teach humans the meaning of their being, which is the Overman, the lightning from the dark cloud “human being”.’

Racialists are a dark cloud that could give birth to lightning bolts that would split history in twain (Savitri’s Kalki), but they still don’t give birth to them.

‘It dawned on me: I need companions, and living ones – not dead companions and corpses that I carry with me wherever I want’.

My river nymph died in 1982. Where is there someone like her on the other side of the river? It bothers me to deal only with the ghost of a person dead and cremated long ago because today’s racialists don’t dare to cross her psychological Rubicon.

‘It dawned on me: let Zarathustra speak not to the people, but instead to companions!’

I realised for a long time that going to the racial right forums to try to invite them to the other side is a fool’s errand.

‘Look at the good and the just! Whom do they hate most? The one who breaks their tablets of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker – but he is the creative one’.

They hate the hero of the Second World War, who tore up their cherished tablets of Judeo-Christian law. Once you break those tablets you realise not only that the majority of humans have no value, but that they are ranked negatively in the eyes of the overman.

‘Companions the creative one seeks and not corpses, nor herds and believers. Fellow creators the creative one seeks, who will write new values on new tablets’.

‘I do not want to even speak again with the people – for the last time have I spoken to a dead person’.

Below are some excerpts from Robert Pippin’s introduction to Nietzsche’s book.

As noted, the problem Zarathustra confronts seems to be a failure of desire; nobody wants what he is offering, and they seem to want very little other than a rather bovine version of happiness.

For example, those who belong to the racial right aren’t revolutionaries in spirit but de facto conservatives (neo-normies).

It is that sort of failure that proves particularly difficult to address, and that cannot be corrected by thinking up a ‘better argument’ against such a failure.

The events that are narrated are also clearly tied to the question of what it means for Zarathustra to have a teaching, to try to impart it to an audience suffering in this unusual way, suffering from complacency or dead desire. Only at the very beginning, in the Prologue, does he try to ‘lecture publicly’, one might say, and this is a pretty unambiguous failure.

The reminder of the Prologue appears to indicate that Zarathustra himself had portrayed his own teaching in a comically inadequate way, preaching to the multitudes as if people could simply begin to overcome themselves by some revolutionary act of will…

He had shifted from marketplace preaching to conversations with disciples in Part I, and at the end of that Part I he decides to forgo even that and to go back to his cave alone.

As to the latter, I think I should no longer tweet on X (if anyone wants to ask me why, do so in the comments section).

Categories
Kali Yuga

Humble site

A couple of days ago Ron Unz wrote for his The Unz Review a ridiculous article boasting about the millions of hits alternative websites to the MSM receive. Unz thought the results were quite encouraging. However, from the list he puts up, I get the impression that few of the sites are overtly racialist. And anyway, even the racialist sites subscribe to the Judeo-Christian morality that is killing the white man. I prefer a thousand times my humble site, that in hits cannot compete with those on Unz’s list, but which is a site that puts the transvaluation of Judeo-Christian values to Aryan values as the top priority.

The reactionary ideology of the other sites, which includes the racial right, doesn’t break with the paradigm that has held the white man in thrall to an ethno-suicidal vision since Constantine ordered the Romans to worship the god of the Jews. Not to begin your discourse with a Nietzschean vision that starts from here (see Velasco’s essays in The Fair Race) is intellectual charlatanism.

In my previous article, I spoke of being alone under the redwoods. In the language of Cervantes, there is a saying that I translate as follows: ‘Solitude is better than accompanied solitude’. Indeed: I prefer the solitude of the redwood forest, in the hope of meeting someone else who has crossed the river, to travelling to the US, say, to attend the recent American Renaissance conference and talk to one of the participants.

How to give an idea of what transvaluation is in a single image? Consider this one: Constantine was the worst man in Western history. And Hitler, the best. (We cannot say that Jesus of Nazareth was the worst because he didn’t even exist: he was a fictional character from the pen of subversive Jews that Constantine would use to tame the blond beast.)

Categories
Daybreak Publishing Tree

Under the Redwoods

In the footnote to the PDF American Racialism I said: ‘After publishing this book I will put together a couple of shorter PDFs: one that collects some passages from Richard Weikart’s Hitler’s Religion, and a new translation of the Introduction to the German edition of Hitler’s after-dinner talks.’(*) The first of these PDFs, Weikart’s Hitler’s Religion with my 2023 comments can already be read here.

