Quotable quote

“The day that our followers lose their ability to hate will be the day that they lose their power and their will to achieve anything worthwhile at all.”

—John Tyndall

The Red Giant

In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there. —We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet.

—Nietzsche

Excerpted from an entry that Conservative Swede posted in his blog a few years ago:

I’m an island. I do not belong anywhere. I’m questioning the meaning of my blogging. I’m questioning the moniker I have adapted. “Conservative” like whom? Like View from the Right? Like Paul Belien? Like Gates of Vienna? No, no, and no. And definitely not like Majority Rights or Jim Kalb. And of course not like neocons and paleocons.

We are witnessing the historical demise of Christianity. When a star dies, in its last phase it expands into a red giant, before it shrinks into a white dwarf. Liberalism is the red giant of Christianity. And just as a red giant is devoid of its core, it expands thousandfold while losing its substance and is about to die. The world I live in consists of Christians and liberals. It’s their world and I do not belong to them. I leave their limited wars, knee-jerk Islam apologism and World War II mythology to them. They are not about to change. On the contrary, they are continuously generating new problems with their way of acting.

There were certain sites, certain bloggers, even certain countries, that I had put hope in. But now it has become clear that they are all part of the same big train of lemmings. Bye bye! Denmark, nope. Brussels Journal, nope. View from the Right, nope. Gates of Vienna, nope. This is the way it goes in the world of liberals & Christians. It’s their world. I can do nothing but sit on the side and laugh at it. They are too stuck in their inner fears and hang-ups to be able to do anything useful. They will do what they are programmed to do: demise.

So what’s the future for people like me? Because even if I belong nowhere politically, I belong somewhere socially and ethnically. Well, the world is being homogenized. Tomorrow the whole world will be like the Third World. People like me, of European ethnicity, will have no home, no nation. We will live like the Jews as elites in other people’s nations (preferably a non-Muslim nation).

These people are just not prepared for a proper fight. They are too much driven by superstitious fear and emotions. And there is not exactly anyone else around.

The historical demise of Christianity

Excerpted from 2009
discussion threads
at Gates of Vienna:

I [Conservative Swede] have written: “People today live in a historyless now-bubble-world, and have forgotten about all previous such complete reversals [revaluation of meta-ethical values], many of which happened in the last century.” Therefore the widespread and deep sense of hopelessness, I forgot to add. It’s hard to conceptualize a situation outside of the bubble, or the bubble not being there, when living inside of the bubble. However, history provides us with numerous examples of such reversals, of bubbles bursting, and of course new bubbles being built (we are bubble mammals after all).

This is my happy message, my gospel. People just need to let go their precious beliefs and myths, these huggy teddy bears. When deeply invested in the core beliefs of the bubble, it becomes impossible to look outside of the bubble, to think of a world without the bubble, and everything looks utterly hopeless. Well, it’s not. On the contrary, the bubble will burst.

Commenter said:

As a student of human nature, surely you know that the only way to get someone to “let go” is to offer him a better belief system.

CS [Conservative Swede] said:

On the contrary. Study paradigm changes both in the history of science and in political history, and you’ll find that it’s not until the prevailing paradigm collapses that the reconstruction work of a new paradigm begins. It’s exactly the prevailing paradigm that stands in the way of the change! Surely intellectual work has always been done beforehand by single individuals, but it cannot reach the collective level until the prevailing paradigm has fallen and the revolution takes place.

Commenter said:

The West needs to regain its free mind and healthy skepticism.

CS said:

There are no myth-free societies. What we would see after a change won’t be a society of people with “free mind and healthy skepticism”. What we’ll see is a society where people are driven by new collective myths. The idea of a society of people with free minds is… just that: a myth.

Commenter said:

I don’t believe we will ever change, there’s no white horseman coming, no revolution, only death.

CS said:

You are illustrating here exactly what Larry Auster described: How, when looking at things from within our present belief system, a reversal looks impossible. But that’s not how things work in a human society. What will be met by death are the institutions upholding the current order and belief system: the institutions in Brussels, the United Nations, the dollar hegemony, America as the world police, NATO, etc. The mental bubble will burst, and change will happen, after quite an amount of blood, death, catastrophe and traumas, of course.

Many people, who are ideologically invested in the current paradigm instead of in their ethnic group, will see the fall of the Western Christian civilization as the end of the world; commit suicide etc. Instead, the fall of the Western Christian civilization should be celebrated. This is the paradigm that stands in the way of our saviour. This is the key knot in need to be untied. At this point no white knight is needed. But there will be a number of black and gray knights involved. But the motor behind it will be the collectively changed Zeitgeist, not any white horseman.

Commenter said:

Geert Wilders is a sort of white horseman, and if people changed over the last decades they might change again. Presently many people are reading Robert Spencer and Mark Steyn. The paradigm may shift again.

CS said:

Here I disagree. Wilders is no white horseman and paradigms just don’t change that easily. However, Wilders and Spencer are doing a great, and very important job, in greasing the machinery, to catalyze the process. Due to their honesty they are bringing up the inner contradictions of the current paradigm to the surface, helping it to gradually self-implode. In the way of their bravery they are indeed white horsemen. But they are not going to save us. Far from it. As I said: first things will have to go terribly wrong, then we can save ourselves.

People think that they can get anywhere with combining an anti-Islam position with hate, despise and fear of Germans, in accordance with the great mythological narrative since World War II that our current paradigm is built upon. They can’t. By their hate, despise and fear of Germans their feet are still firmly stuck in the mud of the current paradigm. And furthermore, hate of Germans is the blueprint for hate of white people in general in this prevailing mythology. So by continuing to hate/despise/fear Germans, the westerners continue to gravitate towards white guilt and self-hate. These myths strike people at the sub-conscious level, which makes them defenseless against this gravity. It’s not until the westerners thoroughly revise their view on World War II that a change of paradigms can take place. Another trauma is required for this to take place.

Commenter said:

But non-transferred hate toward the truly guilty is most healthful and natural.

CS said:

Indeed it is. If I’m trying to generalize I think especially people of Protestant background have a problem with this. Or rather, they cannot allow themselves to hate unless it’s approved from authorities or the collective. This means, the left hates what they are “supposed” to hate. The right however—as I pointed out already above when discussing Wilders—loathes the ways of the left and commit themselves to act morally correct, that is, in this case abstaining from hatred. As you said, hate is a most natural and useful force. As I said above, any struggle or war comes down to psychology: the will power to win is what makes the whole difference between victory and defeat. And hate makes people stay committed to their will power to win. The left uses this all the time, an also always win. So to summarize, the left uses hate, they are prepared to bend any moral rule for the “higher moral good” and descend into any low level of dirty tricks and brutality; they take over the institutions to control the course of the country even if they are not in power. The right on the other hand tries to play it fair, morally and in a non-hateful way. And therefore always loses.

Unlike how it is presented, the relation between left and right is not symmetrical. Instead the left is the norm, and the people to the left are the holy people of secular Christianity. The right is just dancing along, effectively not being much more than an alibi for the whole setup, dancing in circles around the left, who is the one setting up the direction of “progression”. Occasionally pulling the break, but never setting up a new general course. The direction of the course is built into the paradigm, and never fundamentally questioned by the right.

Another evidence for the asymmetry between left and right is how right-wingers fear and loathe to be associated with any person or organization even slightly to the right of themselves (they feel that this would totally undermine their reputation), while willing to make connections magnitudes further into the left. Such as appearing in left-wing media, which often makes these right-wingers hilarious, since they feel they have gotten a stamp of approval thereby; while they can be paralyzed by fear of the thought of being published in a right-wing magazine just slightly to the right of themselves.

Continuing on the theme of hate, America is seen as right-wing in the current political theater. However, historically America together with France has been the main force in pushing our civilization to the left.

After World War II European patriotism was seen as the root of the evil, which had to be held down. The only permitted patriotisms were American and Israeli. Britain and France got away with some, but after the Suez crisis in 1956 they were effectively out of the picture too. Now offensive military actions were only accepted from America and Israel.

In the 50s and the 60s America and Israel were celebrated as model countries of progressivism. European conservatism had been rooted out in the cultural revolution imposed by America in Western Europe. Adorno’s The F-Factor describes European conservatism as a psychological pathology related to fascism.

But the Europeans learned fast. First they learned to follow the American example and see America as the model country. The Europeans could pick this up fast since the ideas were rooted in the Christian gospels. But soon they learned that America didn’t live up to code of moral goodness that they had imposed on the Europeans. And left-wing anti-Americanism was born. And to be precise, even anti-Americanism wasn’t born in Europe but also imported from the US. The problem for America was that in their quest to end all “evil” empires, they had effectively become the big empire themselves, for example by inheriting the role of maintaining the Pax Britannica. Then they had to do all the sort of things they had taught the Europeans were wrong. The Europeans soon learned to beat the Americans in their own game, becoming the leading in progressivism and “holier than thou”. And curiously enough, thus America ended up being seen as right-wing. The original right-wing had been rooted out in a collaboration between America and the European socialists in the wake of World War II.

The turning point came by the end of the 60s—the Vietnam war and the Six-Days war. The image of America and Israel shifted, and they were no longer seen as the model countries of progressivism, but as “evil” right-wing countries.

We should remember that our progressivist paradigm (which is always going left) is based on Christian ethics. And Christian ethics means the inversion of values. So it’s the weak that is considered good, while the strong is considered evil. In World War I and World War II America had defeated all the strong (and therefore evil) European empires. The job was completed in the Suez crisis in 1956 by turning against their former allies. But you can never win with Christian ethics, because now America became the strong one, and therefore the evil one. So now American and Israeli patriotism becomes highly questioned and opposed. But not based on restoring any other patriotism, but by going even deeper into deranged progressivism. Thus, in effect, American and Israeli patriotism are still the only permitted patriotisms. Surely now the holiest priests of our leftist paradigm condemn the actions of America and Israel. But in effect it is tolerated, while if any other (white) country acts militarily offensively it’s seen as a major global crisis (e.g. Serbia, Russia).

So this gives a background to why Wilders, Vlaams Belang, etc. have a pro-American and pro-Israeli profile, and even stress these patriotisms more than their own. So far I’m fine with that. Just because it has to be so. As I pointed out above: Wilders is exactly what he has to be (in this stage). But here comes the problem.

When the threat of Islam is added to the historical situation I gave above, there are westerners who wake up from their deranged progressivism. But they generally revert back to the 50s (myself I reverted to before World War I). In the face of the Islamic aggression their patriotism gets heightened. But this is a patriotism based on a narrative based on hate of Germany and Russia.

So when intensifying this American patriotism in order to build-up the necessary hate against Islam, the hate against Russia and Germany heightens simultaneously. There does not seem to be a way to slide this parameter up without this happening. NATO was after all built on the motto of “Keeping Russia out, Germany down, and America in.” And since this narrative in its previous step is based on de-legitimization of European patriotism in general, and how hate and demonization of Germans is the blueprint for white guilt and self-hatred, we have a more general problem here too.

Not all awakened people react like this. But even the people that don’t, they stay within the frames of the permitted patriotisms (as described for Wilders above), and therefore find no basis to effectively oppose the belligerent types, when they intensify their hate against Russia, Germans, etc. And for the reasons I described above these sort of strong voices come exclusively from America and Israel (no one else would be allowed according to the paradigm). And for the same reason, the people in the anti-Jihad network who do not descend into this sort of destructive hatred and belligerence, do not voice any strong objections against it, and mostly no objections at all. Europeans cannot speak like this, but instead we see for example Wilders aligning himself with these sort of strong American and Israeli patriotic voices.

