Painting of the day:
Edmund Blair Leighton
The Accolade (detail) ~ 1901
O splendour of the flesh! O ideal splendour!
O love renewed, triumphant dawn aurora,
Where, at their feet the Gods and Heroes,
Callipyge the white and her little Eros,
Drowned in the snow of rose-petals, press
Women and flowers beneath their feet’s caress!
Since English roses are the Crown of the Evolution, that Nature took unfathomable ages to create, when I lived in Manchester nothing shocked me more than the spectacle of watching snow-white women with Neanderthalesque partners on the streets: dysgenics to the maximum degree.
This is the last entry where I quote extensively from Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans:
The world today is dominated by technology as never before. It is impossible to travel anywhere without seeing some vestiges of or manifestations of technological wizardry which have shaped all life on the planet today, particularly those innovations developed at the time of the Industrial Revolution.
While this fact is commonly known and countless books and works have been written on the subject, all have ignored one crucial feature of this astonishing technological revolution: the plain facts are that the great technological innovations which have set the pace for the entire world are exclusively the product of a tiny minority of Whites.
This fact, like so many other unpalatable truths in history, is ignored because of the political implications it carries: it is possibly the most politically incorrect view which can be made, although the facts leave any objective observer with no other option but to arrive at this inescapable conclusion.
[Kemp goes on to explain the origins of technology and science. He sketches the lives of dozens of white inventors and scientists, a long list from the ancient Greeks to modern inventors: all whites. In other chapters he writes about immigration and eugenics in the US until 1945. He also writes about monstrous dysgenics: what I call the Sin against the Holy Ghost, non-white interbreeding with Aryan women:]
Having established itself as the second White heartland, a second Europe, North America immediately became the focus for massive development, advances—and a magnet for further immigration from all parts of the world. America’s rise to greatness depended to a great degree upon its large racial homogeneity.
Following the banning of further Black immigration in 1808 (when the further importation of slaves was outlawed) American immigration policy was specifically geared to ensuring that as few non-Whites as possible entered that country. As a result of this policy, the White population did indeed increase: great industries sprang up and America soon almost equaled Europe in terms of population numbers.
In the period immediately following the end of the American Civil War, the Republican Party dominated American politics, partly through the disenfranchisement of the Whites in the South and their replacement with Republican supporting Black voters. The Republicans remained in control of both houses of Congress until 1875, and of the presidency from 1869 until 1885, in the latter year losing it to the Democrats.
After 1900 the legislation enforcing segregation was carried to new heights:
• a 1914 Louisiana statute required separate entrances at circuses for Blacks and Whites;
• a 1915 Oklahoma law segregated telephone booths;
• a 1920 Mississippi law made it a crime to advocate or publish “arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between Whites and Negroes.”
• Arkansas provided for segregation at race tracks;
• Texas prohibited integrated boxing matches;
• All states had segregated schools; and
• All states prohibited mixed race marriages.
Segregation was not, as is commonly believed, restricted to the South. In 1910, the northern city of Baltimore in Maryland became the first city in America to officially delineate separate Black and White suburbs, and was followed by Dallas, Texas, Greensboro, North Carolina, Louisville, Kentucky, Norfolk, Virginia, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Richmond, Virginia, Roanoke, Virginia, and St. Louis, Missouri.
The policy of segregation was carried out at the highest level: when Woodrow Wilson became president in 1913, the first action he took upon arriving in Washington DC, was to order the segregation of all federal facilities in the American capital.
During the last part of the 19th Century and the early part of the 20th Century, America became the world’s center for racial science. By the time that Theodore Roosevelt became president of America in 1913, and lasting right until the beginning of the Second World War in 1939, explicitly racial policies were followed by virtually all American presidents.
When D.W. Griffith’s classic 1915 film, Birth of a Nation, which told the story of the Reconstruction period and the rise of the original Ku Klux Klan, was publicly praised by American president Woodrow Wilson, the film was an immediate hit, with audiences all over America flocking to see the epic.
The chief racial theorist at the time in America was Madison Grant (1865-1937) who counted amongst his personal friends at least two American presidents. Grant wrote two of the most influential works of American racialism: The Passing of the Great Race (1916) and The Conquest of a Continent (1933). In both these books Grant expounded on racial anthropology and the need for eugenics—or racial improvement by selective breeding (in the same way that specific breeds of animals are reared).
In his book, The Passing of the Great Race, Grant called for a halt to non-White immigration into the United States. The book was an international best seller, being favorably reviewed by Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and numerous other equally influential publications.
American president Warren G. Harding publicly praised eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard’s book, The Rising Tide of Color, at a public speech on 26 October 1922; this was followed the same year by the appointment of one of Grant’s compatriots, Harry Laughlin, as an expert witness on eugenics and racial differences in IQ (as had been measured in the U.S. military) by the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Immigration.
1924 Immigration Law
A huge wave of immigrants to the United States occurred between the 1840s and the 1920s. During this era, approximately 37 million immigrants arrived in the United States. Census figures indicate that about 6 million Germans, 4.5 million Irish, 4.75 million Italians, 4.2 million people from England, Scotland and Wales, approximately the same number from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 2.3 million Scandinavians, and 3.3 million people from Russia and the Baltic states entered the United States. Between the 1840s and the 1870s, Germans and Irish groups predominated. Between 1854 and 1892, more Germans arrived in any given year than any other ethnic group, except for three years when the Irish predominated.
Starting in 1880 however, the waves of immigrants started to come increasingly from Eastern Europe: millions of Eastern European Jews and Southern Europeans, all considerably “darker” than the original White settlers in America who had all virtually exclusively come from the Nordic sub-racial dominated countries of Northern and Western Europe.
The influx of Southern Europeans, in particular, was opposed by the American eugenicists, and became the subject of much work and investigation. The end result of this work, combined with the earlier investigations and evidence by Harry Laughlin, produced the 1924 Immigration law. In 1924, the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion put before the Congress led to the Johnson Act of 1924, which cut down to little less than a tiny trickle the number of immigrants into America, limiting those who did enter to those of specific Northern and Western European ancestry only.
This law remained in force until 1965. Grant was acknowledged as the father of these immigration laws; and he went on to found the American Eugenics Society with Laughlin, the U.S. Congress appointed eugenics advisor.
The suppression of American eugenics
The science of eugenics became international: the First World Eugenics Congress was held in London in 1912. The later British prime minister, Winston Churchill, was one of the official sponsors, with the then British prime minister, Arthur Balfour, delivering the inaugural address.
The Second Eugenics Congress was hosted by the American Museum of Natural History in New York, with more than 300 delegates from all over the world—except Germany, as that country was still ostracized after the First World War. The guest list was impressive: including the future American President Herbert Hoover and the scientific genius Alexander Graham Bell, who was also the Congress’s honorary president, amongst many others.
The Third World Eugenics Congress—and the last—was held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York again in 1932, where prominent attendees included Dr. J. Harvey-Kellogg (from Kellogg’s cereals) and Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, the developer of the theory of evolution.
Grant’s second major work then appeared in 1933: The Conquest of a Continent, detailing the racial make-up of the United States and warning that racial integration would cause modern America to disappear. The book, published by the well-known Scribner and Sons publishing house, became the focus of a boycott organized mainly by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.
This occurred despite Grant making no specific remarks about Jews in the book: but by this time the Nazi Party had come to power in Germany and the American racialist movement was to a large extent held responsible for helping to prepare the scientific background to Nazi policy, and as such the propaganda mills were turned against Grant as much as they were turned against the Nazis.
Finally the Jewish anthropologist, Franz Boas, launched an all out campaign against eugenics. Combined with the propaganda linking Grant’s work to the openly anti-Jewish Nazi government in Germany, fewer and fewer public figures were prepared to associate themselves with eugenics, and by the end of the Second World War the science had been successfully suppressed in America.
Non-white immigration into the white heartlands
The dominating theme of European history in the last quarter of the 20th Century has been the large-scale immigration of non-White peoples and races into the modern era White heartlands of Europe, Australia/New Zealand and North America. This process has taken place via two avenues: legal immigration and illegal immigration: it is difficult to formulate estimates on which has been the greater. Whatever the channel used, the reality of masses of non-Whites settling in these territories can quite rightly said to be changing the face of these continents.
According to Eurostat (the Statistical Office of the European Communities) in their publication Migration Statistics, 1996, there is not one of the 15 countries in Western Europe which, at the beginning of 1994, did not have less than 3 -10 per cent of what they euphemistically call “non-nationals resident”.
France, Germany, Austria, the Benelux countries, Denmark, Scandinavia and England are all listed as having “non-nationals resident” of more than 10 per cent, with Germany in two regions registered figures of “more than 15 per cent.” An average of between 10 and 15 per cent of “non nationals resident” in Western Europe as of the mid 1990’s is therefore an accurate estimate, given that official figures are always behind actual statistics, as the number of illegal immigrants always closely shadows the number of legal immigrants.
Racial mixing has been extremely prevalent in Britain. According to the 1991 census, taken by the Office for National Statistics in London (ONS), 40 per cent of young Black men in Britain are married to, or live with, a White partner. The trend is less common on the other side of the sexual divide, where one in five young Black women has a partner who is White. Britain has, as a result of this large non-White influx, suffered a large number of Black riots, the most serious of which occurred in 1981, when countrywide riots saw large areas of many inner cities razed to the ground.
According to an article in the newspaper, USA Today of 17 June 1998, the number of mixed-race marriages in the USA was 150,000 in 1960. By 1998 it had increased to “over 1.5 million” and it estimated that the number of mixed-race children in America stood at “over 2 million.”
The 1960s will also go down in history as having introduced one of the most significant factors to affect White numbers in the entire history of the world: the development of the birth control pill, or oral contraceptive, which was first approved for use in the United States in 1965. Social demographic trends have shown that it is only in the Western, White, industrialized countries where contraception is used to any significant degree.
The reproduction rate in White countries (amongst their native populations) has, since the introduction of the pill, dropped to the point where in most White countries it is below the stable replacement rate of 2.4 children per female. In the non-White Third World however, no such restraints exist, and the population grows exponentially as fast as the White population declines in Europe and North America: this demographic time bomb will in the not to distant future have serious consequences for the entire earth.
The resultant massive overpopulation of the non-White lands of the earth provides the major driver for non-White immigration into the White heartlands of Europe, Australia and North America.
This is a terrible, tremendous loss.