Following the metaphor of crossing the psychological Rubicon, whoever can assimilate this kind of reading is not even a few steps away from the wetland of the beach, but a few steps away from the dry shore on our side of the river. Under the big trees, everything is much more pleasant, but there is a problem…

Away from the beach, the traveller now has even lost sight of the statuary of racialists stuck halfway across the Rubicon, unable to move because of their reluctance to transvalue Judeo-Christian values to pre-Christian values. While the majesty of the Redwoods on this side of the river doesn’t exist on the other side, except him there are no human beings. There is a trace, yes, of Savitri Devi who passed through here some decades ago but since her death, apparently there is no one else.

That’s the problem with following the call of what Jung called the Self. It may lead to the truth but the price is loneliness since, after 1945, the white man decided to betray himself. And this side can only be inhabited by those who have stood firm, the priests of the sacred words who Savitri used to call ‘the religion of the Strong’.

____________

(*) Next week update. I had almost forgotten that this latest PDF was already ready since last year. Thus, in addition to my excerpts of Hitler’s Religion with my 2023 aggregations linked above (but linked again here), the translation of the introduction to Hitler’s Table Talk from a serious German edition, can be read here.

Categories
Correspondence

Reply

A commenter just told me:

Hi Cesar, you had written before, “Something that bothers me about my blogging career is that the more philosophically mature I get, the fewer visits I receive.” As Donald Hoffman argues in The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes, humans are evolved to maximize their reproductive chances, which has little to do with the pursuit of truth; indeed, focusing on truth as an end goal lowers these chances.

What the vast majority of people care about is increasing their relative social status so they make more money, are better liked in their communities, and have greater reproductive odds. And as Thomas Ligotti concludes in The Conspiracy Against the Human Race, “If truth is what you seek, then the examined life will only take you on a long ride to the limits of solitude and leave you by the side of the road with your truth and nothing else”…

Just my two cents.

If you want to live and reproduce, you’d better believe the myths of your time (the king is not naked). Woe betide you if you point out that the king is naked (only children like the one in the story, drunks and madmen tell the truth).

Nevertheless, we cannot compare a healthy age, with healthy myths—let’s say Greco-Roman before they interbred—with Christendom. One reflects a healthy archetype and the other an incredibly malignant one. There is nothing wrong with believing in the gods of Olympus or their Germanic equivalent, the gods of Valhalla, if those archetypes are attuned to the eternal truths for the Aryan peoples (cf. the early chapters of Savitri’s book). On the other hand, failing to repudiate a New Testament written by Jews for Gentile consumption is infinitely perverse.

What you say is true but only because whites today are fucking degenerate shits who only deserve Kalki to come and exterminate them. (You should read Savitri’s book, linked in ‘Our Books’, to understand this point.)

As for me being left alone preaching in the wilderness, that’s also true. But have you reflected about these words I recently wrote about Wagner and Nietzsche?

If there is one thing that emerges from all these biographies that I have read and conscientiously weighed up, it is the revelation that Christianity condemned Nietzsche, to use the poet-philosopher’s words, to a seventh solitude: absolute solitude that over the years annihilated him psychologically. That’s the tremendous asymmetry I was talking about, compared to the much famed and incredibly beloved Wagner by Europeans in general and Germans in particular…

One German gets all the glory and the other is condemned to the extent that nobody wants to listen to him, to the point of losing his mind. And it all has to do, of course, with the fact that the Aryans were Christians in the 19th century. And even in the 21st century the racial right loves those who echo Wagner’s anti-Semitism, but those who also blame Christianity are ignored.

Categories
Exterminationism Friedrich Nietzsche

The daimon within us…

This lone walker from 1870 on a track leading up a mountain in the Trossachs reminds me of Nietzsche’s loneliness.

Tomorrow I will probably continue with the Charlemagne theme of Karlheinz Deschner’s series, but first I would like to recapitulate a few things.

Crossing the psychological Rubicon has its problems, especially since almost nobody is on the other side of the river.

A few days ago for example a Canadian contacted me by email and didn’t understand why I reject white nationalism, even though I don’t know any nationalist who has as his absolute religion what I call ‘the extermination of the Neanderthals’. Even the latest commenter who has commented on this site doesn’t seem to have a clue about our position on the so-called holocaust.

Virtually all racialists today are stuck at levels 1-5 on the Mauritius scale. There is a real psychological gulf between us and them. The distance is unbridgeable. It is a fact that the people who write articles, and comment in the comments section of the main racialist forums, haven’t made the step to level 6 (let alone level 10!) and won’t make it, unless World War III breaks out and the US becomes a sort of lunar desert.

