“Will”

H youth1


From Faith and Action (1938) by Helmut Stellrecht for the Hitler Youth:


Will is the force inside you that commands. You may hesitate from weariness, anxiety,
weakness. Will lifts you over every barrier and orders you to do what your feelings and understanding tell you to do.

§ A man without will is like a machine without power. It is useless. But “where there is a will, there is a way,” and where a will orders, it is obeyed, whether a person follows his own will or men follow the will of a leader.

§ Where there is faith that comes from strength, it is will that gives it the push.

§ Exercise your will so that it is as taut and ready as a drawn bowstring, ready to let loose in the moment it should, neither a second too late nor a second too early. Exercise your will in little things until it is strong enough to bring from you that which Germany expects.

Published in: on May 31, 2013 at 5:46 pm  Comments (2)  

Quotable quote

“There is no human as willfully, malignantly, and self-destructively stupid as a White person in the throes of a moral panic.”

—Matt Parrott

Published in: on May 31, 2013 at 3:55 pm  Comments (4)  

The Yearling, 6

Pages after we read a vignette where Penny’s wife is depicted:

He said, “Ory, the day may come when you’ll know the human heart is allus the same. Sorrer strikes the same all over. Hit makes a different kind o’ mark in different places. Seems to me, times, hit ain’t done nothin’ to you but sharpen your tongue.”

She sat down abruptly.

She said, “Seems like bein’ hard is the only way I kin stand it.”

He left his breakfast and went to her and stroked her hair.

“I know. Jest be a leetle mite easy on t’other feller.”

The next chapter describes the autumn month to get the hogs butchered while, “Flag grew miraculously, day by day. He liked best to play with Jody.” But there was an obscure shadow in that bucolic world…

He said to Jody, “Now them ocean Jessies don’t belong to be crossin’ Floridy. I don’t like it. Hit means bad weather, and when I say bad, I mean bad.”

The sun set strangely that night. The sunset was not red, but green. The fawn came to Jody’s bed and poked its muzzle against his face.

Jody asked, “Is it a hurricane comin?”

“I don’t think. But somethin’s comin’, ain’t natural.”

In mid-afternoon the skies turned so black that the chickens went to roost.

And pages later:

Penny said after him, “Don’t he look like a wet yearlin’ crane. All he needs is tail feathers. My, ain’t he growed since spring.”

There was a lull in the fierce beating wind. A pitiful whine sounded at the door. Penny went to it. Rip had found adequate shelter, but old Julia stood drenched and shivering. Or perhaps she had found shelter, too, but longed for a comfort that was more than dryness. Penny let her in.

Ma Baxter said, “Now let in Trixie and old Cæsar [the farm’s animals], and you’ll have things about to suit you.”

Penny said to Julia, “Jealous o’ leetle ol’ Flag, eh? Now you’ve been a Baxter longer’n Flag. You jest come dry yourself.”

She wagged her slow tail and licked his hand. Jody was warmed by his father’s inclusion of the fawn in the family. Flag Baxter–

Ma Baxter said, “How you men kin take on over a dumb creetur, I cain’t see. Callin’ a dog by your own name–And that fawn, sleepin’ right in the bed with Jody.”

Jody said, “He don’t seem like a creetur to me, Ma. He seems jest like another boy.”

“Well, it’s your bed. Long as he don’t bring fleas or lice or ticks or nothin’ into it.”

He was indignant.

“Look at him, Ma. Lookit that sleekity coat. Smell him, Ma.”

“I don’t want to smell him.”

“But he smells sweet.”

“Jest like a rose, I s’pose. Well, to my notion, wet fur’s wet fur.”

The rain drummed on the roof. The wind whistled under the eaves. Old Julia stretched out on the floor near the fawn. The storm was as cozy as Jody had hoped for. He made up his mind privately that he would wish for another in a week or two. Now and then Penny peered out of the window into the dark.

They worked until noon in the down-pour, pulling the slippery pods from the bushes. They came in for a hurried dinner and went back again without troubling to change their clothes. They covered most of the field.

storm

The second day after the storm, Buck and Mill-wheel Forrester came riding to the island to see whether all was well with the Baxters. They had come straight from their own work of caring for the stranded stock. Along the main trail the sights, they said, were new in their generation. The flood had played havoc with the small animals. It was agreed that the four of them, Buck and Mill-wheel and Penny and Jody, should make a tour of exploration for some miles around, so that they might know what to expect, in the immediate future, of the movements not only of the game, but of the predatory creatures. The Forresters had brought two dogs, and an extra horse, and asked to have Rip and Julia join them. Jody was excited that he was to be taken.

Then they went to Silver Glen and in Lake George they saw something that shocked them:

Penny said, “I didn’t know there was that many snakes in the world.”

The bodies of highland reptiles were as thick as cane-stalks. There were dead rattlesnakes, king snakes, black snakes, coach whips, chicken snakes, garter snakes and coral snakes. At the thin edge of the receding water, cottonmouth moccasins and other water snakes swam about thickly.

Wild-cats and lynxes peered visibly from the branches of trees. The Forresters urged their killing.

Penny said, “Hit’s a pity we should add to their troubles. Seems like there’d ought to be room enough in the world for folks and creeturs, both.”

Later at night:

Jody put his arms under his head and looked up into the sky. It was as thick with stars as a pool of silver minnows.

Published in: on May 31, 2013 at 9:56 am  Comments Off on The Yearling, 6  

Nothing wrong with Whites, really?