One cannot imagine a non-white version of Jonathan Bowden [see previous post]. He is something uniquely ours, he belongs to us. If our people should perish, the world will not know such a type again. Brilliant, quirky, hilarious, inspired, exuding the passion of a thousand suns, but also odd and perhaps sad and troubled as well. Very, very English.
Such was my impression, anyway. I never knew Jonathan personally, but he always reminded me, and strikingly so, of a very close friend of mine. They could have been brothers. My friend made it to 39. When he left, dying unexepectedly and without warning, he took something away that those of us who remain would never get back. And so it is with Bowden.
Perhaps that is the price one pays to mix such passion with brilliance. Trapped in normal life, but with a heart and soul too big for it, or simply attuned to that which others do not see. A fire in a barn, the life force ready to explode – or go away entirely. Perhaps such men aren’t meant to last, but rather to use themselves up with haste, spending themselves in a torrent, living mostly within the rich universe of their own minds. Only the gods know.
It is entirely possible that Bowden, had he the resources and support, could have played an even greater role in creating the vision that we require. Our time as a people is running short, and Bowden, his own time cut tragically short, has left us when we needed him most. We can soldier on, and we will. Let his memory and the work that he leaves behind inspire us to go forward with passion and heart, to win a new world, and in the meantime to support those wonderful, talented misfits as they arise, and while we still have them. They will not last forever. Of course, no man does, but the sort of which I speak seems particularly prone to the candle burning brightly, but briefly.
Many have said that preserving the beauty of the Aryan female is powerful incentive for preserving our people, and frankly, that’s always been quite good enough for me. Still is. But I’ll also derive some comfort from the fact that, when we secure the existence of our people, there will be more Bowdens down the road. Not often, and not many, but some. That will be good too.
Rest in peace, comrade.
Source: Comment at Counter-Currents
by Cesar Tort
Printer-friendly document: here
7,600 words (a shorter version of this article: here)
Recently I uploaded in this blog a PDF of a 63,000-word text, The Return of Quetzalcoatl, the fourth book of my Hojas Susurrantes. Only by means of introducing this totally unheard of field for understanding human psychology and history, “Psychohistory,” I can properly respond to Greg Johnson’s views on Greco-Roman homosexuality.
As Julian Jaynes saw in The Breakdown of The Bicameral Mind, Homeric Greeks were, psychologically, vastly different from historical Greeks. Semitic cultures were even more different. In the online edition of my Quetzalcoatl I refrained to reproduce this image for the simple reason that it would have meant retroprojection. In the image we see women, presumably the mothers, trying to rescue their children from a propitiatory child sacrifice to Moloch Baal. But in real life the parents themselves handed over their crying children to the assistants of the priest, hence the inflammatory sentence with which I ended my Quetzalcoatl (“In the final book of this work I’ll go back to my autobiography, and we shall see if after such grim findings mankind has the right to exist”).
In Hollywood such sort of retroprojections are ubiquitous in movies about the historical past. For instance, Australia, a pro-aboriginals film set before the Second World War, had an upset Nicole Kidman telling another white person, “No mother would leave her child!” when in real life, as recounted in my Quetzalcoatl, quite a few Australian abbos not only abandoned some of their babies, but killed and ate them (for scholarly references supporting this claim see my PDF).
Westerners, and incredibly, child abuse researchers included, have not awakened to the fact that there have been very dissimilar “psychoclasses” or ways of childrearing in the world; and that this has had enormous implications for the mental health of a people, primitive or modern. For example, in my Quetzalcoatl I said that Rhea hid Zeus and presented a stone wrapped in strips, which Cronus took as a swaddled baby and ate it. Cronus represents the pre-Homeric Greeks, the archaic Hellas. After the breakdown of the bicameral, or schizoid mind, historical Greeks considered barbarous the practice of child sacrifice, symbolized in Zeus’ successful rebellion against his filicidal father. Though they still practiced the exposure of unwanted babies, the historical Greeks at least stopped sacrificing them in horrible ways: a practice that their neighbors continued. Nonetheless, if films on both Homeric and post-Homeric Greeks were historically accurate, the exposure of babies, which was practiced on a gigantic scale even in Roman times, would be visually depicted.
Recently I saw two films that I had not watched for a long time. In the 1959 Hollywood interpretation of Ben-Hur starring Charlton Heston, Tiberius’ Rome and Jerusalem are idealized far beyond what those cities looked like in the times of Jesus. Think of how, to impress the audience with the grandeur of the Roman circus in a Hollywoodesque Palestine, for the chariot race sequence the director made it look as large as Constantinople’s circus! Conversely, in Fellini’s 1969 Satyricon, freely based on Petronius’ classic, the Roman Empire is oneirically caricaturized to the point that the film’s extreme grotesqueries bear no visual relationship whatsoever to the empire of historical time. Both extreme idealization and oneiric caricature constitute artistic ways to understand the soul of Rome. One may think that an Aristotelian golden mean may lie somewhere between Ben-Hur and Fellini-Satyricon, but not even in HBO’s Rome, a purportedly realistic TV series that claimed paying more attention to historical women, dared to show that such women abandoned their babies who died on the hills, roads and the next day were found under the frozen streets: a custom approved even by Plato and Aristotle.
Growing in a “late infanticidal” culture, to use Lloyd deMause’s term, makes members of that psychoclass greatly different compared to our modern western psychoclass. (One could easily imagine what a shock for the modern mind would represent the spectacle of white babies dying on the streets of Vermont, Bonn or Florence with nobody bothering to rescue them.) So different that I believe that the hostile takeover I do of deMause’s Psychohistory to deliver it to the nationalist community will revolutionize the understanding of history once it is properly digested and understood.
In my Quetzalcoatl I quoted psychohistorian Henry Ebel (no ellipsis added between unquoted sentences):
DeMause’s argument had a breathtaking sweep and grandeur such as we associate with the work of Hegel, Darwin and Marx. Moreover, it seemed to be a valid response and interpretation of a series of gruesome facts that had been consistently understated or suppressed by conventional historians. “The Evolution of Childhood” has proved a morsel too large, too complete, too assertive, and in many ways too grim for the historical profession to digest. Since adult styles and roles, including the academic and professional, are mainly denial-systems erected against those early needs and terrors, the academic consideration of deMause’s argument has been, understandably enough, of less than earthshaking intelligence.
Once we integrate Psychohistory to our view of history, it is easy to notice that when Greg Johnson talks of Greco-Roman homosexuality he does it as if it was similar to the mores of today’s world: consenting sex between adults. But if Jaynes and deMause are right, the peoples of the classical world inhabited an altogether distinct psychic universe, especially before Solon. So different that sometimes I even wonder if Francis Parker Yockey has a valid point when he wrote that the Italian Renaissance is sold as a link between two cultures that, according to him, have nothing in common.
A splendid example of such discontinuity is what André Gide called normal pederasty, the ancients’ infatuation for adolescents. Keep in mind that Gide did not condemn such customs. On the contrary, he considered his Corydon, published in 1924 and which received widespread condemnation, his most important work. However, since I can only understand the geist of a culture through the visual arts, before quoting Gide let me convey visually what “homo”-sexuality signified for the classical world through a couple of scenes of the movie Satyricon:
Cinematic experiences aside, what are scholars saying about what I call pseudo-homosexuality: pederasty (which must never be confused with pedophilia)? In the introduction to On Homosexuality: Lysis, Phaedrus, and Symposium, published by Prometheus Books, Eugene O’Connor wrote (again, no ellipsis added):
Benjamin Jowett’s introduction to his translation of Plato’s Symposium expresses prevalent Victorian, Edwardian, and even later attitudes, particularly in England and America, toward Greek homosexuality. Some excerpts from the introduction will illustrate this “clash of cultures.” Since Jowett’s day much has been done to counter and correct this willful distortion of ancient sexuality. We may now consult, for example, the more sober appraisals of K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (1978), and Saara Lilja, Homosexuality in Republican and Augustan Rome (1983) to help us redress the oversights of earlier scholarship.
The composition of [Plato's] Symposium owes much to the Greek tradition of “banquet literature,” often a collection of informal discussions (in prose or verse) on various topics, including the power of love and the delights of young men and boys. Indeed, a whole body of homoerotic literature grew up around the themes of male beauty and how one ought to woo and win a boy.
The customary social pattern was this: a boy in his teens or, at any rate, a younger man (called an eromenos, or “beloved”) was sought out by an older male (called an erastes or “lover”), who might be already married. Women in classical Athens were kept in virtual seclusion from everyone but their immediate families and their domestic activities were relegated to certain “female” parts of the house. As a consequence, boys and young men—partly by virtue of their being seen, whether in the gymnasium, in the streets, or at a sacrifice (as in the Lysis)—became natural love-objects.
Strict rules of conduct bound both parties: adult males could face prosecution for seducing free-born youths, while Athenian boys and young men could be censured for soliciting sexual favors for money. That would make them in effect equal to courtesans, who were hired companions and lacked citizen status.
This erastes-eromenos (lover-beloved) relationship, although it was sexual and in many ways comparable to typical, male-female relations, with the man assuming the dominant role, was meant ideally to be an educative one. The older man instilled in the younger—in essence, “made him pregnant with”—a respect for the requisite masculine virtues of courage and honor.
Socrates in the Phaedrus describes how the soul of the pederast (literally, “a lover of youths”) who is blessed with philosophy will grow wings after a certain cycle of reincarnations. In recent centuries, the word “pederast” has come to be viewed with opprobrium, fit only to describe child molesters. But in ancient Greece the word carried no such negative connotation, and was employed in a very different context.
Surrounded as he often was by the brightest young men of Athens, Socrates jokingly compared himself, in Xenophon’s Symposium, to a pander or procurer. These are witty, humorous characterizations of Socrates to be sure; yet, in the end, Socrates was the best erastes of all; the loving adult male teacher who sought to lead his aristocratic eromenoi (male beloveds) on the road to virtue.
I have read Xenophon’s Symposium and on chapter VIII it does look like Socrates and others had intense crushes with the eromenoi.
In his Corydon Gide shares the Platonic view that what he calls “normal pederasty” (to distinguish it from child molestation) is a propitious state of the mind to shed light on truth and beauty. In the last pages of his slim book Gide concludes: “I believe that such a lover will jealously watch over him, protect him, and himself exalted, purified by this love, will guide him toward those radiant heights which are not reached without love.” In the very final page Gide adds that “From thirteen to twenty-two (to take the age suggested by La Bruyere) is for the Greeks the age of loving friendship, of shared exaltation, of the noblest emulation,” and that only after this age the youth “wants to be a man”: marrying a woman.