Since I live in Mexico, it makes me angry that normies like the Argentinian Agustín Laje and the Chilean Gonzalo Lira have thousands and thousands of fans and that those of us on the other side of the river are so lonely. But that’s the price to be paid by those who dare to cross the Rubicon, as we see in the prose of an Austrian biographer:

The tragedy of Friedrich Nietzsche’s life was that it happened to be a one-man show, a monodrama wherein no other actor entered upon the stage: not a soul is at his side to succour him; no woman is there to soften by her ever-present sympathy the stresses of the atmosphere. Every action takes its birth in him, and its repercussions are felt by him alone. Not one person ventures to enter wholeheartedly into the innermost sanctum of Nietzsche’s destiny; the poet-philosopher is doomed to speak, to struggle, to suffer alone. He converses with no one, and no one has anything to say to him. What is even more terrible is that none hearken to his voice.

In this unique tragedy, Friedrich Nietzsche had neither fellow-actors nor audience, neither stage nor scenery nor costume; the drama ran its course in a spaceless realm of thought. Basel, Naumburg, Nice, Sorrento, Sils-Maria, Genoa, and so forth are so many names serving as milestones on his life’s road; they were never abiding-places, never a home. The scene having once been set, it remained the same till the curtain was rung down; it was composed of isolation, of solitude, of that agonizing loneliness which Nietzsche’s own thoughts gathered around him and with which he was entrapped as by an impenetrable bell-glass, a solitude wherein there were no flowers or colours or music or beasts or men, a solitude whence even God was excluded, the dead and petrified solitude of some primeval world which existed long ago or may come into being æons hence.

At first, while he was professor of Basel University and could speak his mind from the professorial chair, and while Wagner’s friendship thrust him into the limelight, Nietzsche’s words drew attentive listeners; but the more he delved into his own mind, the more he plunged into the depths of time, the less did he find responsive echoes. One by one his friends, and even strangers, rose to their feet and withdrew affrighted at the sound of his monologue, which became wilder and more ecstatic as the philosopher warmed to his task. Thus was he left terribly alone, upon the stage of his fate. Gradually the solitary actor grew disquieted by the fact that he was talking into the void; he raised his voice, shouted, gesticulated, hoping to find a response even if it were no better than a contradiction.

Thus the drama was played to a finish before empty seats, and no one guessed that the mightiest tragedy of the nineteenth century was unrolling itself before men’s eyes. Such was Friedrich Nietzsche’s tragedy, and it had its roots in his utter loneliness. Unexampled was the way in which an inordinate wealth of thought and feeling confronted a world monstrously void and impenetrably silent. The daimon within him hounded him out of his world and his day, chasing him to the uttermost marge of his own being.

My excerpts from The Struggle with the Daimon can be read here.

Categories
Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

On the hermit’s cave

On this site, I have been using the metaphor of the three-eyed raven’s cave in the sense that for a real intrapsychic metamorphosis it is necessary to cut oneself off from human society for decades. Even Hitler once fantasised about becoming a Benedictine monk. A Trappist monk (my father, by the way, loved some Trappist monks he met in Spain in Franco’s time), Thomas Merton, wrote something that portrays what I have come to know precisely by going into that cave for most of my life:

“The world of men has forgotten the joys of silence, the peace of solitude which is necessary, to some extent, for the fullness of human living. Not all men are called to be hermits, but all men need enough silence and solitude in their lives to enable the deep inner voice of their own true self to be heard at least occasionally. When that inner voice is not heard, when man cannot attain to the spiritual peace that comes from being perfectly at one with his own true self, his life is always miserable and exhausting. For he cannot go on happily for long unless he is in contact with the springs of spiritual life which are hidden in the depths of his own soul. If man is constantly exiled from his own home, locked out of his own spiritual solitude, he ceases to be a true person. He no longer lives as a man. He becomes a kind of automaton, living without joy because he has lost his spontaneity. He is no longer moved from within, but only from outside himself”.

Naturally, Hitler and I would object to Merton and the young Americans who wanted to emulate him after World War II that true wisdom is not to be gained in Catholic hermitages, but in pagan caves where the magic of the old religions allows us to see the historical past as it happened (the metaphor of the third-eyed raven). If the young men who wanted to emulate Merton had opened their third eye, they would have realised that they fought on the wrong side in WW2 (just imagine seeing the Hellstorm atrocities with your own eyes!).

Nevertheless, what Merton says about the solitude of the hermit is true.

Only by separating ourselves from our fellow human beings to develop the inner self is it possible to understand what is going on. Alas, no normie or racialist today, as far as I know, has gone through the initiatory process that Hitler went through so well, as explained in the book we recently translated for this site by Savitri Devi.