My point is that the front line of the current stage of the anti-Jihad movement is therefore full of inner contradictions. This is why Wilders, even under the best conditions, can never be anything more than a Kerensky. A rule of Wilders or his kind will succumb from its inner contradictions. Nevertheless, I consider this a necessary step, as a way of lock-picking our current paradigm.

As I described above, France and Britain hold a slightly more privileged position in this setup, having been the allies of America in World War II—not being delegitimized until 1956. Thus under certain conditions they are allowed to operate in a very restrictive sphere of remnants of their former colonial empires. But of course only with approval from America. Falkland can be OK (if a list of requirements are fulfilled). But India would never be OK, obviously. France and Britain were once shining examples of Enlightenment progressivism. But when America emerged as the greatest power, no one could match her as the beacon of egalitarian progressivism. After all France and Britain had been colonial powers, so they just had to fade away. Consider that the superpower of the world (America) had once been a colony itself! There was no longer any legitimacy for France and Britain.

But nevertheless, due to the background described above, they are considered much more benevolent and not at all as dangerous as Russia and Germany. Thus we can find these small exceptions to the general picture, but it does not change the general picture. Britain and France started off as allies of America. They even set up NATO together. Many Brits still consider America as an ally, and NATO as something good for British interests. They are wrong of course.

Commenter said:

Russian military action is never, ever seen as acceptable. Not under any circumstances, no matter what.

CS said:

Well then imagine Germany doing that…

Baron: regarding what you wrote about hate I agree with what you say. There are two points to be made. And for the purpose of this let’s see hate as a tool:

(1) Is it sinful to use hate as a tool? No!

(2) Now to the practical side of it, which you covered. Is it always practical to use hate as a tool? No it’s not always practical. Typically it does not make sense to build up hate in a situation where you have nowhere to direct it. So in this sense the fire needs to be controlled. But on the other hand, once the conditions are right, and the matter is truly about survival, then it can be useful to use the hate full throttle. Because if your enemy is more passionate they will win. So for the purpose of that it is good to have clarified that hatred is not sinful.

♣

This is the fundamental error by the right-wing. They truly believe that the left-wingers want to destroy our civilization, want to be dhimmified, etc. But this is not what the left-wing perceive themselves as doing. They see themselves as maximizing goodness. And we’re talking of Christian goodness here, ’cause the Left is all about Christian ethics. What the left-wing is doing is not destroying Western civilization, but completing and fulfilling it: what I call “The Finish of the West”.

Commenter said:

Many of the seemingly crazy excesses now on display are not so much a perversion of Western civilization as a fulfillment of it.

CS said:

And when I say “finish” above, there are a couple of layers to that word.

Commenter said:

So what we will have to concentrate on is the construction of a modern version of the monastery at Lindisfarne, a networked sanctuary where what is good and valuable can be stored and kept for use in a future time after the chaos is over—if indeed such an eventuality ever comes.

CS said:

This is a beautiful analogy. And precisely as I see the things. Only, of course, that I want to save the Vikings from Christianity, rather than the other way around.

Commenter said:

…if indeed such an eventuality ever comes.

CS said:

Oh, about this I’m confident and positive, as I have already said. There’s surely no way to stop the chaos coming. But just as surely, from the ashes of the chaos, a fantastic renaissance will grow. We will prevail, severely hurt yes, but with an ironclad inspired spirit. I just hope the chaos will start soon enough, so that I will be able to live when the turnaround happens.

My conclusion is that we’ll have to revert far back in history in order to find something sustainable to build on, to cut off the rotten and infected areas. For some things a hundred years, for some a thousand years. It’s definitely not enough to revert the social revolution of the ’68.

Commenter said:

Part of the modern Liberal ideal is the foolish notion that we can simply abolish by fiat millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition.

CS said:

This is a very important sentence which conveys so very much, if we just examine it closely. Not only the liberals, but also most people (anti-liberals), who see and fear the fall of the liberal world order, have forgotten that these things cannot be erased.

But neither the rise nor the fall of liberalism can take away millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition. This is what [my worldview] is based on, what Chechar refers to as my optimism. It’s just following the conservative principle you gave here. But unfortunately the effect of the current belief system is so strong even on anti-liberals, that they cannot see that.

So it’s the liberal layer (on top of evolution, culture, and traditions) that will get peeled off, together with those traditions that led to liberalism in the first place.

The fall of this liberal world order will hit us hard (together with the destruction that liberalism has already caused). But we won’t suddenly just disappear. And as long as we are around we have millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition on our side.

Even if there would be only 100 millions left of us, we are the best people in the history of mankind. As Huntington pointed out, we have always been superior in the ability to apply organized violence. As soon as the will power is there, we can achieve anything we please. We can rule any continent where we choose to live, as long as the liberal layer gets peeled off. And it’s bound to come off, since it’s just a cosmetic layer. The reason that it has not come off yet is that it has not yet become obvious to the collective mind that it has failed. But that is about to change.

♣

Norse mythology is a much more useful mythological narrative than Christianity, which does not only mean adherence to universalist individualism and the importation of a foreign god (and in its final stages the importation of a lot of other immigrants), but also has a mythological narrative where the survival of our own people hold no significance whatsoever.

The only people that are guaranteed to survive until the end of days in Christianity are the Jews. Swedes, Italians etc., are of no significance whatsoever. We see all these tenets of Christianity manifested around us today: even in how the struggle for ethnic survival of the Jews is accepted within our current paradigm, while it is not accepted for the other people of our civilization. Each ethnic group needs her great mythological narrative, starting with the birth of her people and guaranteeing their existence until the end of times. Without such a narrative the dissolvement of the ethnic group eventually becomes self-fulfilling: there’s nothing holding it together.

We see this happening around us in the very now with eager work to dissolve our countries and ethnic groups. In Christianity the Germanic people cannot (as a people) have a relation with god, only the Jewish people has. Germanic (and other) people can only have a relation with god as individuals. People are directed by myths more than anything else, so with a narrative where your ethnic group is of no importance, it will eventually become self-fulfilling (i.e., the opposite effect of self-confidence as a group).

Commenter said:

In that case, I would be very interested to hear what you propose should be done to save western civilisation.

CS said:

And there is your assumption again: that the Western Christian civilization should be saved, that it can be reformed, be mended; while I’m assuming that the current order, the current belief system, will self-implode. And as the current order is the last and terminal phase of Western Christian civilization, which has reached a dead end, this means the end of Western Christian civilization as such. Yes, we are seeing something like the fall of Rome before us.

I’ve been clear about this from the very beginning. For example, three days ago I wrote: “Likewise many people, who are ideologically invested in the current paradigm instead of in their ethnic group, will see the fall of the Western Christian civilization as the end of the world; commit suicide etc. But instead the fall of the Western Christian civilization should be celebrated. This is the paradigm that stands in the way of our saviour. This is the key knot in need to be untied.”

Yes: the Western Christian civilization is exactly the problem, and the problem is solved by it going away.

What we should hold on to are our ethnic groups and European civilization and culture in the deeper sense. Western Christian civilization is a novelty and now it failed. Western Christian civilization is just the tip of that iceberg. It’s just a way of politically organizing our peoples. We should not save this format, but save the matter.

The Western Christian civilization is what happened when Germanic people met Christianity. But nothing lasts forever. Quite as the Roman Empire it can be compared with a fruit, going through all the stages: bud, flower, incipient fruit, green fruit, ripe fruit, overripe fruit, rotten fruit. With this I’m saying: (i) indeed Western Christian civilization has meant many good things, and (ii) it’s all over now.

It is unsustainable for Germanic people to keep Christianity. It would indeed mean their death. And since the Western Christian civilization is all about Germanic people meeting Christianity, the necessary turnaround for Germanic people also means the definitive end of Western Christian civilization. Africans and Italians sticking to Christianity does not make a Western Christian civilization.

When I talk of Christianity I use it in the same sense as Huntington or Qutb. That is, it doesn’t matter those who claim to be atheists, they are equally much Christians in this perspective. In fact, you will find that they stick to Christian ethics even stronger than the nominal Christians: trying to be holier than thou, as if trying to get in line before the nominal Christians to the heaven they don’t believe in.

Medieval Catholicism was nicely mixed and balanced with Roman and Greek components. The explosive and revolutionary message of the gospels was kept secret from the general public. The Protestant Reformation changed that. Christianity became purified into its Hebrew component, and the explosive and revolutionary message of the gospels were set free. This purification was taken even further, and completed, by the Puritans and the Quakers that left across the Atlantic, to found America. And these are the people who rule our civilization today.

There are several reasons why Christianity leads to secularism in its latter phases. Let me get back to that if there is interest, since this is becoming very long as it is.

Secular Christianity has thrown out god and Christ, but keeps the Christian ethics (inversion of values etc.). And the Christian ethics actually gets heightened and unfettered in Secular Christianity. (I have written much about that in my blog.) With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.

Thus the Western Christian civilization caused the population explosion in the Third World. It is entirely caused by the Western Christian civilization, since these Third World countries were completely unable to do this themselves. Christian ethics commands that every single human life should be saved if possible. Before, more than half of the children in Third World countries died. Now virtually all survive, and we have the population explosion.

What this will lead to is the following:

With the dollar collapse and the complete breakdown of our economical (and then political) world order, mass starvation will spread like a wildfire across the southern hemisphere. This since their population numbers are not supported by themselves, but entirely backed by us. It will all fall apart.

So the concrete effect of Christian ethics here is to make the number of people that will die in starvation and suffering as high as possible once it hits (we are speaking of billions thanks to Christian ethics). Only the devil himself could think out such a brutally cruel scheme, and Christian ethics of course, in which case it’s according to the idiom “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

But that’s not enough. This mass starvation, where we can expect something like 2/3 of the people dying in the Third World countries, will slash these societies into pieces, and they will meet a complete breakdown.

In the alternative scenario, where the Christian ethics would have kept its fingers away, these countries would have supported themselves: every year many children would have died at a pretty constant pace. But this is a stable phenomenon that does not at all threaten the stability of their societies. When the Western economical order falls apart, they would not be the least affected.

But Christian ethics cannot stand the sight of little brown children dying. They must help them, or they will freak out. They cannot keep their fingers away. So they are dooming them to mass starvation in the billions and complete breakdowns of their societies. This is the concrete effect of Christian ethics.

At this point it wouldn’t help putting back god and Christ into the equation. Instead we need to leave Christian ethics.

I have already stated how Western Christian civilization = Germanic people + Christianity. I will now clarify why specifically Germanic people need to leave Christianity.

Look at the phenomenon of clan mentality around the world. In many places around the world it is strong, in Europe it is not. But even within Europe there are clear differences. Indeed we find clan mentality in Southern Europe, while there’s none of it in Northern Europe (among Germanic people).

There are historical reasons for this. In the cold north people lived far apart. Human contacts were few, and strangers were therefore treated with friendliness. This was the best survival strategy in this context. However, the Mediterranean area was crowded, and there was always competition about land and resources. The best survival strategy in such a context was to stick to your clan, in this tight competition.

The whole point of Christian ethics, when it works well, is to have a balancing effect on the morality of people. In the Mediterranean area it had a balancing effect on the natural clan mentality, leaving a good result. However, Germanic people, as described above, have a natural altruism. When combined with the unfettered Christian ethics of the latter stages of the Western Christian civilization, it creates an interference that goes completely out of bounds. The morality of Germanic people has reached a point where it has to be balanced back, or we will perish. To create this balance Germanic people have to leave Christian ethics. (Romance and Slavic people can keep Christianity. It’s not a matter of life or death for them.)

What we are witnessing in the present time is the great tragedy of Germanic people.

With the lack of clan mentality, we find that Germanic people are the ones that most faithfully turn their loyalty towards the nation. But due to the inherent universalism of Christianity, we see in the current incarnation of Western Christian civilization how nations are considered illegitimate and gradually being dissolved. The nationalist loyalty of the Germanic people becomes redirected to universalist loyalty; still lacking of clan mentality.