But not only I need visuals to properly understand a culture. Narrative is fundamental too as a way to get into the unfathomed deeps of a bygone world. Below, a tale recounted by an old poet, Eumolpus in the first long novel that Western literature knows, Petronius’ Satyricon:
“When I went to Asia,” Eumolpus began, “as a paid officer in the Quaestor’s suite, I lodged with a family at Pergamus. I found my quarters very pleasant, first on account of the convenience and elegance of the apartments, and still more so because of the beauty of my host’s son. I devised the following method to prevent the master of the house entertaining any suspicions of me as a seducer. Whenever the conversation at table turned on the seduction of handsome boys, I showed such extreme indignation and protested with such an air of austerity and offended dignity against the violence done to my ears by filthy talk of the sort, that I came to be regarded, especially by the mother, as one of the greatest of moralists and philosophers. Before long I was allowed to take the lad to the gymnasium; it was I that directed his studies, I that guided his conduct, and guarded against any possible debaucher of his person being admitted to the house.
“It happened on one occasion that we were sleeping in the dining-hall, the school having closed early as it was a holiday, and our amusements having rendered us too lazy to retire to our sleeping-chambers. Somewhere about midnight I noticed that the lad was awake; so whispering soft and low, I murmured a timid prayer in these words, ‘Lady Venus, if I may kiss this boy, so that he know it not, tomorrow I will present him with a pair of doves.’ Hearing the price offered for the gratification, the boy set up a snore. So approaching him, where he lay still making pretense to be asleep, I stole two or three flying kisses. Satisfied with this beginning, I rose betimes next morning, and discharged my vow by bringing the eager lad a choice and costly pair of doves.
“The following night, the same opportunity occurring, I changed my petition, ‘If I may pass a naughty hand over this boy, and he not feel it, I will present him for his complaisance with a brace of the best fighting cocks ever seen.’ At this promise the child came nestling up to me of his own accord and was actually afraid, I think, lest I might drop asleep again. I soon quieted his uneasiness on this point, and amply satisfied my longings, short of the supreme bliss, on every part of his beautiful body. Then when daylight came, I made him happy with the gift I had promised him.
“As soon as the third night left me free to try again, I rose as before, and creeping up to the rascal, who was lying awake expecting me, whispered at his ear, ‘If only, ye Immortal Gods, I may win of this sleeping darling full and happy satisfaction of my love, for such bliss I will tomorrow present the lad with an Asturian of the Macedonian strain [a horse], the best to be had for money, but always on the condition he shall not feel my violence.’ Never did the stripling sleep more sound. So first I handled his plump and snowy bosoms, then kissed him on the mouth, and finally concentrated all my ardors in one supreme delight. Next morning he sat still in his room, expecting my present as usual. Well! you know as well as I do, it is a much easier matter to buy doves and fighting cocks than an Asturian; besides which, I was afraid so valuable a present might rouse suspicion as to the real motives of my liberality. After walking about for an hour or so, I returned to the house, and gave the boy a kiss—and nothing else. He looked about inquiringly, then threw his arms round my neck, and ‘Please, sir!’ he said, ‘where is my Asturian?’
“‘It is hard,’ I replied, ‘to get one fine enough. You will have to wait a few days for me to fulfill my vow.’
“The boy had wits enough to see through my answer, and his resentment was betrayed by the angry look that crossed his face.
“Although by this breach of faith I had closed against myself the door of access so carefully contrived, I returned once more to the attack. For, after allowing a few days to elapse, one night when similar circumstances had created just another opportunity for us as before, I began, the moment I heard the father snoring, to beg and pray the boy to be friends with me again —that is, to let me give him pleasure for pleasure, adding all the arguments my burning concupiscence could suggest. But he was positively angry and refused to say one word beyond, ‘Go to sleep, or I will tell my father.’ But there is never an obstacle so difficult audacity will not vanquish it. He was still repeating, ‘I will wake my father,’ when I slipped into his bed and took my pleasure of him in spite of his half-hearted resistance. However, he found a certain pleasure in my naughty ways, for after a long string of complaints about my having cheated and cajoled him and made him the laughing-stock of his school-fellows, to whom he had boasted of his rich friend, he whispered, ‘Still I won’t be so unkind as you; if you like, do it again.’
“So forgetting all our differences, I was reconciled to the dear lad once more, and after utilizing his kind permission, I slipped off to sleep in his arms. But the stripling was not satisfied with only one repetition, all ripe for love as he was and just at the time of life for passive enjoyment. So he woke me up from my slumbers, and, ‘Anything you’d like, eh?’ said he. Nor was I, so far, indisposed to accept his offer. So working him the best ever I could, to the accompaniment of much panting and perspiration, I gave him what he wanted, and then dropped asleep again, worn out with pleasure. Less than an hour had passed before he started pinching me and asking, ‘Eh! why are we not at work?’ Hereupon, sick to death of being so often disturbed, I flew into a regular rage, and retorted his own words upon him; ‘Go to sleep,’ I cried, ‘or I’ll tell your father!’”
“Enlivened by this discourse,” continues Encolpius, the narrator of Satyricon, “I now began to question my companion…” (for an introduction to this most classic novel, see my recent entry in another of my blogs). However, the erastes-eromenos relationship was not always as hilariously picaresque as Petronius depicts it. In my previous response to Johnson, when I added the image of a terracotta statuette of Zeus carrying off Ganymede, I included no references. Here I’ll add a couple of them. In the academic work that O’Connor mentioned above, Greek Homosexuality, K.J. Dover writes:
Ephoros, writing in the mid-fourth century, gives a remarkable account (F149) of ritualised homosexual rape in Crete. The erastes gave notice of his intention, and the family and friends of the eromenos did not attempt to hide the boy away, for that would have been admission that he was not worthy of the honour offered him by the erastes. If they believed that the erastes was unworthy, they prevented the rape by force; otherwise they put a good-humoured and half-hearted resistance, which ended with the erastes carrying off the eromenos to a hide-out for two months. At the end of that period the two of them returned to the city (the eromenos was known, during the relationship, as parastatheis, ‘posted beside…’ or ‘brought over to the side of…’) and the erastes gave the eromenos expensive presents, including clothing which would thereafter testify to the achievement of the eromenos in being chosen; he was kleinos, ‘celebrated’, thanks to his philetor, ‘lover’. [p. 189]
John Boswell, a homosexual professor at Yale University who died at forty-seven of complications from AIDS, specialized in the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity. Boswell abstains to mention the word “rape” which Dover unabashedly used in his treatise published by Harvard University. But in Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe Boswell describes in less academic, and more colorful, language the legal arrangements regarding such abductions:
Apart from the abduction aspect, this practice has all the elements of European marriage tradition: witness, gifts, religious sacrifice, a public banquet, a chalice, a ritual change of clothing for one partner, a change of status for both, even a honeymoon.
The abduction is less remarkable, by the standards of the times, that it seems. The ruler of the gods, Zeus, mandated a permanent relationship with a beautiful Trojan prince, Ganymede, after abducting him and carrying him off to heaven; they were the most famous same-sex couple of the ancient world, familiar to all its educated residents. Zeus even gave Ganymede’s father a gift—the equivalent of a dower or “morning gift”. The inhabitants of Chalcis honored what they believed to be the very spot of Ganymede’s abduction, called Harpagion (“Place of Abduction”). Moreover, as late as Boccaccio (Decameron, Day 5, Tale 1) an abduction marriage that takes place seems to find its most natural home in Crete.
Heterosexual abduction marriage was also extremely common in the ancient world—especially in the neighboring state of Sparta, with which Crete shared its constitution and much of its social organization, where it was the normal mode of heterosexual marriage. It remained frequent well into modern times, and even under Christian influence men who abducted women were often only constrained to marry them, and not punished in any other way. In a society where women were regarded as property and their sexuality their major asset, by the time an abducted woman was returned most of her value was gone, and the more public attention was focused on the matter the less likely it was she would ever find a husband. And in a moral universe where the abduction of Helen (and of the Sabine women) provided the foundation myths of the greatest contemporary political entities, such an act was as likely to seem heroic as disreputable. The Erotic Discourses attributed to Plutarch begin with stories of abduction for love, both heterosexual and homosexual. [pp. 91-93]
This last sentence about the foundation myths of both the ancient Hellas and Rome is absolutely central to understand their moral universe. However, Boswell omits to say that Zeus would be considered a bisexual god with strong heterosexual preferences—Hera and many other consorts—according to current standards, in no way a “gay” god.
Furthermore, unlike the same-sex unions of today, the erastes-eromenos relationship wasn’t meant to be permanent. The continuance of an erotic relationship was disapproved. In dramatic contrast to contemporary “gay marriages,” romantic relationships between adult coevals were disrespected. In fact, the former eromenos might well become an erastes himself with a younger youth when he got older. Boswell, who strove to use classic scholarship to support the so-called “gay marriage” of our times, overstates his case in other passages of Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. What struck me the most of his study was that on page 66 he misled the readers by claiming that the Satyricon protagonists, Encolpius and Gitone, are simply a same-sex couple. I have read a couple of translations of the hilarious Satyricon and it is all too clear that Boswell omitted two fundamental facts: Gitone’s age, an underage teen for today’s standards, and another lover of Gitone, Ascyltus (who also appears in my embedded clip).
Classic pederasty did not resemble at all what currently is called the “gay movement.” The causes of pederasty are to be found not only what O’Connor said above: women being kept in seclusion and men transferring their affections to younger boys. More serious was something that neither O’Connor nor Dover or Boswell dared to say. Infanticidal Greece and Rome produced a surplus of males as a result of the exposure of babies, especially baby girls. As I said in my Quetzalcoatl, it was not until 374 AD that the emperor Valentinian I, a Christian, mandated to rear all children. Again, what “gay” apologists like Boswell fail to understand is that that was a psychoclass distinct from our own, since for modern westerners it is unthinkable to expose baby girls. However, in my own version of Psychohistory, my educated guess is that the Athenians should have treated the children well enough to allow the explosion of arts, philosophies and policies that we have inherited.
Alice Miller’s Breaking Down the Wall of Silence and, more comprehensibly, my own Hojas Susurrantes, introduce a category that potentially could revolutionize our understanding of ourselves. There exist hells at home where, psychically, children suffer far more than the adult experience in concentration camps: experiences far more destructive for the mind and the soul of the abused child than what the common prisoner suffers. However, without assimilating our central message, what I am about to say will neither be appreciated nor understood.
There must be legitimate cases of pederasty: those that help the abused teenager escape the homes of schizophrenogenic parents: something that totally and absolutely escaped deMause’s approach to Psychohistory.
Some clinicians say that abused adolescents often dream a window of escape from their homes. For a long time, but this is the first time that I commit myself to writing it down, I have harbored the idea that, thanks to that window of escape, mental health grew exponentially in Ancient Greece. After all, Greek pederasty was the exact opposite of the Christian incarnation of it as performed in secrecy by the priests and, until recent times, without any warning provided to the unsuspecting kid. Conversely, in the Greek and Latin world the “lovers of youths” were out in the open, in the Palestra, Gymnasium or even in homely tutorship with parents, friends and acquaintances warning the budding boy about the satyrs, or older males of dubious reputation—something that never happened in Christendom.
I have said that without grasping the concept of schizophrenogenic parents the point I am trying to make will be incomprehensible. To complicate things further, in our culture blaming parents for the mental disorders of their children is such a heresy that a whole profession, biological psychiatry, has been created to conceal the work of genuine researchers of mental disorders (see my article “Unfalsifiability in psychiatry and licit drugging of white children”). But apparently it was not such a taboo in Pericles’ Athens. I think of Euripides’ plays Iphigenia and Electra, the former magnificently taken to the silver screen by Greek director Michael Cacoyannis and the latter a play I watched translated in a theatre representation. Succinctly, Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter Iphigenia and his wife Clytemnestra drove another of her daughters, Electra, mad: perfect examples of what in my book I call soul-murderers, parents who schizophrenize or kill their children. If the modern mind could break the taboo that the ancient tragedians started to break before their suicidal Peloponnesian War, under this new perspective of the human mind could we use Gide’s phrase “defense of pederasty” in a sense that Gide never imagined? Analogously, in Sparta, the Lykourgos code forbid sexual relations between erastes and eromenos. Could this be related to the sterility of science and the arts in the virile Sparta compared to its twin sister, Athens? And more importantly, could it be possible that, centuries later, the abolition of the erastes-eromenos institution by Christian emperors resulted in a psychogenic regression at the beginning of the Dark Ages (to understand this question properly one must first grasp the psychohistorical concept of “psychoclass”)?
At present, the trauma model of mental disorders (i.e., no bullshit about blaming the child’s brain for the parents’ deeds as is done in the medical model) is not accepted either by the academia or the general culture. But given the basics of developmental psychology and attachment theory, perhaps only those who followed Gide’s words—“such a lover will jealously watch over him, protect him”—would be able to open a genuine affective window, conferring the victim the ability to escape not only the schizophrenogenic parent but the non-schizogenic, though neurotic and engulfing mother as well and helping him to develop a sound mind.
But could it be possible that in real life sustaining an abused teenager until he reaches maturity could only happen in a world where poetry and sculpture manifested a predilection for adolescent bodies? Gide claims that bucolic poetry started to sound phony when the poet loved the pastor no more. Even Nietzsche, who abhorred Plato, wrote in How To Philosophize With a Hammer that Plato “says with an innocence possible only for a Greek, not a Christian, that there would be no Platonic philosophy at all if there were not such beautiful youths in Athens: it is only their sight that transposes the philosopher’s soul into an erotic trance, leaving it no peace until it lowers the seed of all exalted things into such beautiful soil.”
This said, I hasten to add that it is not possible to turn the clock back to the sexual mores of Greece and Rome. I believe that Yockey was right: cultures, like men, have souls and die. The simply fact is that the infanticidal psychoclass does not exist in the West anymore, and hence there is no actual lack of women for a legitimate transference of Eros towards the creatures that resemble the fair sex the most: the ephebes. In other words, what gay apologists like Boswell try to do, using classical scholarship to support the LGBT movement, is nonsense. It reminds me those silly Mexicans who, after centuries that the sacrificial institution was abolished, try to imitate the Aztec custom by means of using sugar skulls instead of the real decapitated skulls used as trophies in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, believing that they are “rescuing a tradition.” We should never forget that facts of importance in history occur twice: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. This may be applied to both the incorrigible indigenistas and the apologists of gay marriage among grown-up coevals in the contemporary world.
In our times the erastes-eromenos institution could only be restored as a substitute of the abusive parent, but not for the healthier families. Psychogenically—this term understood in the sense of the evolution of the psyche and society—, Europe in the eighteenth-century England was more integrated than the Europe where Greek and Latin were the official languages. In the modern West the exposure of babies had been abandoned and Christianity prohibited the most destructive aspects of the Dionysian excesses in the classical world, like those parades with gigantic phalluses where even the virtuous, married women celebrated on the streets.
But let me respond in advance a few issues that the readers of this article may take with my views:
Tough Question #1: If you claim that heterosexuality is healthier than homosexuality and at the same time promote the YouTube clip of this cute adolescent, Gitone, how would you deal with a Gitonesque son of yours?
In the coming ethnostate, citizenship will be gradated. If my “Gitonesque” son had homosexual preferences I would not reprimand him severely in his teens or even early twenties. But by his middle and late twenties the laws of the Republic would gradually make a dent in his mind. By his thirties, he had to be heterosexually married to a woman of breeding age for the couple obtaining an A- or B-class citizenship. Deterrents such as laws that permit no claiming of any inheritance in cases of overt, permanent homosexual behavior, but getting a D-class citizenship instead, would be more than enough. I disagree with Harold Covington’s idea of using psychiatry to repress overt, permanent homosexual behavior in the coming Republic, and my second book of Hojas Susurrantes demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that psychiatry is a fraudulent profession. (But never mind Uncle Harold. On The Day we will use a public rope for bringing the wildest, rainbow boys to justice!)
And speaking of the coming ethno-state, if the demographic winter caused by a feminism run amok gets really nasty—and I mean finding us in the necessity of raiding the enemy country, Amerikwa, to abduct Sabine women in order to found families—, as a desperate measure we may also will have to resort to the massive cloning of the reluctant nymphs and nymphets. On the other hand, the cloning of the most beautiful ephebos, such as Gitone, at an industrial scale makes me nervous, as I will try to explain in the following paragraphs.
It is true that in Arthur C. Clarke’s first novella, Against the Fall of Night—my favorite among Clarke’s novels—, in seemingly two ageless cities shielded from the worldwide desert, Lys and Diaspar in the year 10 billion AD, the impression the reader gets is that in those isolated oasis only whites existed: beautiful females and androgynous males. Non-whites and almost all of today’s species, plant and animal, had become extinct. Like Diaspar, in Maxfield Parrish’s 1913 murals of The Florentine Fete, The Garden of Opportunity, with handsome youths walking in an Arcadian location for heterosexual courtship, males are depicted almost as feminine as the young women (the apparently inexplicable images for this blog look better in my other blog in English, Fallen Leaves).
I am most curious about what happened to Max Born, the actor who played Gitone in the Fellini film. (I do confess that, when I saw the movie at seventeen, I found his looks rather stunning.) If Born is still with us (he would be sixty years old!) I wouldn’t mind having his genes for ages frozen for the creation of a couple of ephebes in a Diaspar-like Utopia. However, as I see it, it is the distant future what we also see in The Garden of Opportunity: a time when, after a thousand-year imperial Reich, the problem of competition between the ethnic groups had been resolved in favor of the only race that inherited the Earth. Only then could it be permissible, according to my standards, to clone ephebes.
Back to the real world. With millions of non-whites with high IQs, especially hostile Jews, in no way can we afford ultimate dolls like a young Born massively cloned. That would be historically premature. What we need are ruthless soldiers imbued with Roman severitas and, furthermore, as Guillaume Faye has eloquently stated, above all we need hypermorality: the Nietzschean ethics of difficult times.
What motivated me to write this article was not only what Johnson said about homosexuality, but also the (degenerate to my mind) music and movie tastes of the broader nationalist community. My forte is not writing, but a peculiar understanding of visual arts and music. So much so that, as to the seventh art is concerned, I consider myself as talented as Alfonso Cuarón, the director of The Prisoner of Azkaban and Children of Men (Cuarón and I were born about the same time in the same town).
I share some of Johnson’s anti-Christian sentiments, even when he said in one of his Counter-Currents threads that he will never include bullshit about a dead Jew on a stick, which I guess offended a Christian friend who stopped commenting at that site. But Johnson is no “total autobiographer.” In contrast, in Hojas Susurrantes I recount an unimaginable tragedy that befell on my family that cannot be conveyed in few words. Elsewhere I confessed just the tip of the iceberg of that tragedy: that at seventeen I constantly had themes from Mozart’s Requiem stuck in my head in an abusive school. This was an earworm synchronized with the religious metamorphosis that was taking place in my mind, the change from the stage of perceiving God as the loving dad of my St. Francis to the vindictive God of The Day: my abusive, introjected Father. Once my religious agonies were over, I could listen Requiems no more and not even other sacred music. (Only in this sense I can empathize with those who turned over to the dark side of pop, frivolous or hedonistic music.) But now that the fear of eternal damnation as an internal persecutor, or Dementor to use the symbol of the soulless creatures in The Prisoner of Azkaban, is gone, which psychological trick can I use to like sacred music again?
I have discovered a way. However, to convey my most intimate subjectivity I’ll have to indulge a little in a thought experiment.
Let’s imagine for a moment that I was not abused at home and that presently I am a famed film director like Cuarón. Let’s suppose that, being fairly well off, after Jared Taylor’s conferences were sabotaged in the previous two years I would invite him and all conference participants, both speakers and non-speakers, to my large mansion somewhere in the Northwest coast of the United States to celebrate the yearly conference.
When entering the property, way before the conference reserved for the ballroom, I prepared the participants a little surprise. The incomers are now seeing in an outdoor, circular place slightly above the ground meant to accommodate leisure activities, two singers, a male soprano and a male contralto interpreting Pergolesi’s Stabat Mater.
Visualize the background with a string orchestra and imagine that the soprano is… none other than Gitone! Every time that the adolescent soprano reaches the highest notes he lifts his eyes toward the heavens. His song is full of mannerisms typical of those actors in intimate contact with God, but in the middle of a purely pagan environment with the color of his eyes of a more intense blue than the sky-blue above him and the line of the sea behind both singers, in sharp contrast to Gitone’s dark hair and nude feet touching directly the solid flagstone at the middle of the mansion’s garden (listen to my 6-minute selection of Pergolesi’s music here).
That would be Gitone’s magic. He has thus inspired me to revisit sacred music after the soul-murdering tragedy that destroyed my family and that occurred when I had exactly his age.