Germanic people do not use the power of their family to solve problems. They go to a higher level, the authorities. To use the power of your family to solve a problem is here considered a sin, we are supposed to abide to the law. In Italy or Spain people do use the power of their family to solve problems.

There is an abundance of stories in blogs from Northern Europe of kids who go through their whole school time being beaten up by Muslim on a weekly basis. The furthest the parents of these children would do is to bring up the problem with the authorities (and possibly having a “dialog” with the Muslim parents). Which of course will do nothing about it, since the belief system of the authorities doesn’t allow for it. And even so the parents never use the power of their family to deal with the problem. They are programmed to abide to the law and the order.

I cannot see this happening in Italy or Spain. There is a whole different mentality. There would be an outrage, and the whole family would be engaged in the matter. Mostly not going into mafia methods, but in some places yes.

Germanic people are simply wired the wrong way to being able to survive in a multiethnic context. Or to be exact: Germanic people adhering to Christian ethics are. We managed fine in the age of the great migrations and as Vikings.

Now we are entering a world of multiethnic societies at a planetary level. And the Germanic people adhering to Christian ethics are constitutionally unfit for this. Unless we leave Christian ethics, we will perish. Or rather, those who cling to Christian ethics will perish, according to the law of the survival of the fittest. But enough Germanic people will leave Christian ethics, for Germanics to survive as a people.

Leaving Christian ethics has nothing to do with becoming secular (as I explained above). To the contrary, it makes it worse! What is needed is to introduce another great mythological narrative into the minds of the Germanic people. This is the only way to replace the moral grammar of Christianity. Something with roots in our long history. This must be done by political means, by a regime with such a focus. But given that focus, it’s not such a big thing to achieve. There are numerous historical examples of how to do it. And it only takes a generation to make the change (even less). And in a dire situation, after a major trauma, it will be even easier.

♣

“…to replace the moral grammar of Christianity” (cited above). And thus we are speaking of the deepest level of a paradigm change here. Our very concept of good and bad, our moral grammar, has to be transformed.

In sort of perspective, even the apparent moral tautology “We should strive for what is good, and fight against what is bad” no longer holds true.

Our very concepts of good and bad is what has to be transformed. It’s hard to think outside of this box. But that’s the whole point of the word paradigm. It’s a box that it is virtually impossible for people in general to think outside of. I recommend reading Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for a deeper understanding of the concept paradigm. It’s truly a mental box we are trapped within. In the same way we are about to witness the transformation of our whole grammar of morality, quite as our grammar of morality was different before the Age of Christianity.

When the paradigm shifted from Newton to Einstein, it didn’t mean the end of science. I just meant the end of a scientific era, which became replaced with a new one. In the same manner the fall of the Western Christian civilization does not mean the end of European civilization in the larger sense. It just means a new era. Quite as when the Roman-Greek civilization was replaced by the Western Christian.

Watching Eagle also contributed, further above, in completing this picture for us in describing how America “was the champion of human fertility rates for nearly 250 years. The fertility rates of this nation soared like a fighter jet with full afterburners, from the Pilgrims to the Civil War.”

Commenter said:

The latter, being literalists, conceived of themselves as the direct successors to the ancient Israelites who had been given divine authority to kill the Caananites and establish Israel. The Protestants looked on themselves as the New Israelites and the Native Americans as the New Caananites to be wiped out.

CS said:

It’s sad indeed that Christians have to imagine themselves as Israelites in order to become truly good fighters, which implies effective total war, and the psychology of will power to win at any cost.

Once again it is the same pattern of Christianity that I discussed above, when discussing permitted patriotisms. Our own ethnicity is utterly insignificant in the Christian narrative, while the Jewish ethnicity holds a pivotal position. So Christians have to use this substitute ethnicity to find true confidence and strength.

Good total war has been waged by Christians when imagining themselves as Israelites aiming for building the New Jerusalem. They can also fight limited war in the name of the universal good, or for the sake of Israel (for example the crusades).

But war by Christians in the name of their own ethnicity is considered illegitimate; well, not even of importance.

In Christianity we cannot be ourselves. We have to pretend we are someone else.

I still think the Russians can use their Christianity in an efficient way, just since their Christianity hasn’t been washed through the Enlightenment, quite as the American pilgrims and the Boers, discussed above, hadn’t. Nor Spain of La Reconquista, of course. But we can stay assured that the Christians having been washed through the Enlightenment—and then the Industrial Age, liberalism and secularism—won’t be able to see themselves as Israelites. So this strength is not coming back within the context of Christianity.

Why not be ourselves instead? Replace the current mythological narrative with one where we are ourselves. After all, that is the simple truth: We are ourselves. Christianity is based on deception and distortion of reality.

Another way to go, for those unable to imagine themselves as the Israelites, is at least to make Christianity universal instead of Jewish. Such as we saw recently here at GoV in how many people in Poland for example do not see Jesus as Jewish.

There’s no way to win within the frames of Christianity…

Commenter said:

I agree that Christianity is at the end of its tether and is unable to assert itself without breaking its own value system. Probably something similar must have happened in India during Muslim invasions, where Buddhist ideas of compassion and Karma (you get what you deserve, because you produced the cause) left them completely defenseless. They indeed had no narrative that would support their collective existence.

CS said:

This is an excellent historical comparison. An universalist religion of goodness is replaced with the original national gods, when faced with a threat of existential magnitude.

Commenter said:

Altogether, CS, yours is the most complete argument for the death of Christianity I can imagine, certainly more complete than what Nietzsche has ever written.

CS said:

Thanks, that’s a very nice thing to say. Of course, I had an unfair advantage, since I could read Nietzsche, but he couldn’t read me.

Commenter said:

I am always impressed by the fact that the further North you go in Europe, where people are more Germanic, the more harmonious mastery of mind over nature you can see.

CS said:

Yes, we have focused on fighting nature instead of each other. All due to our historical situation. If we didn’t fight nature we died. If we hadn’t isolated our house and stored up well for the winter we died. Out of this a special kind of cooperation between people grew. A traditionalist form of egalitarianism, which apart from Sweden and Norway we only find in America (this is an interesting topic in itself, but no time for that now). However, if you put unfettered Christian ethics on top of that…

Commenter said:

Corruption is almost non-existent [in Scandinavia], which I think is quite a feat!

CS said:

Implied by the lack of clan mentality. But in our current habitat this mentality is exactly what is killing us.

♣

A necessary condition for such a Germanic project—and for the renaissance of Europe altogether!—is the return of Germany. Germany today is the planetary bully victim, bound and caged in many layers of chains and bars. Not permitted to show even a single shred of national self-confidence. We won’t see that until American troops have left Germany, and the whole NATO regime has been reversed. But it will come. Rest assured.

Above is the first step, and, let’s say, how far I think we’ll come in this century.

For the beginning of the next century, we will be in a situation with China as the great power. There will also be competition with Russia. Probably China will be first in occupying the oil fields around the Persian Gulf, but we will be competing with them about it.

America together with France and Britain will be utterly discredited, seen as the guilty ones for the greatest treason in the history of mankind against their own people (as Fjordman put it); while Germany was completely innocent in this, and will hold the morally superior position.

France might no longer exist, having first been overrun by Muslims, and then reconquered by Germanic people.

The United States will no longer exist. But the Confederation of the Northern US States will be a natural ally to the Germanics.

Maybe there will be something as a Germanic empire at this point. Or maybe even two, one German speaking and one English speaking. But I’m not as sure about the English speaking one (I’m not saying people won’t speak English, only that there might not be a separate empire with English as the official language).

I’m sure we will be able to interact well with both China and Russia. Within the context of power balance, like in the good old days before Woodrow Wilson’s idiotic idea of an organized world peace.

Commenter said:

But you have to be very optimistic to believe that the current European Zeitgeist will do an 180º turn.

CS said:

In fact, 180º turns are very common. You mention the failure of Hitler’s Nazism. Well, after World War II the mythological narrative of the Western Christian civilization mandated doing everything 180º opposite to Nazism. Things that had been the most natural, such as European nationalism, was turned around 180º. And this is the derangement syndrome we now suffer severely under. Once this American/Anglo/French totalitarian horror show has crash landed, I can assure you a 180º turn away from their position. Another example is the French Revolution, which was a 180º turn—even 180 degrees away from normal sanity and common sense.

Will American troops reside in Germany forever? No. When it comes to the imminent fall of the current order, there are too many factors in motion at the same time that each alone has the potential of making it fall: dollar collapse, ethnic civil war, Iranian nukes, weak and paralyzed leadership.

Commenter said:

Larry Auster, the subject of this thread, is bolder in realizing this than those in other counter-jihad, conservative websites.

CS said:

While Auster is more insightful than the most, he’s still stuck on mending the Western Christian civilization. For him Christianity is a constant that he is unable to reflect about. His blog is good for following the complete failure of American conservatism. And also for racial issues (i.e. the failure of the American way of dealing with racial issues). The rest is not very useful, and he believes in the strangest things, for example astrology. His position on Islam is also too weak. Quite as the Catholic Church he’s caught in the Abrahamic trap. And he’s too cross-eyed about “liberalism” to see things clearly.

♣

I find Germanic people boring and square, but sort of brilliant (history clearly shows that). After about a decade out in the cold, I have once again taken Germanic people to my heart because I can see their great tragedy. I think I can see their dilemma and how to solve it while at the same time it makes perfect sense for Poles, Spaniards and Celts to take an interest in this for the political stability it would give to all of Europe, once the current order falls. Without it there would be a huge power vacuum.

Who would expand into that? Russia, China, Islam? Or first Islam, then Russia, and finally China? That’s the good thing with the day the American troops leave Germany, because at that time the Germanic European will be forced to immediately build a strong military power. And you could imagine how many of the good things that we have discussed here would be catalyzed by that.

When I say that I want Christian ethics to go away, it’s not because I want to see a 180 degree turn away from it. Instead it is Christianity that ended up in steep imbalance. What I want to do is to balance things back. So what I have suggested is:

1) A new great mythological narrative where our own ethnic group is given the pivotal position; 2) A constitution where citizenship is reserved for people of our ethnic group. 3) Alien ethnic groups, typically from the Third World, that do not identify with our ethnic group, will have to be removed one way or the other.

Auster might sound strong at first glance, but upon closer examination he’s not. He’s still stuck in the liberal reservations stemming from Enlightenment thinking (yes, our current belief system). He wants to build his solution on America and Christianity. He’s still into saving and mending the Western Christian civilization. Accordingly, he’s still more worried about how we view ourselves according to the prevailing (and self-defeating) moral grammar, rather than dealing with real problems in a proper way. If Auster is the best America can produce, it’s definitely the end of America. It’ll be China that deals with it.

Commenter said:

Germany might be the Aragorn indeed.

CS said:

Have you been reading my blog? My take on “Lord of the Rings” is there.

Commenter said:

And I am just a silly hobbit.

CS said:

I’m just a silly hobbit too. But remember how the hobbits held a pivotal position in that book.

♣

I think it is clear that the people won’t turn away from the current belief system with less than a major catastrophe.

But this time the catastrophe is not something as benign as a “Western civil war”, but something of a higher magnitude, and of real external threats (which we are not the least prepared for). If we had only been facing something as harmless as World War I or World War II, I wouldn’t have been speaking of the end of the Western Christian civilization. If there only had been two strong sides of the West fighting each other to death, we wouldn’t have been facing this discontinuity of our civilization.

But now it is our very belief system that makes us unable to fight and defend our civilization. And the threat is external, and when we lose, it means this discontinuity. Losing here means losing our dominant position, not that everything is lost.

Our current empire will fall, that is, America, and not to another Western empire as before—since this time there is no one standing in line—but to external forces.

The reason that I welcome this is that I see it as inevitable. I cannot wait to come out on the other side and once again have a thriving culture with all the achievements that you have mentioned and also cherish: freedom, art, science, etc. Without anything to struggle for, such achievements will not be made. However, if we do not meet a major catastrophe within the next twenty years, we will be silently walking into our demographic eclipse, something that could indeed mean the end European civilization and the values that you have talked about.

The demographic forces in motion are so great, yes exponential. Not so much our declining birth rates, but the population explosion in the Third World that we are causing and the mass immigration and demographic Jihad in our own lands.

If this process continues we will end up in diaspora as the Jews. And with white people as a mere 2-3% of the world’s population and without our own homeland, that’s indeed the end of European civilization altogether, and we can say goodbye to the manifestation of all these values that you and I cherish.

It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes (population explosion etc.). So the Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization: another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. If it would continue a few decades more it will mean the definitive goodnight for all of us.

So to summarize: When I speak of civilization as in the Western Christian civilization, I speak of a concrete manifestation, an empire. And when I speak of civilization as in European civilization, I speak of the existence and self-government of white people, and the values and life style that is integral in our beings. But now we have come to a point where the former is the greatest threat to the latter.

In Aristotelian terms European civilization is the matter to the Western Christian civilization, which is the form. That is, white people is the matter for the current Western Christian “empire”. But now the form is suffocating the matter.

Commenter said:

“It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes.”

Why do you say this? Wasn’t everything relatively OK up to the 1950s, before the radical feminists almost took away our highest divine right from us: women? If lots of women would still be with us at home having lots of beautiful kids, as the Pope likes, the present problem wouldn’t exist, would it? Doesn’t the sexual revolution is to blame for the demographic winter? And isn’t Islamization of the West a mere by-product of our dwarfing ethnicity? If so why do you blame Western Christian civilization? Rome fell precisely because infanticide (the abortion of classical times) and contraception was practiced massively since the times of Julius Caesar. However, since Constantine and Theodosius the Church made enormous efforts to stop infanticide.

I agree that a major catastrophe is needed. That’s why, as I have iterated elsewhere, every morning I wake up with yearning dreams of mushroom clouds above Western cities to wake me up—and waking up the West. But couldn’t we reject the ’60s revolution without America necessary falling?

Yes: I know you want to delve deeper into the root cause. But I still think that solid arguments based on demographic winter show us that the West took a really wrong turn in the middle 1960s. In mean, the West was still healthy the year in which I was born! (maybe because you were born after that you haven’t seen the healthy West with your own eyes). We tried to trick the god Eros through contraception and the liberation of women. We are suffering now for having messed with the laws of Nature. Our present problems with a revived Islam are Venus’ revenge.

Curious, eh, that I am not a Christian—like Tannhäuser I look for the grotto of Venus—yet I admire conservative Protestants and Catholics on this issue?

CS said:

You need to read more carefully, because you missed my point. I repeat what I said:

The demographic forces in motion are so great, yes exponential. Not so much our declining birth rates, but the population explosion in the Third World that we are causing and the mass immigration and demographic Jihad in our own lands. It’s the Western Christian civilization that feeds all these processes.

Our declining birth rates have a slow effect in comparison with the exponential growth that the population explosion and demographic Jihad means.

And it’s exactly because of Christian ethics that people, like for example you, entirely look at our own birth rates (narrowly blaming feminism etc.), instead of focusing on the much bigger and alarming problem caused by us: the population explosion in the Third World.

For the very same reason that Christian ethics abhors infanticide, it causes the population explosion in the world. It’s a deeply held doctrine within Christian ethics that every single human life across the planet must be saved if possible. According to Christian ethics it is forbidden and unthinkable to think in terms of not saving every little brown child across the planet. But the consequences of this mindset are catastrophic, not only for us but also for them, as I have already explained. But since people are so programmed according to Christian ethics, what I’m saying does not seem to enter their heads. The thought is too unthinkable to be absorbed. It’s an utter taboo.

Wasn’t everything relatively OK up to the 1950s?

Sure it was. But the better our lives got, the more we destroyed, and the faster we destroyed it. It was exactly in the ’50s that this problem started. In the ’50s people of European descent was 30% of this planet, today we are just a little more than 10%. Not by us decreasing (in fact we are more than in the ’50s) but by the rest of the planet exploding in numbers, from 3 to 7 billion people—all caused by us.

The population of Africa is four and a half times higher than in 1950. And the population in Asia almost three times higher.

As I have already explained: With a highly developed industrial society, the Western people got a huge surplus of resources, and much more time at their hands. Since Christian ethics mandates what it does, they have since went around the world to save every single little life that they could: using Western medicine, modern fertilizers, GMO crops, and all other means possible, in order to keep as many alive as possible. Thus the population explosion.

This is derived from the deepest moral grammar of Christianity.

But it took all these centuries until we had an industrialized society that made it possible to enact. And because of that Christian ethics mandated that we caused this Third World population explosion. Something that could never have achieved themselves, which makes our deed so deeply irresponsible in so many ways, just because it’s artificial. Which means (i) they are not adapting their life-style accordingly but continue and continue to explode in numbers, and (ii) they are completely depending on us, which means their societies will totally break apart once our economic world order collapses.

That means that we will have to remove the industrial society, if we want to keep Christian ethics. Think over which one you appreciate the most.

But couldn’t we reject the ’60s revolution without America necessary falling?… the West took a really wrong turn in the middle 1960s.

No, this is not a matter of reverting the ’60s revolution. It goes far deeper than that. You know, the ’60s revolution wasn’t brought to us by extraterrestrials. There is an internal logic to our civilization, and its ideals, that led to that. It wasn’t an accident. Start looking at the French Revolution.

In general your answer is about rejecting the ’60s and going back to older Christian values, rejecting for example abortion and contraception. But this is just a stronger version of the Christian dogma to save every single human life possible. If anything it would just make the Third World population explosion worse! The population explosion is not caused by liberalism, it is caused by Christianity in its most general form. And if you bring in more deeply Christian people, it will only make it worse.

Commenter said:

When I studied a thick biology text at college, the photo of a Western doctor in the book caught my attention. He was vaccinating dozens upon dozens of black children in Africa!

Instantly I harbored the thought to drop out. How on Earth would a sane person do that, I told myself silently? That deranged altruism was, to my heart, like an industrial factory that produced hundreds of thousands of poor people, like a clon army: future adults who’d have a miserable life anyway. “How am I studying a hard science when the values of mankind are so, er, psychotic,” continued my soliloquy.

Of course, it’s impossible that the liberal mentality understands the mind of a post-Christian individual.

CS said:

First the dollar bubble will burst, and soon after the population explosion bubble. At this point people will see that Christian ethics caused this whole thing, and it will be utterly discredited.

This narrow-minded dogma of saving every possible life, will instead have caused more death and suffering than if Christian ethics hadn’t meddled with the situation in the first place. It’s like a plan the devil had thought out. To give birth to billions of people that could then be killed in one single blow in mass starvation.

What this Christian dogma hasn’t taken in consideration is that each society needs to be self-dependent. Because sooner or later there comes hard times. And if we have made them utterly dependent of us, what they will face then is death, since they cannot support themselves.

So what this Christian dogma will have caused is the death of societies. So much simultaneous death will kill also the societies. This would never have happened if this Christian dogma hadn’t entered the picture in the first place. A constant degree of child deaths, while being self-dependent in the traditional way, would have been the best thing for these societies. And wouldn’t have hurt them; and neither have hurt us.

I think that once it has happened, people will see this point clearly, and change their ways.

“Feed the world” beats saving the resources of our planet (i.e. actually saving the planet), according to the moral grammar of our current belief system. Quite as multiculturalism and Islamophilia beats for example feminism (as they say: “Race beats gender”). Our moral grammar is full of such hierarchies, from which the priorities are derived, once the objectives end up in conflict with each other. To save every single possible human life is one of our deepest dogmas. But try to discuss overpopulation with these anti-CO2 freaks (i.e. 90% of the Westerners). Even when believing in their theory about “global warming by human CO2” it would be clear that this problem would be strongly connected to overpopulation. But to address that as a problem is an utter taboo for these people.

And just a general note: People here at Gates of Vienna focus on the immigration problem. But mass immigration is just the local projection of this much larger and more fundamental problem of which I’m talking of here, that is, the planetary population explosion and our attitudes towards it (which also caused it). It won’t help to address the immigration problem without addressing this global problem. That is, it won’t help to be a lonely, purely Polish, if surrounded by Arabs, Pakistanis and Africans all along the border.

What is happening across the world is the large scale version of what is happening within our countries. Our relative numbers are diminishing by theirs increasing exponentially, in both cases.

♣

Things will not be able to turn around until the current belief system breaks apart, and makes a 180 degree turn. The main thing we can do today is to thoroughly prepare for that moment. These preparations also help protecting ourselves from violence and hardships in any sort of context. So no matter what future scenario one envisions, I’d say that the breakdown of the current belief system is not that far away.

I’d give it around a decade.

“From the corruption of women all evils follow”

The following essay, “On Cities, Women, and White Survival” by William Ventvogel was published originally in January 3, 2003


Gentlemen, our survival depends on our attitude towards the most damaging set of lies fed to us by America’s Jewish community: the exceptions ploy. These are: “some blacks are okay,” “some homosexuals are okay,” “some career women are okay,” “some Jews are okay,” etc. If you have not learned by now that these are lies, that the presence of these people destroys White identity, we are doomed to fail.

Andrei Kievsky wrote recently that things are falling apart very fast. Yes. Mark the closeness of two milestones in the campaign to destroy Whites: 1) the blonde White woman‐nigger romantic pairing in media, and 2) the establishment of a super GRU murder‐repression agency by FedZOG. The current vogue of the mulatta Halle Berry is prep for White males to get over the color thing. And psycho killers loose in American society are to make us beg for security. The West isn’t doing much about the savages exterminating Whites in Africa and it won’t do much when it starts happening here, either. We’re finished with government. Fuck the government. We’re on our own.

Let’s look at the rest of it. White women are competing with us in the marketplace for money and influence. What sort of women? Those White women whom Jew propaganda has won over, that’s who. They are pro‐ZOG; they are unitarians, although many deny it. The fact is, these women face a bitter end, though most don’t seem to know it, and if they did they would back out. I’ve seen it happen, and they are pathetic at 40 years old, trying to re‐feminize themselves, trying to shuck the traits of competition and hoping a virile man will find them attractive, and perhaps make them mothers.

Taxes fund anti‐white politics—and Jews are superb at creating issues. All women in power today use some degree of government protection. A woman in level competition with men rarely lasts long. All women of influence owe something to the Jew government. Worst of all, most White men take these women seriously and use the Jew political lexicon in their relationship with them. That is, men negotiate with these women. I used to do that. I used to operate by the “some career women are okay” assumption. That’s conditioning; that’s the effect of Jew propaganda. What a mistake! Remember that the next time you see some redhead career cunt pawing a simian at the opera.

Jew corruption and support is concentrated in the cities. Pro‐Jew, unitarian, professional women are concentrated in the cities. The niggerball producers are there; queer power and welfare directorates are there; the corporate capos are there; the breeding and mud hordes and the elite Whites who use them are there. Take any member of these groups for other than what he or she is, and you are losing.

That Sanskrit saying, “From the corruption of women… all evils follow,” is true. But you can undermine the ZOG’s artificial order. Stop taking these women seriously! Women want to be dominated. When I gave up the nice guy crap and dropped the Jew lexicon and started hunting women ’70s style (and before), looking at them first as pussy, it was as if I had quit the Church of Goy Control, and been swept up by the Valhallans. Now I look at women as sources of pleasure and incubators for my children, and that levels everything else. That blows away the ZOG fog. Clarity and focus are mine.