Forget the academic content of the conferences that are now taking place indoors, in the ballroom. During the 37 minutes that last the twelve sections of the Stabat, still at the mansion’s outdoors even the most conservative attendants, after gluing their gaze onto the soprano for more than half an hour, start harboring truly unchristian, Dionysian thoughts. Eros is the universe’s dialectic force, and the visual experience to the sound of religious music moves them all, even the non-white nationalists present, to rediscover an elemental thumos to fight for a race so pristinely white as the alabastrine skin of the ephebe.
But then, a nationalist liberal could ask me the…
Tough Question #2: Chechar: Aren’t you ashamed that beside this subliminal fantasy of yours in one of your recent threads you homophobically ranted about “genocidal rage” against homos like you?
I am not a homo for the simple reason that I’d find repugnant any contact with a masculine face, and its body. And no: I am not ashamed for what I said in that thread at all.
Precisely because they try to imitate them, queers represent a blasphemous insult to the nymphs and the ephebes: the holy spirit of life according to my philosophy. Faggots are like massive bears with the heart of a butterfly. Comparing Gitone with any of them is like comparing a vulgar, Felliniesque, fat harlot with Botticelli’s Venus at the top of this blog.
I feel the so-called gay movement as if an Australopithecus africanus, after touching the black monolith of 2001: A Space Odyssey, has a glimpse of the mysterium tremendum of the universe. Alas, unlike the film this ape immediately fancies himself as the astronaut Dave Bowman ready for the second leap forward in the path to Overman. Or even worse: he believes that he now wears a white miniskirt like the one that Ascyltus threw over Gitone in the embedded clip, and he further believes that the other apes will now consider this still primitive, apeish missing link as if he was a consecrated soprano of the future worth to listen and contemplate. Nowadays, it does not occur to these Australopithecuses that a huge, four-and-a-half million leap forward is necessary for that specific dream become true, or that presently only the androgynous ephebes, premature embryos of a yet not verified future, have the right of homosexuality.
But perhaps it would be the most conservative nationalist the one who asks me the filthiest question of all…
Tough Question #3: Why are you promoting this sort of homoerotism with that video and photo of a boy, you pervert?
With this sort of question you are projecting onto me your own perversions: what I call the Sin against the Holy Ghost—an unforgivable sin that, a few years ago, moved me to completely severe ties with my former colleagues on child abuse studies. Contrary to your projections, my point of view about “homosexuality,” if it may be called so (I don’t have homo friends but I doubt that they fancy Gitone), is innocuous. It has nothing to do with either a traditionalist condemnation of the behavior and much less with the so-called LGTB movement. I am located light years apart from both.
To find an ephebe is like searching a needle in dozens of haystacks. According to my own definition, an ephebe is a leptosomatic (see Gitone’s chest in the above pic) adolescent of such androgynous beauty as to make him undistinguishable from a nymph: a beauty that evaporates when he reaches manhood (either in Plato or Xenophon I read how a Greek mocked another who was still attached to a lad who already had beards). This esthetic bar is, purposely, unrealistically high. So high actually that Italian filmmakers—androgynous beauty seems to be an alien concept for American directors—have had enormous difficulties in the casting process to find genuine ehpebes.
Luchino Visconti’s search of Tadzio for his Death in Venice was so agonizing that he had to travel out of his native Italy through several countries until he found Bjorn Andersen in Sweden. Similarly, by pure chance an assistant of Fellini discovered Max Born, who eventually played the character of Gitone in the mentioned Satyricon, in London’s Chelsea living as a local hippy. My concept of “ephebe” is such an obvious veiled homage to women that in the 1979 film Ernesto, where a handsome adolescent male is seduced by an androgynous ephebe, the director Salvatore Samperi did not bother to do any agonizing casting outside Italy. He simply chose a girl, Lara Wendel, to play both the roles of the ephebe Ilio and his twin sister Rachele (I was very much surprised to discover this after thirty years of watching the film).
But my hypothetical, nasty interlocutor would interrupt me to rudely ask again: Don’t go off in tangents. Stick to the point: Why are you promoting this homoerotism with images of underagers and your little “Gedankenexperiment”?
Mark my words, punk: Because I want to destroy the self-christened “gay movement” with the same vehemence that I want to destroy the “feminist movement” —and the degenerate music and film industry that has been, spiritually, interwoven in the creation of both.
Have you heard the Hegelian word Aufheben my bigoted friend? The street man moves in comfort category zones such as the hetero thesis and its homo antithesis. I believe that’s naïve. The verb Aufheben translated to English means to sublate: the suppression and assimilation of both, the previous thesis and antithesis. This is the apparently contradictory implication of preserving and changing an ethos just as, by means of aufhebenizing my previous phobia of sacred music when mixing it with the most profane love, I have just created a new, non-Christian entity where sacred music might be, again, fully appreciated albeit in a thoroughly pagan milieu. While Hegel used that verb in his philosophy of history, this is my proposed myth:
Mature, aufhebenized hetero nationalists may try to destroy the homo antithesis not by combating it directly, but by assimilating its luminous side and by turning homosexuality into almost heterosexuality through the contemplation of beauty among those rarest specimens that look like a mixture between humans, and angels. This is exactly what I pretended to do with my Quetzalcoatl, or Prolegomena For a Psychohistory of The Future that will only be fully developed in the ethnostate: destroying Christianity by means of aufhebenizing it, by assimilating its central, unconscious message and transforming it into a secular science.
Psychohistory explains what conventional historians can’t. For example, many years ago my father challenged me with a question: What galvanized the first Christians to the point of choosing martyrdom? The answer is: the overcoming of the infanticidal psychoclass. Christianity’s unconscious message is that when we murder or crucify our innocent child, we murder or crucify God. Alas, presently Christianity, and a traitorous secular Christianity catalyzed by the Jews, have metamorphosed the symbolic empathy toward the crucified Son into a deranged altruism for a New Jesus: the dispossessed races, to the point that whites now face extinction.
Michael O’Meara said that only a myth would galvanize the white race. But I believe he is wrong in believing that Christianity, now a Red Giant star soon to become a white dwarf, will play a role in its creation. In The Philosophy of Beauty Roger Scruton states that beauty can be another name for religion. Only the divine physiognomies that we, the mortals, cannot reach may drag the human soul into the asymptotic axis of the spiritual with actually never reaching the infinite. Ultimate aesthetic catharsis must be sought in the inner assimilation of the distant figure of Beatrice (for me, that is the “ephebe” that stunned me thirty years ago but that, in real life, the actor turned out to be an actress). The same can be said of a consecrated director seeking for Tadzio in several countries in order to capture his beauty for eternity, but not for sleeping with him. That would not only have meant the corruption of the fourteen year-old archangel, but making a fool of oneself like the German professor gazing at Tadzio from afar with black drops of hair-ink mixed with sweat running through a ridiculous made-up face under the sun of a Venetian beach. For unfathomable laws of the universe, unlike Zeus we cannot possess Ganymede and have a happy life after that. Even if we were as young and handsome as Encolpius, Xenophon warns us that such level of passion would drive us totally mad. And let’s not forget the Phaedrus’ comparing the fondness of an erastes for his eromenos to the fondness of wolves for lambs. Moreover, according to my own definition, with only a handful of ephebes in the world, when our object of forbidden love leaves us for the arms of another erastes, even the blond Encolpius ends up contemplating the knife…
I imagine modifying the Northwest Republic tricolor flag by means of placing the colors horizontally and adding the full image of the Garden of Opportunity in its middle. Not because in our search for the inexplicable superiority of the Venusinian we males should try to imitate Gitone or Tadzio, which is impossible. But because only the unreachable archetype of the eternal feminine will lead the white race to the Absolute.
Part of Maxfield Parrish’s 1913 Florentine Fete murals exhibited at the National Museum of American Illustration. If an ethno-state is ever created in the Northwest, my ultimate dream is that in the distant future its people will resemble the paradisiacal world of Parrish (click here for individual detail of this mural.)
In my last posts we discussed the majority report in “orthodox” white nationalism: Capitalism and the Jewish Problem as the twofold etiology of Western malaise. But I also mentioned my minority report: that the most extreme cases of self-hatred among whites—those who celebrate that their kind will become a minority in a dehumanized society inundated by non-white swarms—cannot be explained satisfactorily by any of these two factors.
In a recent post I briefly talked about how child abuse among whites drives them to hate the culture of their parents, and also presented my book Hojas Susurrantes (“Whispering Leaves”), most of which has not been translated to English.
Since this is a novel, if not a far-fetched subject for most nationalists, I cannot deal with it in this blog. However, you can visit a blog I started this week, Fallen Leaves, where I am gathering texts on the toll of child abuse in adult life I’ve been writing or collecting since 2005.
If in the near future I don’t add new posts to The West’s Darkest Hour as often as I used to do, it’s because I am busy with my minority report in another blog; for example, translating to English articles I originally wrote in Spanish: Fallen Leaves.
“That the beauty
of the white Aryan woman
will not perish
from the Earth”
Two days ago this blog received a lovely comment from the anti-hate squad:
I hope counterterrorism police locate you and execute you upon raiding your apartment. You are a waist of oxygen and food. You are evil and misguided. You shall discover whether eternal damnation is real. You shall suffer forever as you are suffering now unless you let go of the hate within you.
Of course, I didn’t dignify the guy with any reply, but I did answer the insults from a former Swedish friend. In words, our brief exchange is symptomatic of the Holy Racial War that we will be facing soon:
César, you have become a despicable human being. I regret once financing your so-called “intellectual” labour. First, check if “race” is not just another flawed scientific concept, like “parapsychology”.
I believe that some immigrant groups have a higher frequency of people who have completed all stages of the process of violentization, as identified by Lonnie Athens. But violence is conduct, not race. With government programs to educate immigrant parents not to hit their children, we in the Scandinavian countries and elsewhere could turn around the process of violentization in a generation.
The etiology is twofold: genetic and environmental. This is real science, not the pseudoscience with which your government brainwashed you.
Look at the human faces of the Collateral Damage produced in that war which you cheer on from the sidelines, you disgusting little insect; you empathy-challenged desktop murderer! Look them in the eyes – [here]
[Interpolated note: Andreas is clueless about what war is. Scroll down and hit Armor's phrase "That point of view would mean that every war is immoral" here. In a second comment my former friend said...]
When did your armchair activism for abused kids fade over into armchair cheering on of genocide?
And what contortions does your mind have to do to admire the work of Alice Miller at the same time as you admire the work of Adolf Hitler?
What you said way above was the fifth, and last, time you come here to insult me, Andreas. Instead of responding I could simply delete all of your coming posts (I don’t know what moves me to reply this last time).
This is not a blog for you to see. I love your Nordic race infinitely more than you do and will continue to fight with all my might against your government that seeks to obliterate the gene pool of the Nordish people from Earth.
Keep with your child studies Andreas. Don’t be the silly masochist that every other day peeks on my blog and then tears his garments deludingly presuming a moral superiority which obviously you cannot claim against me, or my comrades.
If you want to discuss the issues, go elsewhere. Go with those nationalists who are willing to respond. We will hate each other for the next decades with all our being and that cannot lead to any civil debate.
In the discussion threads Occidental Dissent (e.g., this one) has just responded to people of your age from Norway with civility.
Go there Andreas!
Never come back here.
Spill your bile and insults there if you wish. Unlike me they won’t delete your comments, however insulting they may be.
Never come here again. You won’t like any single comma of what I’ll post in my next entries. Trust me…
Pay me attention please: since I very rarely talk about God.
While I am definitively not a theist, for which I might be confused with an atheist, and while I am tempted toward agnosticism, deep in my heart I know there’s something panentheistic about Nature (not to be confused with pantheism).
Today I received a hate comment precisely in the “metaphysics of race” entry that I treasure the most. I swiftly deleted it. Although I don’t believe in the existence of a personal God I still consider these sorts of comments blasphemous. The curious thing is that the blasphemer, in addition to his vulgarities that I won’t quote, stated that it is “a good thing” that “there will be no different races” in the future. For him my religious commitment to preserve the white phenotype of the most spiritual type of females in a post featuring Maxfield Parrish’s Daybreak, the embedded image within the masthead of my previous blog, is “hate” and, therefore, I must “stop the hating.”
There is no easy way to respond the blasphemer. The mental universe of the self-haters who say it’s good that the white race be melted in the pot along with the unfairer races, or that those who want to preserve it are the “haters,” is so upside-down that makes any rational discussion impossible. They are living in an inverted universe that, for me looking from its inside, is like an astronomically giant ping-pong ball where the space is… white with tiny little black holes on the firmament that cannot possibly be… anti-stars?
Instead of trying for their inverted glove to be turned inside-out and get them back into the real world, where the space is black, love is love and hate hate, a wiser approach is to note how William Pierce tried to create a new religion among those who were already racially conscious.
The following is a transcription of a speech delivered by Pierce in 1976 that I discovered at Counter-Currents Publishing earlier this year (here). It reminded me my adolescent infatuation with Hegel’s metaphysics and why I believe that only the eternal feminine would lead the white race to the Absolute:
Every day, I receive letters from our members across the country as well as from people here in the Washington area who have attended our meetings in the past. These letters and questions indicate that there is still some uncertainty in people’s minds as to what we are, what we believe, and what we intend to do. Questions, in other words, as to what it’s all about. I want to try again tonight to answer these questions as clearly as I possibly can.
I’m sure that one of the difficulties people have in trying to understand us is that they can’t figure out quite how to categorize us. They’re accustomed to putting everything they encounter in life into little, mental pigeonholes labeled right-wing, left-wing, communist, racist, and so on. And once they’ve done that, they think they understand the thing.
Now the trouble is that we don’t quite fit any of the customary pigeonholes. And that is because the doctrine of the National Alliance, the truth for which we stand, is not just a rehash of old and familiar ideas but is really something new to Americans.
Perhaps the best way to approach an understanding of the Alliance is to start by getting rid of some of the most troublesome pigeonholes altogether. That is, by pointing out what we are not. We are not, as many people tend to assume at first, either a conservative or a right-wing group. And I’m not just trying to be cute when I say that. I’m not just trying to emphasize that we are a special right-wing group or a better right-wing group. In fact, our truth has very little in common with most right-wing creeds. We’re not interested, for example, in restoring the Constitution. The Constitution, written 200 years ago, served a certain purpose well for a time. But that time is now passed. Nor was its purpose the same as our purpose today. We’re not interested in states’ rights, in restoring the former sovereignty of the individual states. We do not believe, as our conservative friends do, that a strong and centralized government is an evil in itself. It is, in fact, a necessity in overcoming many of the obstacles which lie ahead of us as a people.
What else is dear to the hearts of right-wingers? Do we want to restore prayer and Bible reading to the public schools? Hardly. Anti-fluoridation? Nonsense. Income tax? Abortion? Pornography? Well, we may sympathize more with the right-wing position on these issues than we do with the left-wing position, but they are still only peripheral issues for us. They are not the reason why we are here. They are not the things we are prepared to die for.
There are, in fact, several issues on which we are closer to what would ordinarily be considered the left-wing or liberal position than we are to the conservative or right-wing position. One of these issues is the ecology issue: the protection of our natural environment, the elimination of pollution, and the protection of wildlife. And there are also other issues in which we are closer to the liberals than to the conservatives, although I doubt that we agree with them completely on any issue; just as we seldom, if ever, agree completely with the right-wing on any issue.
The reason for the lack of complete agreement, when there seems to be approximate agreement, with either the right or the left is that our position on every issue is derived from an underlying view of the world which is fundamentally different from those of either the right or the left. That is, to the extent that they have any underlying philosophy at all. Often there is none, and a great many people who identify themselves as liberals, conservatives, or moderates simply have an assortment of views on various issues which are not related to any common idea, purpose, or philosophy.
Before we turn to a positive look at the Alliance, let me inject just a few more negatives. One thing we are not trying to do is to find any quick or easy solutions to the problems confronting us as a people. We have enormously difficult problems. If we are to solve them at all, we must tackle them with more determination, more tenacity, and more fanaticism than they have ever been tackled before. We must prepare ourselves mentally and spiritually for a very long, bloody, and agonizing struggle.
We mustn’t imagine that we are like a squad of soldiers about to assault a cave full of robbers and that the only preparation we need is to be sure our bayonets are fixed and that our powder is dry. This seems to be the attitude of most patriots these days and it is not a realistic one. “Throw out those bums in Washington,” they say “and our problems will be over.”
No. We must think of ourselves instead as the beginning—the barest beginning—of a mighty army whose task is not to clean out a cave full of robbers, but is to conquer an entire hostile world. Before the first shot is fired we must build our invasion fleet with thousands of ships and siege engines. We must lay in massive supplies of cannon balls, powder, and all sorts of other munitions. And we must do a hundred other things.
In other words, we must prepare ourselves for our political struggle before we can count on it yielding anything other than the invariable failure which has rewarded patriots in the past. We must build a foundation which will sustain us for a very long campaign.
Let me give you another analogy. We are like a tribe of hungry, starving people living in a land which, although the soil is fertile, provides relatively little to eat. These people find a few berries growing on bushes and a few edible roots in the ground. All they can think about is that they are hungry and they must fill their bellies. This is their immediate problem. They spend all of their time, day after day, year after year, hunting for those scarce berries on the bushes and pulling an occasional edible root out of the ground. And they never really fill their bellies; they always remain hungry and on the edge of starvation. That is because no one has ever taken a few minutes off from berry hunting and thought further ahead than the immediate problem of filling his belly, now, for this meal. No one has proposed that while some continue to hunt for berries, others in the tribe should tolerate their hunger pains for a while and make themselves a few simple tools, a simple plow from a tree branch perhaps, and a hoe, and then use these tools to plow up some of the most fertile areas of their land and plant a few berries in furrows and keep watch over them so that the birds don’t scratch them up. They could weed their furrows and perhaps divert a portion of a nearby stream for irrigation. If they did this, if they thought beyond their immediate problem, and, to the extent possible, tackled a much larger problem, they would eventually, even though it might take years, solve the problem of hunger which they could never solve when that was all they thought about. The solution to the problem of keeping their bellies full would be to develop an agricultural basis for their berry-picking and root-digging.
Now we need a philosophical and spiritual basis for our political struggle. A basis, of course, which tells us why we must fight and what we are fighting for. But we also want a basis which will tell us how to build a whole new world after we have won the political struggle. In other words, we are not building a basis to use for a month, or for a few years, but a basis which will last a thousand years and more. We are building a basis which will serve not only us, but also countless future generation of our race. And it is high time that we did this. We have drifted without any sense of direction, without any long-range perspectives, for far too long. It’s time that we stopped fixing our sights on next year, or the next election, and fix them instead on eternity.
You know, we Americans are famous for being a practical people, a hard-headed, no nonsense people. We are not great thinkers, perhaps, but we are real problem solvers. We don’t fool around; we plow right into things. That’s how we settled this country. We didn’t agonize about whether we were being fair to the Indians when we took their land; we just walked right over them and kept moving west. That’s what we had to do. We just followed our instincts and used our heads and, more often than not, we did the right thing.
But we also made some mistakes, bad mistakes. Because the southern colonies were ideally suited for certain types of crops which required lots of hand labor, there weren’t any machines back then of course, we brought Negroes into the country. That seemed to make pretty good economic sense at the time. But we really should have thought harder about the long-range consequences of that move. We wouldn’t have had to be real wizards to foresee the future. History provides a number of instructive examples for us to study.
We kept on making mistakes: mistakes based on shortsightedness mostly, mistakes from not being able to give any real weight to anything but the immediate problem, mistakes from not thinking far enough ahead. Analyzing the situation a little more deeply, we can say that we were shortsighted because we had no really firm basis for being longsighted. We had no solid foundation on which to stand in order to evaluate the long-range consequences of our decisions. And, as a result of this, we were suckers for various brands of sentimentality, strictly here and now sentimentality, sentimentality rooted only in the present. It was this sort of fuzzy sentimentality, this Uncle Tom’s Cabin sentimentality, which led to the war between the states and to the dumping of some three million Blacks into our free society a hundred years ago. It also led to our failure to properly control immigration into this country, our failure to prevent the flood of Jews which poured in after the Civil War.
These things troubled many good people. Lincoln was troubled over the potential consequences of freeing the Negroes. Later, others were troubled over the dangers of uncontrolled immigration. But the fuzzy sentimentalists prevailed because those who knew in their hearts that the country was making mistakes didn’t have a really solid basis from which to oppose the sentimentalists. They didn’t have their sights fixed on eternity. They had no all-encompassing worldview to back them up.
And the same problem of shortsightedness is far worse today. A person goes to church and hears his minister tell him that we are all God’s children, Black and White. And although his instinct tries to tell him that the minister is leading him astray, he will not challenge the minister because he has no firm convictions rooted in eternity to back up his feelings. The same is true of the whole country, and of our whole race, today. We are like a ship without a compass. Various factions of the crew are arguing about which way to steer, but no one really knows where the ship is headed. We’ve lost our sense of direction. We no longer have a distant, fixed star to guide us. Actually, it’s even worse than that. We have lost our ability to follow a distant star even if we could see one. We are like a nation, like a race, without a soul. And that is a fatal condition.