Then I am powerful! If I realize that a certain woman deserves more respect from me, I shall give it. But until I see she is quality, she is my meat. The old “gentleman” and “nice guy” approaches don’t work. They are indicators of defeat and retreat, not civility. Good manners still impress—but not as we expect. There is a new dynamic at work in cities. It is predatory and commercial, cynical and claustrophobic and effete. Cities are no longer tenable for a gentlemanly White man with a touch of honor pulsing in him. Such men wash out. I know. The principal dynamic is, in short, Jewish. White women know something is off with White men. The White men are running away. They can’t handle it. What’s left to White women? That’s why so many White women are hooking up with Jews, niggers and orientals.

I live in the core of a rotting East Coast city. It is architecturally magnificent, the best of 200 years of civilized White men. But these men are all gone, and so is their type. Only the buildings remain of their civilization, in a swamp of nigger predators and parasites (there is plenty of wigger—White nigger—trash, too). Here in the core, sushi faggots, Jew lawyers and landlords, lesbians and career twats dominate. Rabble makes up the rest of the population. In a city 70 percent nigger you find yourself inevitably in their company. They are everywhere. And, brothers, I was “going along to get along” until a few weeks ago when two niggers pulled a 9mm on me. I got away with my life and wallet, and someone called the cops, but I left before they arrived. I don’t know if they ever showed up and I don’t care. I wouldn’t have called them because I don’t need them. The incident was merely life in a place with Africans roaming at liberty. Niggers feed on Whites. This is the imperative that drives all niggers — the “nice” ones too. They follow the White man to get his standard of living. Or else they live like niggers, i.e., they eat each other and sell their children. A male nigger’s greatest coup is screwing a blonde or redheaded White woman. Any White man who thinks that’s okay is headed for a necktie party. That day is coming.

There is no such thing as an okay nigger. I can’t look at any nigger as I did before. The only “okay” nigger is in Africa, or dead. In the meantime, demographics and economics ensure they’ll continue to feed off us, take us down. That’s the Jew plan for us. I watch every simian now—watch his hands, his eyes. There are too many and I can’t handle it well anymore. Either I kill them or I get out. The Jew problem behind the nigger problem, and the queer problem, and the Ms. MBA‐hole [a feminist who has an advanced university degree and who is a real bitch] problem, is like a leech sucking out the White man’s energy and brains. The ambient stress is always there whether you feel it or not. The city‐dwelling White man, being strong, ignores or “manages” it in order to survive. No matter, the stress will eventually destroy him, make him do something stupid. In the meantime I imagine with pleasant tones a life without the necessity of casing every nigger male, or every White male who’s friendly. There is too much enemy energy in the cities, too many Jews, too many questionable White women. And a healthy White man wants to clean it out, hunt them down and kill them, kill them all. And if he can’t or won’t, the stress eventually turns him passive—then apathetic—then cowardly—then materialistic. He is caught in the Jew vortex.

The way to handle the effects of cities at this time is to get out. Yes, eventually the Jews and muds will find us no matter where we go. But the cities are finished and there’s nothing to do but let them go down. We can take them back later—if there’s anything left. But a White man cannot keep his integrity in a city. If he thinks he can he is either degenerate or deluded by Jew propaganda. There are no White cities anymore, and the niggers and muds are always sniffing out virgin White territory. The moron Christians and unitarian Whites lick them all over, like a mama dog licks her pups. Only another decade or so will produce World Three urban conglomerations so filthy, dangerous and diseased, so hopelessly repulsive, no healthy White could stand them.

What will getting out of the city do for me? It will let me be White. It will give my kids a chance to know themselves. It will return my energy and mind to me. A low income is a low price to pay for my dignity and soul. If I stay here I will start hunting down and killing niggers and Jews—and I dare say if you stay, so will you. It would be natural to do it, but it isn’t the answer—yet. If I stay, corrupted White women will continue to remind me that the White man has shockingly turned away from himself. If I stay, I will witness more and more White people drifting into self‐destruction. We need a new and dangerous wilderness. The White man is his whitest in such places. No wonder we’re going down—there’s no wilderness left. Let’s step back and let them develop.

Sharpen your knives, White man. Breathe clean and wait for The Day.

“The blood flowed ankle-deep in the streets of many of Europe’s great cities”

Along with the justice brought to the white women who had sex with blacks in the “Day of the Rope” in the last pages of William Pierce’s The Turner Diaries, originally published more than three decades ago, I enjoyed the fate of the feminized western males in the final, apocalyptic stages of the coming racial wars in North America and Europe. Pierce wrote:

“For the first time I understand the deepest meaning of what we are doing. I understand now why we cannot fail, no matter what we must do to win and no matter how many of us must perish in doing it. Everything that has been and everything that is yet to be depend on us. We are truly the instruments of God in the fulfillment of his grand design. These may seem like strange words to be coming from me, who has never been religious.”

Although I am not a religious person either, my chosen images at the right side of this blog, the Florentine Fete murals exhibited at the National Museum of American Illustration, reflect better than a thousand words what we have in mind: the potential divinity of the white race.

To avoid anachronisms, below I slightly edited the final pages of Pierce’s 1978 masterpiece, the toughest book in the white nationalist movement. Take note that in real life there were speculations of blacks lapsing into cannibalism after Katrina hit New Orleans. No ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs:





Food became critically scarce everywhere during the winter. The Blacks lapsed into cannibalism, just as they had in California, while hundreds of thousands of starving Whites, who earlier had ignored the Organization’s call for a rising against the System, began appearing at the borders of the various liberated zones begging for food. The Organization was only able to feed the White populations already under its control by imposing the severest rationing, and it was necessary to turn many of the latecomers away.

Those who were admitted—and that meant only children, women of childbearing age, and able-bodied men willing to fight in the Organization’s ranks—were subjected to much more severe racial screening than had been used to separate Whites from non-Whites in California. It was no longer sufficient to be merely White; in order to eat one had to be judged the bearer of especially valuable genes. In Detroit the practice was first established (and it was later adopted elsewhere) of providing any able-bodied White male who sought admittance to the Organization’s enclave with a hot meal and a bayonet or other edged weapon. His forehead was then marked with an indelible dye, and he was turned out and could be readmitted permanently only by bringing back the head of a freshly killed Black or other non-White. This practice assured that precious food would not be wasted on those who would not or could not add to the Organization’s fighting strength, but it took a terrible toll of the weaker and more decadent White elements. Tens of millions perished during the first half of that year, and the total White population of the country reached a low point of approximately 50 million.

Outside these zones of order and security, the anarchy and savagery grew steadily worse, with the only real authority wielded by marauding bands which preyed on each other and on the unorganized and defenseless masses. Many of these bands were composed of Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, and half-White mongrels. In growing numbers, however, Whites also formed bands along racial lines, even without Organization guidance.

As the war of extermination wore on, millions of soft, city-bred, brainwashed Whites gradually began regaining their manhood. The rest died.

The Organization’s growing success was not without its setbacks, of course. One of the most notable of these was the terrible Pittsburgh Massacre. The Organization had established an enclave there in May of that year, forcing the retreat of local System forces, but it did not act swiftly enough in identifying and liquidating the local Jewish element. A number of Jews, in collaboration with White conservatives and liberals, had time to work out a plan of subversion. The consequence was that System troops, aided by their fifth column inside the enclave, recaptured Pittsburgh. The Jews and Blacks then went on a wild rampage of mass murder, reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Jew-instigated Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. By the time the blood-orgy ended, virtually every White in the area had either been butchered or forced to flee. The surviving staff members of the Organization’s Pittsburgh Field Command, whose hesitation in dealing with the Jews had brought on the catastrophe, were rounded up and shot by a special disciplinary squad acting on orders from Revolutionary Command.

The only time, after that November, that the Organization was forced to detonate a nuclear weapon on the North American continent was a year later, in Toronto.

Hundreds of thousands of Jews had fled the United States to that Canadian city, making almost a second New York of it and using it as their command center for the war raging to the south. So far as both the Jews and the Organization were concerned, the US-Canadian border had no real significance during the later stages of the Great Revolution, and conditions were only slightly less chaotic north of the border than south of it. Throughout the Dark Years neither the Organization nor the System could hope for a completely decisive advantage over the other, so long as they both retained the capability for nuclear warfare. Then, of course, came the mopping-up period, when the last of the non-White bands were hunted down and exterminated.

With the principal centers of world Jewish power annihilated, and the nuclear threat neutralized, the most important obstacles to the Organization’s worldwide victory were out of the way. From as early as that year the Organization had had active cells in Western Europe.

The disastrous economic collapse in Europe in the spring, following the demise of the System in North America, greatly helped in preparing the European masses morally for the Organization’s final takeover. That takeover came in a great, Europe-wide rush in the summer and fall, as a cleansing hurricane of change swept over the continent, clearing away in a few months the refuse of a millennium or more of alien ideology and a century or more of profound moral and material decadence. The blood flowed ankle-deep in the streets of many of Europe’s great cities momentarily, as the race traitors, the offspring of generations of dysgenic breeding, and hordes of Gastarbeiter met a common fate. Then the great dawn of the New Era broke over the Western world.

As everyone is aware, the bands of mutants which roam the Waste remain a real threat, and it may be another century before the last of them has been eliminated and White colonization has once again established a human presence throughout this vast area.

But it was in that year, according to the chronology of the Old Era—just 110 years after the birth of the Great One—that the dream of a White world finally became a certainty.

Hellstorm (book review)

It is disturbing to learn that, even after more than sixty years of the crimes committed by the Allies against the German people, many Anglo-Saxon nationalists are still clueless about what really happened right after the Second World War.

Thomas Goodrich’s Hellstorm:
The Death of Nazi Germany,
1944–1947

Book-review
by J. A. Sexton








What is hell?

I’ve often pondered what the concept “hell” entailed; what it means to be living in the absence of “God,” the supreme creative force behind all life. After reading Thomas Goodrich’s breathtaking and physically nauseating analytical narrative of the burnt offering—Holocaust—of Germany I now know what hell looks like and how its inhabitants live and behave.

Relentless, reckless, and senseless hate of a magnitude so profound, so immense, that I am still unable to understand it. And then the irony of it all: that former inhabitants of Europe—Europeans—were responsible for inculcating hell in their own Heimat (homeland).

Who but the Devil itself could make a family turn on itself, causing it to tear itself apart in such a murderous, inhuman fashion that the victims are left unrecognizable after all the torture, abuse, burning, systematic rape, and beatings subsides?

Who or what could inspire such madness? Thomas Goodrich answers this question silently, subtly, but matter-of-factly—the Jews in Communist Russia (the former USSR) and Capitalist America and Britain.

Hellstorm is the type of book that changes lives. Goodrich is the type of author who literally puts you, the reader, there in the midst of hell. And what is this hell that he forces you to experience page after page, torture after torture, and rape after rape? One that has been all but forgotten; the only hell the modern age really knows:


The Allied Holocaust of National Socialist Germany

Goodrich describes the Allied-induced inferno in more detail than most need to know to gain an understanding of the depths of Allied criminality and hatred, but the detail is necessary. Without the detail no one will really know what hell is. Here’s a taste of it.

A German woman has her jaws forced open by the filthy brutish hands of a Soviet serial rapist. He literally spits into her mouth and forces her to swallow his salivary filth as he rams her body again… and again… and again—until he’s satisfied fulfilling his oath to Stalin and his chief Holocaust propagandist, Ilya Ehrenburg. Stalin officially sanctioned the systematic rape of German women. Ilya Ehrenburg, for his part as the lascivious advocator of rape of German women, helped the Red Army perpetrate the largest gynocide and mass rape in recorded history.