No purely political program can have any real value for us in the long run unless we get our souls back, unless we learn once again how to be true to our inner nature, unless we learn to heed the divine spark inside us and base all our decisions on a clear and comprehensive philosophy illuminated by that spark.
Let me tell you a little story, which I believe illustrates our problem. Several years ago, I spoke to a class at a private high school in Maryland. It was the Indian Spring Friends’ School operated by the Quakers, but with a student body which seemed to be about equally divided between Jews and gentiles, with a few token Blacks thrown in. Throughout my talk to the class, a blond girl and the only Negro in the class were sitting next to each other in the front row and kissing and fondling each other in an obviously planned effort to distract me. The subject of my talk was the importance of White Americans developing a sense of racial identity and racial pride if we are to survive. When I finished, a White student, about 17-years-old, rose to ask the first question. His question was, “What makes you think it’s so important for the White race to survive?”
I was flabbergasted and at a loss for words. And while I stood there with my mouth open, a young Jew popped up and gave his own answer. “There is no good reason at all for Whites to survive,” the Jew announced, “because they have contributed nothing to the human race except the knowledge of how to kill people. Other races have contributed everything worthwhile, everything which allows people to be happier and more comfortable.” And then he rattled off a list of five or six names: Freud, Einstein, Salk, and a few others—all Jews. I then asked him if he himself were a Jew and he replied with as much arrogance and contempt as he could muster, “Yes I am and proud of it!” At this point the whole class, Whites included, rose and gave the young Jew a standing ovation. The teacher at the back of the room had a big grin on his face.
Needless to say, my talk was pretty well wasted on that class. The White kids in there had been subjected to so much moral intimidation, they had been pumped so full of racial guilt and self-hatred, their minds were so twisted, that it’s doubtful whether anyone could straighten them out. Certainly no one could in an hour’s time.
But the thing which bothered me even more than the phony collective racial guilt which had been pumped into those boys and girls, was my inability to answer the White kid’s question. Why should we survive? That’s one of those questions like, why is good better than evil? Or, nowadays, why is heterosexuality any better than homosexuality? If two people want to have sex together, who are we to say that it’s better that they be a man and a woman than that they be two men or two women? A related question concerns racial mixing: why shouldn’t a Black man and a White woman, or vice versa, live together if they can be happy? These are questions which most White people, even normal healthy White people, cannot answer satisfactorily today.
A hundred years ago, before the Jews came flooding into our country and taking over our mass media and our educational system, we might not have really needed answers. We just knew that it was important for our race to survive and to make progress. We knew that homosexuality and interracial sex were wrong. Our intuition told us this. The answers were in our souls even if we couldn’t express them in words. But then the Jews—who are clever people, very clever people—came along, and they began asking these very questions. And when we couldn’t answer them, they began providing their own answers.
Now all of us here tonight know what the Jews’ answers are. We read them in our newspapers and hear them on television every day. Some White people, in fact a majority at first, did oppose the Jews’ plans. But their reasons for opposing them were all the wrong ones. For example, when asked “Why shouldn’t your son or daughter marry a Black?” their answer was “Well, two people with such different backgrounds won’t be happy together. They will have children of mixed race who won’t be accepted by either Whites or Blacks. There’s a better chance for a marriage to work out if both partners are of the same race. The world just isn’t ready for inter-marriage yet.” Well, of course, the Jews made pretty short work of such shallow and superficial objections. The problem was that our people had already accepted most of the basic Jewish premises. Our criterion for choosing a marriage partner was happiness—happiness! –either ours or our children’s. No one had any really solid answers, answers based on something fundamental. Certainly the churches, whose role should have been to provide the right answers, were of no help. They in fact were, and are, in the forefront of the Jewish assault on all our values and institutions. They are so much in hock to the Jews that they are busy now trying to figure out how they can rewrite the New Testament, removing or changing all the parts that Jews consider offensive, such as the Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus.
The Jews were able to continue hammering away at White Americans—probing, prying, asking more questions, raising more doubts—until we had lost all faith in what we had earlier known intuitively was right. Our ethics, our code of behavior, our values, our feelings, and our aspirations all went down the drain. What they gave us instead was the new “morality” of “if it feels good, do it.” Our children are taught in school that progress means more happiness for more people. And happiness, of course, means feeling good. The whole thing is summed up in a Coca-Cola commercial. I’m sure you have all seen it on TV: a ring of twenty people or so, of all colors and both sexes, obviously as happy and care-free as they could possibly be, are all holding hands and singing, “I’d like to give the world a Coke.” Now who but the meanest and most narrow-minded racist is going to criticize something like that?
The average American—even one who does not approve of racial mixing—doesn’t know how to respond to a clever appeal like the Coca-Cola commercial, certainly the average White kid in our schools today doesn’t. And once he has unconsciously accepted the hidden premises in that commercial—and the entire attitude toward life from which it is sprung—the question I was asked at the Indian Spring Friends’ School naturally follows. Since people of all races are equal and essentially the same—Whites, Negroes, Jews, Gypsies, Chinamen, Mulattoes—and since they can all be happy doing the same sorts of things, why should we worry about what a person’s race is, or even about our own? Wouldn’t sex be just as pleasurable for us if we were Black instead of White? Wouldn’t a Coke taste just as good? What difference does it make if our grandchildren are Mulattoes so long as the economy is still strong and they can all afford nice cars and 25-inch color TV sets?
Now, one can attack this Jewish fantasy world with facts. One can point out that although Jews are clever, they haven’t done everything worthwhile in the world. White people have done a few things besides kill other people. And one can point out that racial differences are more than skin deep. One can talk about IQ scores; one can cite historical examples in which civilization after civilization has declined and crumbled when the race that built that civilization began intermarrying with its slaves. But none of that is really going to convince the kid whose main concern is whether the consumers of the world—whether the happy Coke drinkers—will be any less happy in a world without Whites.
What we failed to do in the past was to understand the deep inner source from which our feelings and intuition about race and other matters sprang. We had no really sound and healthy worldview to offer that White kid in place of the slick, plastic, Jewish worldview of the Coca-Cola commercial. And so we couldn’t really answer his question about the survival of the White race any more than we could give him a really convincing reason about why he shouldn’t do just anything that feels good—whether it is taking dope, or sleeping with Blacks, or experimenting with homosexuality.
You may think of that kid as an extreme liberal case, but he is really no different than the average—and I mean the average—businessman in this country. He used to be a segregationist a few years ago, but he became an integrationist when the Blacks started rioting and burning things in the late 1960′s. After all, riots are bad for business. Their individual views of the world may be a little different, but the businessman and the kid in Maryland both base their thinking on one and the same thing—egoistic Jewish materialism. The kid who believes that the purpose of life is happiness, knows that there are not many things on this earth happier than a bunch of pickaninnies splashing in a mud puddle. And the businessman who believes that the purpose of life is to make money knows that a Black customer’s money is just as green as a White customer’s.
A person who accepts that sort of basis, indeed, cannot see any really convincing reason why the White race should survive. His aim is to live a “good life.” And for him that means a life with lots of money, lots to eat and drink, plenty of sex, new cars, big houses, and constant diversions. Entertainment: that is all he lives for, all he cares about, and all he understands. Talk about purpose to him and his eyes go blank. Talk about eternity and he laughs at you. He knows that he won’t live forever, although he doesn’t like to think about that. He intends to get as much out of life as he can. Anything beyond that means nothing to him. What a difference that is from the attitude toward life that our ancestors in northern Europe had a few hundred years ago. They were greedy for money like we are, of course, and they liked to enjoy themselves when they could, but that was not the meaning of life for them. Their attitude toward life and death was perhaps best summed up in a stanza from one of the old Norse sagas. It goes like this:
Kinsmen die and cattle die,
And so must one die one’s self,
But there is one thing I know which never dies
And that is the fame of a dead man’s deeds.
The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer expressed essentially the same idea when he said that the very most any man can hope for is a heroic passage through life. Greatness, in other words, instead of happiness, is the mark of a good life. Now I don’t mean to suggest that we must all think in terms of becoming famous or of dying heroically on the battlefield with sword or gun in hand. Some of us may be granted that, but what is important, what all of us can do, even those who think of ourselves as basically unheroic, is to adopt the attitude toward life and toward death which was implicit in the old sagas and in Schopenhauer’s statement.
The attitude of living for the sake of eternity, of living with eternity always in mind instead of living only for the moment; the attitude that the individual is not an end in himself, but rather that the individual lives for and through something greater—in particular, for and through his racial community (which is eternal)—seems to have eluded most of us today. It is an attitude which is diametrically opposed to the Jewish attitude of egoism and materialism. And yet it is the alien Jewish attitude that has been adopted by most Americans today. We have chosen happiness instead of greatness, the moment instead of eternity. We have become a nation—a whole race—of full-time self-seekers, a race concerned with one thing: self-gratification.
The average man, of course, has always been pretty shortsighted and his interests have always pretty much been limited to his own welfare. So the materialism of today that I’ve been talking about is a matter of degree. It has a somewhat stronger grip on the man in the street than it formerly did. But what is worse is that today it also has a grip on our leaders, on our teachers, on our poets, on our philosophers, and even on our priests. It has so thoroughly saturated the souls of all of us that we have reacted to it by becoming spiritually ill. And this spiritual sickness, this loss of our souls, is why we are in such a mess today. And it is why we will be in a worse and worse mess as time goes on. We will never overcome the problems facing us until it is cured.
And please do not misunderstand me. I am not talking about the “wages of sin” in the sense with which many of us may be familiar. I’m not talking about some anthropomorphic deity, some heavenly father sitting on his throne in the sky punishing us, keeping us from overcoming our enemies because we are not fulfilling his commandments. No, that’s nonsense! We are not being punished by any supernatural being. We are in trouble for the same reason that an explorer in a harsh and trackless wilderness is in trouble when he loses his compass and cannot see the sky through the dense foliage. He no longer knows which way to go. That is our most fundamental problem—we do not know where we are going. We have no sense of direction. We have stumbled off the path.
But that is something I really should not have had to tell you because everyone here today knows this. Even if he doesn’t understand yet how or why he knows it. He still knows that the present course our society has taken is wrong. It is unnatural. It is evil. We all know that it is wrong to accept the “I’m all right, Jack” attitude which prevails today. We know that it’s wrong to live only for the present, to forget the past and to ignore the future. It is wrong to have instant self-gratification as our only goal. That’s why we are here. We know that there is something more, something else, a better way. We know this for the same reason we are attracted to beauty and to nobility and are repelled by the ugly and the base, regardless of the artificial fashions of our day. We know it because deep inside all of us, in our race-soul, there is a source of divine wisdom, of ages-old wisdom, of wisdom as old as the universe. That is the wisdom, the truth, which we in the National Alliance want to make the basis of our national policy. It is a truth of which most of us have been largely unconscious all our lives, but which now we have the opportunity to understand clearly and precisely.
Our truth tells us that no man, no race, not even this planet, exists as an end in itself. The only thing which exists as an end in its self is the whole. The whole of which the things I just named are parts. The universe is the physical manifestation of the whole. The whole is continually changing and always will be. It is evolving. That is, it is moving toward ever more complex, ever higher, states of existence. The development of life on earth from non-living matter was one step in this never-ending evolutionary process. The evolution of man-like creatures from more primitive forms of life was another step. The diversification of these creatures into the various races and sub-races, and the continued evolution of these different races in different parts of the world at different rates, have been continuations of this process. The entire evolution of life on earth from its beginning some three billion years ago, and in a more general sense, the evolution of the universe over a much longer period before the appearance of life, is an evolution not only in the sense of yielding more and more highly developed physical forms, but also an evolution in consciousness. It is an evolution in the self-consciousness of the whole.
From the beginning, the whole, the creator, the self-created, has followed, has in fact embodied, an upward urge—an urge toward higher and higher degrees of self-consciousness, toward ever more nearly perfect states of self-realization.
In man—in our race in particular—this upward urge, this divine spark, has brought us to a new threshold. A threshold as important as that which separated the non-living matter of three billion years ago from the living matter into which it evolved. Today’s threshold is a threshold in self-consciousness. We stand now on the verge of a full understanding of the fact that we are a manifestation of the creator, that we are the means and the substance by which the creator, by which the whole of which we are a part, can continue its self-evolution.
When we understand this, when we heed the divine spark within us, then we can once again ascend the upward path that has led us from sub-man to man and can lead us now from man to super-man and beyond. But we cannot do this, we cannot find the path, without this consciousness, without this understanding that the responsibility is ours, that we are not the playthings of God but are ourselves a manifestation of God and can become, must become, now a conscious manifestation. Only in that way can we fulfill our ordained destiny.
Let me emphasize again, in different words, what I told you earlier this evening about building a spiritual basis for our political work. The Alliance’s long-range approach is necessary, absolutely necessary, and unavoidable. The short-range approaches that other patriots are trying, and have been trying for many decades now, the thousands of ad hoc solutions of quick and easy one-issue approaches, whether of tax-rebellion or of bomb throwing, cannot solve the ultimate problems with which we are faced. They cannot give us back our souls. It may seem ironical that we should be trying to conquer and transform the whole world, that we should be planning for eternity, when no one else has been able to make a successful plan for achieving very much more limited goals, restoring the constitution, for example, or getting us out of the United Nations, or what have you. But it is the very shortsightedness of those working for these limited goals which has been the cause of their failure. And it is our rooting of our plans in eternity which gives us confidence for their ultimate success no matter how long it may take us.
So I tell you again, our approach is not just a matter of choice; it is necessary. There is no other way but ours. There is only one path. And there is something else we must understand. Our philosophy, our quest for the upward path, is not something that we should accept reluctantly because we see it as necessary to the solution of our race problem, our Jewish problem, and our communist problem. It is not something we accept because we cannot find an easier approach to these problems. No! If we look at it that way then we still haven’t rid ourselves of the shortsightedness that has been our curse in the past. We must understand that the truth for which we stand transcends all the problems of the present. Finding our way once again to the one true path transcends all questions of economics, of politics, and ultimately even of race, just as eternity transcends tomorrow. So let’s stop putting the cart before the horse mentally and spiritually. Let’s take off our mental blinders. Let’s realize that the truth has a value in itself and that dedication to the truth is a virtue in itself. This is all the more true in a world in which falsehood seems to rule.
The problems with which we are faced in the world today are serious ones and they must be solved. But the first and most important task, the task on which all our other problems must eventually depend for their solutions, but also the task which would still be just as important for us to accomplish if all our other problems didn’t exist, is the task, the one task, assigned to us by the creator. That is the task of achieving full consciousness of our oneness with the whole, achieving full consciousness that we are a part of the creator and that our destiny is to achieve the single purpose for which the universe exists—the self-realization of the creator.
Our truth is a very simple truth, but its implications are enormous beyond imagining. To the extent that we understand and accept it, it sets us apart from all the people around us. Our acceptance of this truth marks us as the only adults in a world of children. For implicit in what we believe is our recognition and acceptance of our responsibility for the future of the universe. The fate of everything that will ever be rests in our hands now. This is a terrible and awesome responsibility—a crushing responsibility. If we were only men we could not bear it. We would have to invent some supernatural being to foist our responsibility onto. But we must, and can, bear it when we understand that we ourselves embody the divine spark which is the upward driving urge of the universe.
The acceptance of our truth not only burdens us with the responsibility that other men have shunned throughout history, it bestows on us a mantle of moral authority that goes along with the responsibility, the moral authority to do whatever is necessary in carrying out our responsibility. Furthermore, it is an acceptance of our destiny, an unlimited destiny, a destiny glorious beyond imagination, if we truly have the courage of our convictions. If we truly abide by the demands that our truth places upon us, it means that while other men continue to live only for the day, continue to seek only self-gratification, and continue to live lives which are essentially without meaning and that leave no trace behind them when they are over, we are living and working for the sake of eternity. In so doing, we are becoming a part of that eternity.
For some, our task may seem too great for us, our responsibility too overwhelming. If they are correct, if we choose to remain children instead of accepting our adulthood, if we continue the shortsighted approaches of the past, then in the long run we will fail utterly. The enemies of our race will prevail over us and we and our kind will pass away forever. All our sacrifices, and all the dreams and sacrifices of our ancestors, will have been in vain. Not even a memory of us, or our kind, will be left when the creative spirit of the universe tries, in some other place, in some other time, in some other way, to do what we failed to do. But I do not believe that we will fail. Because in working to achieve our purpose, we are finding our way once again to the right and natural path for our people. We are working once again with the whole. And we have a mighty tradition behind us.
Our purpose is the purpose for which the earth was born out of the gas and the dust of the cosmos, the purpose for which the first primitive amphibian crawled out of the sea three hundred million years ago and learned to live on the land, the purpose for which the first race of men held themselves apart from the races of sub-men around them and bred only with their own kind. It is the purpose for which men first captured lightning from the sky, tamed it, and called it fire; the purpose for which our ancestors built the world’s first astronomical observatory on a British plain more than 4,000 years ago. It is the purpose for which Jesus, the Galilean, fought the Jews and died 2,000 years ago; the purpose for which Rembrandt painted; the purpose for which Shakespeare wrote; and the purpose for which Newton pondered. Our purpose, the purpose with which we must become obsessed, is that for which the best, the noblest, men and women of our race down through the ages have struggled and died whether they were fully conscious of it or not. It is the purpose for which they sought beauty and created beauty; the purpose for which they studied the heavens and taught themselves Nature’s mysteries; the purpose for which they fought the degenerative, the regressive, and the evil forces all around them; the purpose for which, instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path; they chose the upward path, regardless of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that this choice entailed.
Yes! They did these things, largely without having a full understanding of why, just as the first amphibian did not understand his purpose when he crawled onto the land. Our purpose is the creator’s purpose, our path is the path of divine consciousness, the path of the creator’s self-realization. This is the path which is ordained for us because of what we are, because of the spark of divine consciousness in us, and in no one else. No other race can travel this path, our path, for us. We alone must prove whether we are fit to serve the creator’s purpose. And if we are fit, if we once again heed the inner knowledge engraved in our souls by the creator, if we regain faith in the things we once knew were true without fully understanding why and if we now also teach ourselves why, then we will once again be on the upward path ordained for us, and our destiny will be godhood.
Those of you who are with us for the first time have, I hope, gained at least the beginning of an understanding of who we are and of what we want to do. I know that I have left many of your questions unanswered; questions about current political, social, racial, and economic issues; questions about concrete things. We do talk about those things in our meetings. We talk about them in a very concrete and down-to-earth fashion. I’ve discussed them in past meetings and I’ll discuss them again in future ones—the goals of overcoming the enemies of our people, of safeguarding the future of our race, and of building a new order of beauty sanity, strength, and health on this earth, so that our people can progress and mature until they are capable of fulfilling the role allotted to them by the creator. But now I want to be sure that you understand just one thing. If we ever are to achieve these concrete advances, these physical victories, this material renewal of our nation, of our civilization, of our race, then we must first make the spiritual advances that I’ve talked about here. Without the spiritual basis, the material victory will not be achieved.
As I said, in our future meetings we will explore many individual issues in much greater detail than we have here. We hope you will join us in these future meetings and further increase your understanding of our work, and we hope that you will begin to share our commitment to this work. And let me say this especially to those who are with us for the first time, we do not care who you are or what you have believed in the past, nor do we require that you agree exactly with us on a hundred different social, political, economic, and racial issues. All we require is that you share with us a commitment to the simple, but great, truth which I have explained to you here, that you understand that you are a part of the whole, which is the creator, that you understand that your purpose, the purpose of mankind and the purpose of every other part of creation, is the creator’s purpose, that this purpose is the never-ending ascent of the path of creation, the path of life symbolized by our life rune, that you understand that this path leads ever upward toward the creator’s self-realization, and that the destiny of those who follow this path is godhood. If you share this single truth with us, then everything else will follow and we invite you to make a commitment now, today, to join us and work with us.
|Chechar on Suicidal Britons|
|nyuntermensch on Suicidal Britons|
|PinkLady on Suicidal Britons|
|George on Suicidal Britons|
|Chechar on Suicidal Britons|
|nyuntermensch on Suicidal Britons|
|Chechar on Beheaded Briton|
|Mister Deutsch on A secondary infection|
|Roger on Beheaded Briton|
|feminizedwesternmale on Beheaded Briton|
|futurodellanazione on A secondary infection|
|Roger on The external side of the …|
|Chechar on Oh idiot Swedes! Silly boiled…|
|Chechar on Beheaded Briton|
|John Martínez on Beheaded Briton|