Commissar Ehrenburg’s pamphlet—distributed in the millions among Red Army troops on the front lines of battle who were already intoxicated with hate and vengefulness as a result of over two decades of Bolshevik oppression, mass murder of their families and mass collectivization—urged Soviet troops to plunder, rape and kill. The final paragraph of his pamphlet entitled “Kill” reads:

The Germans are not human beings. From now on, the word “German” is the most horrible curse. From now on, the word “German” strikes us to the quick. We have nothing to discuss. We will not get excited. We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day… If you cannot kill a German with a bullet, then kill him with your bayonet. If your part of the front is quiet and there is no fighting, then kill a German in the meantime… If you have already killed a German, then kill another one—there is nothing more amusing to us than a heap of German corpses. Don’t count the days, don’t count the kilometers. Count only one thing: the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the Germans! Kill the Germans! Kill!

And in another leaflet:

The Germans must be killed. One must kill them… Do you feel sick? Do you feel a nightmare in your breast?… Kill a German! If you are a righteous and conscientious man—kill a German! Kill!

Ehrenburg, like any skilled propagandist with a penchant for revenge and training in human psychology, appealed to the basest instincts of his men, urging them to rape and wantonly slaughter other human beings at will. There would be no penalties for this injustice as it was all officially sanctioned. Ehrenburg:

Kill! Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Follow the precepts of Comrade Stalin. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army.

The Gynocide

I went into Goodrich’s book expecting to read little more than I already knew about the worst gynocide and mass rape of womankind in recorded history, but I was in for a shock. As an individual who looks out for women’s interests, I was repeatedly overcome with emotion while reading of the indescribable genital mutilations, deliberate and systematic terrorism, gang-rape and wanton mass murder of women. Goodrich:

From eight to eighty, healthy or ill, indoors or out, in fields, on sidewalks, against walls, the spiritual massacre of German women continued unabated. When even violated corpses could no longer be of use, sticks, iron bars, and telephone receivers were commonly rammed up their vaginas. (p. 155)

Brazilian German Leonora Cavoa:

“Suddenly I heard loud screams, and immediately two Red Army soldiers brought in five girls. The Commissar ordered them to undress. When they refused out of modesty, he ordered me to do it to them, and for all of us to follow him. We crossed the yard to the former works kitchen, which had been completely cleared out except for a few tables on the window side. It was terribly cold, and the poor girls shivered. In the large, tiled room some Russians were waiting for us, making remarks that must have been very obscene, judging from how everything they said drew gales of laughter. The Commissar told me to watch and learn how to turn the Master Race into whimpering bits of misery.”

The horror that ensued nearly defies written description, as no written description can actually make a reader of either sex feel and genuinely know the pain and suffering inflicted in this neverending horror show. The victims’ pain and suffering must have seemed like hours and hours… an entire lifetime… I can’t imagine. I try not to imagine it because about 2,000 women in the Nemmersdorf area alone suffered a similar fate.

“Now two Poles came in, dressed only in their trousers, and the girls cried out at their sight. They quickly grabbed the first of the girls, and bent her backwards over the edge of the table until her joints cracked. I was close to passing out as one of them took his knife and, before the very eyes of the other girls, cut off her right breast. He paused for a moment, then cut off the other side. I have never heard anyone scream as desperately as that girl. After this operation he drove his knife into her abdomen several times, which again was accompanied by the cheers of the Russians.”

Stop. Picture it. Imagine it. Live it.

Force yourself to see your own body mutilated in similar fashion; force yourself to picture a knife plunging into your abdomen again… and again… your short lifetime come to this end: you know you are about to die. You are being murdered; your body brutally tortured by a mob of brutal sadists. Try to imagine the horror and the helplessness you would feel as your person was mutilated and your very life bleeding away on a table.

Can a human being really suffer a worse injustice than this?

Now… step back out of the scene and analyze this needless, inhuman horror with the gift of hindsight. This victim was not just the victim of these Red Army men, reduced to base animal instinct and mentality, but she was also the victim of an ideology inspired by Judaism and a Jewish propagandist named Ilya Ehrenburg. Leonora:

The next girl cried for mercy, but in vain—it even seemed that the gruesome deed was done particularly slowly because she was especially pretty. The other three had collapsed, they cried for their mothers and begged for a quick death, but the same fate awaited them as well. The last of them was still almost a child, with barely developed breasts. They literally tore the flesh off her ribs until the white bones showed.

Loud howls of approval began when someone brought a saw from a tool chest. This was used to tear up the breasts of the other girls, which soon caused the floor to be awash in blood. The Russians were in a blood frenzy. More girls were being brought in continually.

I saw these grisly proceedings as through a red haze.

Leonora tried to dissociate from the situation, which is one of the brain’s foremost methods for dealing with psychological and physical trauma. But to no avail, the Russian and Polish “soldiers” disallowed it.

Over and over again I heard the terrible screams when the breasts were tortured, and the loud groans at the mutilation of the genitals… It was always the same, the begging for mercy, the high-pitched scream when the breasts were cut and the groans when the genitals were mutilated. The slaughter was interrupted several times to sweep the blood out of the room and clear away the bodies… When my knees buckled I was forced onto a chair. The Commissar always made sure that I was watching, and when I had to throw up they even paused in their tortures. One girl had not undressed completely, she may also have been a little older than the others, who were around seventeen years of age. They soaked her bra with oil and set it on fire, and while she screamed, a thin iron rod was shoved into her vagina… until it came out her navel.

In the yard entire groups of girls were clubbed to death after the prettiest of them had been selected for this torture. The air was filled with the death cries of many hundred girls (pp. 156–57). And this is where I have to stop transcribing.

Massacred bodies
of German children

The Holocaust

The thought of being burned alive is horrific, but the thought of being burned alive because you are trapped in melted asphalt and literally stuck by your own disfigured hands and knees and screaming—in either agony or for salvation from passers-by, or perhaps both—is worse; perhaps even worse than that is being boiled alive in the air raid shelters designed to keep you safe because steam pipes have burst open, unleashing their scorching wrath upon you—just one of millions of victims of Allied “morale bombing”: Victims of your own White racial brethren driven to absolute base madness and inhumanity by Jewish propagandists in the “liberal democracies”.

What did you do to be burned or boiled alive? What was your crime?

You supported Adolf Hitler, the man who dared to stand up to international finance and the Jewish system of systematic international monetary and spiritual enslavement.

That was your “crime” and the “crime” of millions of other “statistics” in Germany and Europe who were incinerated, melted, tortured, strafed, raped or blown into body parts by their own racial and cultural kindred in the USSR, Britain and America.

The core of the firestorms often reached 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit; the flames 1,300 to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. A Holocaust in the truest sense of the word: a burnt offering of the Germanic race—women, children, refugees, POWs, the elderly, and even animals at the Berlin Zoo—to the Christian-Jewish “god” Jahve. The truth is that this was the single largest burnt offering of human flesh to the Devil in recorded history. And for what? For what did hundreds of thousands of German victims suffer: international finance Capitalism.

So that a few people, mostly ethnic Jews, could continue to make money from money; so that a handful of international “bankers” could continue to enslave and exploit hundreds of millions of human beings.

Western man literally burnt and buried his collective spirit, soul and value system in Germany. Germany became the tomb of the West.


The Viricide

Systematic murder of German women and female Axis collaborators was not the only European gendercide from 1944 to 1950. German men and their Cossack and Slavic collaborators became deliberate targets of Anglo-Soviet viricide in the postwar years. German men and boys were reduced to corpses or skeletons by the millions in Eisenhower’s Holodomor (death by famine). Eisenhower’s camps were designed with one purpose in mind: mass death. Millions of German men and boys died from starvation, disease, exposure, heat exhaustion, thirst, and of course torture, slave labor, random massacre, and systematic execution. After having served in the worst war in Western history, and one of the worst in world history, German men came “home” to nothing more than rubble. Their wives, girlfriends, and children were dead, enslaved, mutilated, driven to madness, missing, lost, or had gone with the enemy to survive and prevent further systematic rape by Polish, Russian, and Mongolian “men.” There were very few “homes” to return to, so thousands of men ended their lives in despair. They had survived six years of horror and warfare only to end it all in the street rubble once called “Germany.”

Why?

Because their own blood kindred in America, Britain, the British Commonwealth, and even much of Europe had betrayed them: had turned on them to please their Jewish overlords.


The Spiritual Slaughter

Soviet tanks drive right over German refugees who have survived hell and come so close to salvation, or so they think, in the Allied occupation zone—more aptly described as the Allied destruction zone. The refugees are now just bloodied pulps in the snow, flattened like dough by the tank treks. The Soviet tanks trudge on without even so much as a pause. A German refugee ship capsizes after it is hit by a Soviet torpedo or bombed in an American air strike. All aboard scream and struggle to stay alive; they’ve made it so far, but the vast majority are forced to call the sea their final resting place. Bodies are everywhere in the water. There are literally thousands. Mothers, brothers, sisters, cousins, POWs, and even tiny infants who have just transitioned to life outside the womb and have breathed air for the first time—all dead in a matter of minutes. Some drowned. Many were crushed or torn apart by the rudders. Others froze to death. The sea was awash in human blood and body parts after each and every one of these attacks on refugee ships. No German was innocent. Not one.

This happened to numerous refugee ships. Many aboard were Allied POWs and Jewish camp refugees who had been protected by the fleeing German SS and Wehrmacht men—murdered by their own nation; murdered by their own race.

American pilots swoop down on exposed civilians and refugees in the vast clearing below. They open fire. They actually shoot individual human beings as though they are hunting wild horses or wolves in order to cull them. Machine gun bullets rip into the backs of civilians who had just barely escaped with their lives from the fiery Holocaust that was the city. The holes are the size of baseballs. Hundreds are mowed down instantly or are injured by the fire and debris—nearly all are left to die slow, agonizing deaths in that clearing. All the while Churchill and Roosevelt assure their self-absorbed, apathetic, hedonistic publics, We do not shoot civilians. We do not target civilians.

An older German woman is approached by filthy Soviet soldiers. She knows what awaits her because Goebbels did not lie. She tries to talk them out it. She has children with her. They dispose of the children rapidly, viciously: their heads are rammed into the side of the building. The woman is gang-raped. What does she recall… the rape? No. The sound of a child’s skull when it is crushed against a wall. She’ll never forget that sound. Nor will I because I too can hear it. I too witnessed it. I witnessed it through Goodrich.

And then there were the death camps where over a million German men perished because Eisenhower hated Germans: “God I hate the Germans,” he said. His racism and hate became official policy, a policy of genocide—an American orchestrated Holodomor. Countless thousands of German men were shipped off to Britain and Siberia to serve as slave laborers for the “victors”. Victors of what? Total destruction.

They aren’t paid and most die.

Most white American GIs rob the Germans, starve the Germans, plunder and destroy what remains of the German people’s homes, gang-rape German women, and beat and kill German children and honorable SS men. In the meantime most African GIs act kindly and distribute candy and food to German women and children. It is a bitterly confusing and deplorable world when the alleged “monsters” are the kind ones, and the members of your own race—your own blood brethren—act like deplorable beasts with no conscience. And yet this was the reality of Germany after 1945: an unpredictable dichotomy; an alien world.

While this horror is unfolding, Roosevelt (and later Truman) and Churchill cheerily offer Stalin half of Europe. They are more than happy to accommodate nearly every demand drafted up by this “Man of Steel.” The result of these Anglo accommodations nearly defies description: the greatest mass expulsion and deportation in history (upwards of 13 million); the mass murder of millions of Germans and their allies in Russian, French, Jewish, and Polish retribution camps and prisons dotted all throughout Europe and the USSR; the systematic mass rape and murder of German and collaborator women (an estimated two million); and the deliberate secret starvation of the Germanic race as spelled out by the Jewish advisor to Roosevelt and Truman, Henry Morgenthau.


The Toll

Between 20 and 25 million Germans and collaborators perished in the years after the war had officially ended. It is a crime that will never be forgotten, and it is a crime that will forever stain the hands and national consciences of the former USSR, the United States of America, Great Britain and her Commonwealth nations, and perhaps more pointedly the Anglo and Slavic races of the White supra-race.

A little German boy holds a lantern as he sits in a wagon en route to the Allied lines in the bitter winter snow. He’s with his mother. She’s bleeding profusely; she’s dying. The German doctor who the little boy was lucky enough to hunt down is doing his best to perform a tamponade (a blockage) of her uterus. She was brutally, viciously raped. Did she survive? Goodrich doesn’t say, but the prognosis and tone suggests she didn’t make it. She was a German. She supported Hitler. She was a Nazi. She deserved it.

She deserved it.

So said the Allies in the years following the war: Germany merely got what she deserved. The “morally superior” White nations of the globe had smashed ultimate evil: the Nazis; the German race.

Never has a greater lie been told. Never has so much hatred and vengeance been poured forth onto one people and one nation that had chosen not to abide by the laws of international bankers and financiers who wish only to enslave, plunder, steal and when necessary, kill. And most of the White races of the world were more than willing and eager to take up the flag of international Jewish money power and to smash the one White race that opposed it with such honor, valor and sheer might—so much so that it took all the best brain- and material-power of the entire White supra-race and all the monetary power of its Jewish financiers and overlords to break its back. And yet… and yet… it still was not broken. Goodrich ends the book with a tone of hope.


Beyond Hell

When all had been destroyed, when all seemed to have been lost forever in Year Zero, the Germans proved once again that such was just not the case. Brick by brick and hour by hour they rebuilt upon the ruins of God’s Empire a new Germany. No Holocaust by fire, no gynocide, no viricide, no famine, and no other inhuman atrocities could obliterate or subdue the Germanic element of the White race of humankind.

Even though Germany today is still an occupied nation with a hurting people, she still possesses that flicker of life and spirituality that the other White races and nations lost long ago when they sold their souls to Judaism and the Jewish “god” of hatred and revenge, Jahve. “Unbowed, unbent, unbroken.” Such are the words of an album released by a European band named Hammerfall. And such are the words that describe the German people, the German folk, and the German race. The only ones who bear the burden of bloodstain and guilt are the Allies. No crimes in recorded human history surpass those inflicted against Germany and Europe by the United States, Great Britain and the former United Soviet Socialist Republics—all with Jewish spiritual, media and financial backing and support.

The death of National Socialist Germany was the death of Western man and everything he once stood for.

I must thank Thomas Goodrich. Hellstorm has changed my life.

__________________

I read this review at Counter-Currents.

Excerpts of Hellstorm can be read here.

Emma West and my infinite nostalgia for traditional Britain

Yesterday, always nostalgic of the movies I saw as a child on the big screen, I watched all the Edinburgh scenes of the 1959 film Journey to the Center of the Earth, of which I just uploaded a single scene:

And today I was infinitely shocked that this week many young white Britons uploaded YouTube clips hating Emma West and repeating all of the doubleplusgood, antiracist duckspeech that they have learned in Orwellian Britain. One of these teenagers, a female by the way, said sincerely: “The United Kingdom is a multicultural country.”

There’s no question about it. The West, and particularly the Anglo-Saxon countries that horribly betrayed the white race during the Second World War, must be set aflame and destroyed before the surviving whites wake up from the catalepsy that has been burying us semi-alive for seventy years.

Why do nationalists support non-classical music?

Further to my previous post on Neanderthalesque music. The blogger known as Iranian for Aryans has just responded in that thread including the following points.

These are my views on the subject:

1. If you support non-classical music you’re suspect.

2. Those who say they “like” classical music are disingenuous, for the most part, since they don’t listen to it.

3. Burzum and the other [Black Metal] groups are abominable.

4. If society loses its original and healthy musical heritage, it cannot use something sick, demented, and ugly to revivify itself. The latter is too ugly and evil. Why not go back to the Masters? They are assured of being sane, beautiful, and progressive.

Thank you for putting our views so succinctly. These are my very personal views:

He who dances classical ballet can dance everything, even if he loathes a specific dancing genre. Similarly, he who can understand the most abstract forms of classical music can understand every music genre, even if he loathes a specific genre.

As I said in the previous post, music has been my native language. I understood atonal Ligeti at the age of ten. So let me be a little arrogant for a moment.

Analogously to those people who have an unusual development of the sense of olfaction to the point of “smelling” human moods—or so they claim—, I believe I can “decode” the moods of all musical genres, however disgusting I find some of their tantrums, and therefore the genre, that they represent. On the basis of this intuitive and unheard of psychological knowledge, the following is my interpretation of black metal.

Since the late 1960’s I interpreted rock as a “psychorragic” manifestation of an extremely pissed off generation with regard to their parents’ traditional, and often engulfing, culture. Like heavy rock, I feel that the black metal promoted by notable white nationalists is but the acting out of anti-traditional, anti-Christian sentiments among its fans.

Don’t take me wrong. Psychorragic rebellion is good. There’s nothing wrong with volcanic eruptions of rage after one’s own dignity has been crushed by the surrounding culture. However, if instead of using that sickening music to vent their legit rage the metalheads wrote books like my Whispering Leaves, where I expose both my parents and their abusive culture—cf. my blog Fallen Leaves—, the psychorrage would be healthy, controlled and genuinely artistic. But since the metalheads’ musical reaction only conveys unprocessed trauma, I’d dare to claim that it collides with psychopathology (for my explanation of unhealthy rage in contrast to my healthy rage see e.g., here).

Of course: those whose mother tongue was not classical music won’t be able to “read” the psychological whys of those headbangers who enjoy emphatic beats, amplified distortion and especially deafening loudness. But shouln’t the fact that their music so patently damages our hearing be enough for white nationalists of sound mind to see the genre for what it is?

My evil parents






It’s me at fourteen,
when my parents
started the abuse…








I’ve been reproducing pretty tough selections quoting Alex Linder’s invectives not only about Judaism but of the nefarious role played by Christianity in the West’s darkest hour. That’s why one of my blogs in Spanish doesn’t link anymore to blogsites by Iberian Christians that focus on Islam: the speck in their neighbor’s eye and not the beam in their own. Even so I maintain friendships with Catholics and Protestants always provided they are, before all, white nationalists. Discussing with Pat Hannagan, one of these comrades, I pointed out recently:

Do you see how deeply miscegenated is Mexico, with overwhelming Indian blood over the European? Guess what: the mess started long before the Jews or the atheists took over. The perp was… a Pope.

Right after the Conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan, Pope Paul III in his Bull of 1537 recognized the personality of the Indians, and declared them fit to receive the sacraments, including marriage to the Spaniards. The implications of this provision were enormous, as it left the cross-breading between Amerindian women and the Spaniard conquerors legitimated.

In the best book ever written about the history of Mexico, Catholic José Vasconcelos wrote: “In the Hispanic world this policy prevented a separation system of castes, like the one that has divided the Anglo-Saxons of the north” (Breve Historia de México, Ediciones Botas, 1944, p. 205).

Pat replied. He said that, though he knew little of the history of this part of North America, he doubted that the Church had ruthlessly enforced herself upon both Spaniard and Indian. I answered:

New Spain was a sort of religious paradise for the Catholic Church: the triumph of Counter-Reformation in most of America if you want to see it that way (remember that New Spain covered important southern states that presently belong to the US). In fact, thanks to our Inquisition, for three-hundred years (1521-1821), before the movement of Independence, New Spain was Judenfrei: which means that we cannot blame the tribe for the incredible mestization that took place over a continent during that period. It is precisely the tragic history of how New Spain regressed back to “Mexico” (the name of the old Aztec capital) what refutes the single-cause hypothesis: that the Jews are behind every single ill of modern history.

Maybe it’s worth saying that in the 1860s my great-great-grandfather, mentioned by José Zorrilla in his autobiography, moved to the heart of Mexico City for labor and studies issues. The family chose to rent a catty-cornered room from the building which a few decades before had been the Palace of The Inquisition of New Spain.

Pat replied again: “OK, so the Church accepted inter-racial marriage but is that a cause for the current drug cartel [and the] related complete collapse of that nation and spread into the USA?” I answered:

To a certain extent, yes: I have not seen a single pure white among the drug lords. Hadn’t the continent become a giant experiment in miscegenation we wouldn’t have the present mess of today.

The explanation of my latest response appears in IQ studies about the color of crime.

New Spain lasted tree hundred years: about a century more than the current histories of both the independent US and independent Mexico. Spain’s viceroyalty was strictly ruled by Iberian whites and, as I said above, free of Jews before so-called “Mexico” became independent in 1821.

A map
of the territories
of the Viceroyalty
of New Spain
at its zenith in 1795


The story of the rise and fall of New Spain ought to be more than enough to convince nationalists that the problems we face today cannot be attributed only to the Jews. For instance, above I used quotation marks around the word “Mexico” to convey the paradox that the independent movement was led by traitorous whites (when Jews still had zero power in the whole region). It’s all too obvious that with the gigantic miscegenation that the New Spaniards practiced throughout three centuries in the Judenfrei viceroyalty, universal Christian values screwed the American continent big time. When I leave my suburban home to go downtown and see the swarm of brown faces, I cannot imagine that a couple of centuries ago in those same streets white people wearing white wigs crossed the avenues with elegant horse-drawn carriages, like in the movies about eighteenth and early nineteenth-century Europe. The curious country where I was born beautifully demonstrates that besides a Jewish Problem we have indeed a Christian Problem: and that the single-cause hypothesis of Western malaise is inaccurate.

But that was not the purpose of this entry.

What if, besides (1) group-surviving strategies in Judaism—cf. this preface by MacDonald—, (2) the deranged altruism in present-day Christianity—cf. these comments by a retired blogger—, and (3) corporate capitalism—cf. this thread on Michael O’Meara—there is, still, a 4th (!) factor that we must take into consideration to explain Western deranged condition? While so many factors look like a nightmare and the primary temptation is to pick one of them and bias our search through reductionism, if we are to understand the basic etiology of our condition we cannot leave out any of the other factors from our worldview.

In the remainder of this post I’ll try to focus on the fourth factor since it has never been addressed seriously in the movement.

Two years ago I wrote an article, “Why do so many westerners hate the West?” that purported to explain the extreme hatred for traditional Spain of a Spanish woman, a practicing doctor. After ten months of interacting with her (she lived in Madrid but frequently visited the Canary island where I lived) I concluded that this woman, once committed to a mental institution for suicidal ideation, suffered from classic transference. Since she could not endure the pain of how she was treated as a child by her parents, she “transferred” all negative emotions onto her parents’ culture, specifically onto the most traditional aspects of Iberian culture.

Below I quote the introduction to my article:

Today’s suicidal ethos throughout the West is unimaginably deeper than anything that the common Western patriot, or even the most sophisticated intellectual, has ever glimpsed in his wildest dreams. While intellectuals in the white nationalist movement are good in describing the predicament that the West faces today, at the same time they are clueless about the basic etiology of the whys of the cultural self-hatred behind some of our people. Why is this so?

I have written a book from the viewpoint of deep psychology and cannot summarize my findings in this entry. Suffice it to say that the most extreme cases of cultural and ethnic self-hatred go back to the way we were raised by our parents, and the defense mechanisms that we unconsciously built in response to the family dynamics. Although I believe this is the universal cause of extreme self-hatred, in the sense of hatred toward our parents’ culture, in this article I will use a single case-study to illustrate why a westerner that I know hates her culture to the point of desiring its destruction. I analyze her not as a personal vendetta, but in the hope that those who defend our culture and ethnicity will become aware of what Alice Miller calls the forbidden knowledge.

This was my final thought after the main discussion of the article:

I wouldn’t have written this comparatively long analysis were it not for Teresa’s hatred of the West and her craving for its destruction. We already saw that she told me she really loved the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Moorish immigration that is taking away what force remains of Christendom in Spain, that she thinks that every single Western family is noxious, and that she wishes that “everything collapses.”

The sad thing about cases like Teresa’s is that there are many of them. What moves me to write this article is that in the nationalist movement there is no psychological analysis whatsoever, not even in the slightest form, of why leftist people hate their civilization. I believe that this case illustrates it. The volcano of rage that Teresa carries inside never explodes in the form of speaking out about her real aggressors. Never. (The cause for this is the problem of attachment to the perpetrator.) She re-directs it to the culture that, in her mind, symbolizes her family: the Francoist Spain and everything related to conservatism. Teresa gives a damn about the fact that in other cultures the treatment of women is far worse that what she got as a child. That’s irrelevant. What only matters is the destruction of the culture that crucified her. Period.

Teresa and I have the same age and we both suffered in Catholic families at the same time. Comparing the two biographies, it’s evident that I was a victim of more serious parental abuse than what she suffered.

But I don’t desire the destruction of my civilization. Before trauma, even big trauma, there still exists individual responsibility. That someone devotes himself to speaking out about child abuse (like me), or contributing to destroy the West through voting for Zapatero and by hating those concerned with Western preservation (like Teresa), only shows that there’s indeed something like surrendering our will to evil.

If leftist feminists were good persons, the first thing they would do is to feel compassion for the girls in Europe whose genitals have been chopped off at their parents’ request. But these women do exactly the opposite: they hate the System dissidents who pity the pubescent Muslims, as Teresa hated me in her quoted e-mails.

“A little woman chasing after her revenge would over-run fate itself” wrote Nietzsche. Teresa and the rest of the far-leftist women that feel extreme hate toward our civilization chase after an unconscious revenge. With so many voters like her in Spain and in the Western world, the fate of the West looks grim indeed. Teresa’s suicidal ideation, aborted by the psychiatric institution that she loathes so much, transmutes itself into the suicide of our civilization since, alas, instead of killing themselves many other empowered women have become West haters too.

A scientific description of evil: self-deceit

Evil is the exercise of power, the imposing of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion. The core of evil is ego-centricity, whereby others are sacrificed rather than the ego of the individual.

—Scott Peck

At Counter-Currents, last Thursday Greg Johnson quoted some of the words of Dr. M. Scott Peck from a Wikipedia article. According to Peck, a psychologist, ego-centric persons are utterly dedicated to preserving their self-serving image. They cultivate an image of being good persons but specialize in self-deceit and thus are “people of the lie.”

Adapted from Wikipedia:

Peck discusses evil in his book People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil and also in a chapter of The Road Less Traveled. Peck characterizes evil as a malignant type of self-righteousness in which there is an active rather than passive refusal to tolerate imperfection (sin) in one’s mind and its consequent guilt. This syndrome results in a projection of evil onto selected specific innocent victims (often children), which is the paradoxical mechanism by which the People of the Lie commit their evil.

Peck describes Roger, a depressed teenage son of respected well off parents. In a series of parental decisions justified by often subtle distortions of the truth they exhibit a consistent disregard for their son’s feelings and a consistent willingness to destroy his growth. With false rationality and normality they aggressively refuse to consider that they are in any way responsible for his resultant depression, eventually suggesting his condition must be incurable and genetic (the main lie of biological psychiatry I may add).

Evil is described by Peck as “militant ignorance.” The original Christian concept of “sin” is as a process that leads us to “miss the mark” and fall short of perfection. Peck argues that while most people are conscious of this at least on some level, those that are evil actively and militantly refuse this consciousness. Peck considers those he calls evil to be attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience, through self-deception.

According to Peck, evil people (in the bulleted phrases I will now paraphrase Peck to refer to my evil parents)—:

• Are consistently self-deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self-image of perfection

• Both of my parents (as well as other evil parents) deceive others as a consequence of their own self-deception

• My parents have been projecting their evils and sins onto their offspring (scapegoats) while being apparently normal with everyone else (their insensitivity toward us has been selective)

• My mother commonly has hated us with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self-deception as much as deception of relatives and acquaintances

• My mother has abused political and emotional power to impose her will upon her oldest children by overt or covert coercion

• My mother has maintained a high level of social respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so

• My parents have been consistent in their sins. Evil parents are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency of destructiveness

• Both of my parents have been unable to think from the viewpoint of their victims (scapegoats)

• Both of my parents have had a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury

Evil parents realize the evil deep within themselves but are unable to tolerate the pain of introspection or admit to themselves that they are evil. Thus, they constantly run away from their evil by putting themselves in a position of moral superiority and putting the focus of evil on their children. Evil is an extreme form of what Peck, in The Road Less Traveled, calls a character disorder.

Ultimately Peck says that evil arises out of free choice.

* * *

The very last phrase of my 700-page book, Hojas Susurrantes (Whispering Leaves), now available through a print-on-delivery house says, “Pero mi padre escogió el mal” (But my father chose evil). The following is a translation of what I wrote for the back cover of my book:

The author was born in 1958 in Mexico City. The eldest of artist parents, his original vocation was to become a movie director. His plans were shattered due to devastating abuse in his adolescence coming from the same parents who had instilled his artistic sensitivities.

With Whispering Leaves, a work of a quarter of a century, Tort presents a multifaceted work. It recounts not only a heartbreaking tale at the beginning and the end of the volume: the runaway abuse that nearly destroyed his young mind. Whispering Leaves also contains a searing exposé of so-called mental health professions which tend to side with the abusive parents, thus re-victimizing the child who already was a victim of such parents.

The book also contains a lengthy introduction to the thinking of the most relevant theorists on child abuse: Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause, and includes a psychohistorical section that aims to explain the unconscious motives of child sacrifice in Mesoamerica. All this thematic, including the criticism of psychiatry and the criticism of the anti-Western anthropology of our times, is always interwoven with a new literary genre, the total autobiography: a narrative of the murder of a soul.

“I finished reading your book. It’s so shocking and disturbing at times that I had to leave the reading because of the sadness and pain that I felt. It made me think and once I got to stop and cried because I was about to wet the leaves…”
……………………………—Paulina C. Moctezuma

The five books under the single cover of Whispering Leaves:

1. Letter to mom Medusa
2. How to murder your …..child’s soul
3. The chingada Indian girl
4. The return of Quetzalcoatl
5. Whispering leaves

* * *

Although I have criticized the 9/11 conspiracies theories believed by many nationalists, we need to expand criticism to more substantial topics. For example, in an article that was published a couple of days ago at Counter-Currents, “What is the best Hitler biography?” Andrew Hamilton stated that David Irving “is not a ‘Holocaust denier’ as Jews claim, though he does not believe in every jot and tittle of their religious narrative as everyone else does.”

Breaking away from “orthodoxy” in white nationalism not only means seeing beyond the single-hypothesis (Jews) prevalent in some quarters. It also means starting to harbor second thoughts about the history of the 20th century. For example, as soon as Irving’s book on Himmler is released I will surely order it with interest and can only hope that other nationalists will read it too.

The same with other “impolite” topics in white nationalism. Last month at Radio Free Northwest, Axis Sally spoke about spanking and other (abusive in my opinion) childrearing methods as the business of the parents alone. Sally and the commenters of the Northwest blog who harbor similar views will think it twice if they knew it was precisely the beatings that Teresa endured as a child what—she told me—caused her trauma. (An unprocessed trauma that she eventually transferred onto her parents’ culture because our Hispanic milieu didn’t allow her to overtly hate her parents.) It’s not my intention to belittle Radio Free Northwest. On the contrary: in the previous podcast Harold Covington had said: “At seventeen, when my deranged father threw me out of home…” I believe that precisely because, unlike Teresa, Covington allows himself that safety valve, he is far more integrated psychologically that his (childless) brother who has fallen so low as to resort to the SPLC to defame Harold.

As to date there’s only one chapter of Whispering Leaves that has been translated (by me) with the syntax corrected by a native English speaker. If white nationalism has for the first time in its history the beginnings of a meaningful intellectual scene, as Trainspotter believes, then it is high time to consider childrearing subjects as relevant for white interests: the fourth factor I listed above among the culprits of our spiritual and cultural degradation. I simply cannot conceive a breed of white haters of the culture of their parents if, as children, they had been treated with a little respect by the same parents.

I welcome comments on the translated chapter of Whispering Leaves (here). In fact, given the importance of benign childrearing to raise the level of political intelligence among us, I am tempted to freeze this blog for a while with this post and take a break. If I decide to do that, I could use that time to add hundreds more blog entries to my site in Spanish to annotate the insights already presented in my book.

Whatever I chose I will continue to discuss in the blogosphere, including here. Those willing to contact me directly can do it through the email that appears at my profile.

Only in the movies…

In “Already Dead: The Manifesto of a Blonde Beast,” Andy Nowicki, who has been tempted by the dark side and passed the test, as can be guessed in his novella The Columbine Pilgrim, writes that Breivik “committed an abominable act, and to regard him a hero since he was on ‘our’ side puts on the same level as the type of idiot leftist who idolizes a thug like Che Guevara…”

In the coming Holy Racial War in Western Europe, what would the “dark side” would be? Nowicki explains what he read in Breivik’s manifesto:

Breivik also counsels the commission of “deadly and strategic attacks” against unarmed groups of Muslim women, as he thinks that this will have the benefit of enraging and radicalizing the men, “inciting them to choose the path of Jihad prematurely” and thus assuring a quicker victory for indigenous Europeans. He regrets the necessity of taking so cold-blooded an approach, but reconciles it with his notion of justice by that age-old formula for justifying atrocities: to make an omelet, you have to crack some eggs.

In the comments section I immediately took issue with Nowicki’s “Harry Potter” approach:

* * *

Do you know that through the novels Harry never uses “Avara Kadavra”, the killing spell against the bad guys? He merely uses the disarming charm, “Expelliarmus.” But only in the movies for children the Harry characters win. In real life you have to make a transition to the dark side to become a good soldier.

I have read The Turner Diaries twice. When I read it for the first time I didn’t like the Breivik-like cruelties: for example the killing of an innocent black—the first killing of the novel—or an entire group of nationalist white warriors in Toronto for not taking care of the Jewish Problem almost at the end of the Holy Racial War. And in the Day of the Rope many innocent young women (and men) also die. Then I read Covington’s Quartet. I sensed a moral difference. Covington’s characters are not so cruel, in the sense of so many innocents dying too, as Pierce’s characters. I imagine myself doing the things in Covington’s novels. But some passages of the Diaries make me wonder…

But you know? Pierce was ultimately right. As soldiers of The Order, we must be like the walking dead. The difference with the Quartet (Uncle Harold hasn’t finished the fifth novel) and the Diaries is that in Pierce’s world not only an ethno-state is born: in the final pages it’s described that only the white race shall inherit the Earth.

This final item of the Diaries is too strong meat to digest in a mere blog comment and I won’t go further with that, save saying that if completely heartless people followed the cruel script you quoted above, the chances of setting fire on Europe by provoking the Muslim population that way would be infinitely greater than the Expelliarmus charm that this blogsite seems to promote.

“I love your Nordic race infinitely more than you do…”

“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”.

Really?

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?

You must have missed another of my blogs! [Also, this "cheering on of genocide" is pure projection in Andreas' mind—see my second comment below]

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…