Or:

Best video I’ve watched that demonstrates
that some Whites are demonically evil

White suicide is so incomprehensible that nationalists still prefer Judeo-reductionism to explain this age of treason. To explain this darkest of all hours some people whom I recently discussed are even capable of invoking demonic agency instead of becoming familiar with depth psychology. It is a pity that my recent article that purports to ponder about why some Whites become evil received no substantial commentary. But it is perfectly explainable: these murky waters are aqua incognita for almost all people on Earth.

Fortunately, recently discovered territory has been explored by the intellectuals in the pro-white community. The following is an excerpted version of the latest article authored by Kevin MacDonald for The Occidental Observer:


I just finished a book titled Moral Capital by Christopher Leslie Brown on the movement to abolish the slave trade and then slavery itself in the British Empire. The take home message is that the abolitionist movement thrived on moral capital. Even by 1790, popular opinion was persuaded that slavery was immoral, although it took quite a bit longer to actually abolish the slave trade (1807) and even longer to abolish slavery itself (1833)…

We need moral capital for our side—that just as the Palestinians have legitimate ethnic interests that are compromised by Israel, there is a moral imperative for the preservation of our people, our land and our culture.

White people—uniquely, I think—care about moral rectitude. (Not all Whites, but this is the dominant trend, at least since the 18th century and the decline of aristocratic culture, as emphasized in Andrew Fraser’s The WASP Question Most Whites want to be members of morally defined ingroups—a reflection of our past as Northern hunter-gatherers. (Christopher Boehm describes hunter gatherer groups as “moral communities.”) In the societies of pre-historic Europe, ingroups were defined not on the basis of kinship which is the rule in the rest of the world’s great civilizations, but on the basis of adherence to the moral standards of the group. A recent archeological excavation of a 4600-year old site in modern Germany found evidence for exogamy and nuclear families, a strong indication that ingroups were not constructed on the basis of kinship / extended families.

Creating morally defined ingroups runs deep in Western culture, which is why the Jewish opponents of the West have fastened on moral critiques as an effective weapon. All of the intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique (Kindle expanded edition available) are essentially moral indictments of the West.

These movements tapped into moral sensibilities that have a long history in the West. It’s amazing to read the anti-slavery activists and theorists of the 18th century. At a time when slavery was unquestioned in the rest of the world and when slavery had clear benefits to the Empire as a whole, they argued that all humans were equal morally and intellectually; they were horrified that their countrymen were inflicting suffering on people from another continent. In an influential book published in 1784, the Rev. James Ramsay wrote, “I shall assert the claim of Negroes to attention from us, by explaining their natural capacity, and proving them to be on a footing of equality in respect of the reception of mental improvement, with the natives of any other country.” All peoples were equal, morally and intellectually. Ramsay also included descriptions of the brutal treatment of the slaves designed to evoke empathy in his audience.

Another well-known 18th-century abolitionist, Quaker John Woolman, felt guilty because he preferred his own children to children on the other side of the world—a comment that reflects the sentiments of central players among the British elite, as noted by a liberal critic of immigration policy:

When dining at an Oxford college… the eminent person next to me, a very senior civil servant, said: ‘When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it as my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.’ I was even more surprised when the notion was endorsed by another guest, one of the most powerful television executives in the country. He, too, felt global welfare was paramount and that he had a greater obligation to someone in Burundi than to someone in Birmingham.

For such Whites, feelings for one’s own people are illegitimate and certainly not a basis for policy.

White people are uniquely prone to concerns about their moral rectitude and uniquely universalist in their outlook. That’s why it’s so hard to get a large group of American Whites out on the street to protest the immigration bill currently being considered by Congress, even though their legitimate interests are being massively violated if the bill is passed: The movement to restrict immigration or end it altogether has no moral capital in the eyes of media and intellectual elites, and this message is continually pounded home. In a sane world, Washington, DC would be inundated with huge public demonstrations against this bill. There is definitely some push back against it, mainly on the basis that illegal immigrants should not be rewarded for violating the law—which would do absolutely nothing to stem the huge surge in the numbers of legal immigrants contained in the bill; but one never hears mainstream conservatives talk in terms of legitimate White interests. But even protesting illegal immigration is now portrayed by American elites as placing oneself outside the moral community.

So we have to keep pounding away at our message that Whites have interests that are morally legitimate. While the moral sentiments of the 18th- and 19th-century abolitionists were certainly sound, adopting an ideology of moral universalism amounts to suicide under the present conditions where migration over long distances is so easy.

[See YouTube video: here]

As noted in the comments on Paul Weston above, calling Whites “racist” for asserting their legitimate interests is an attempt to place opponents in a morally illegitimate category. Such campaigns are uniquely effective in the West. Jews, for example, are remarkably immune to the charge, despite their erection of an apartheid society based on ethnic cleansing.

As Weston notes, the rhetoric of the culpability of Whites for past behavior is a central pillar of the multicultural onslaught against White Britain. But it’s never noted that Whites uniquely abolished slavery on moral grounds or that the importance of moral capital is a unique aspect of Western culture. However, despite its role in correcting the abuses of the past, the centrality of moral capital is now an integral part of the psychology of Western suicide.

A good sign is that the people I know who are on-page about White interests and identity do see a strong moral imperative in preserving our people and culture. Paul Weston’s video is a ringing declaration of the morality of White interests in defense of their people and culture. Often without a lot of conscious thought about it, there is a sense that we are a moral ingroup and we reject and shun those who hate us and our ideas. There is a lot of confidence that we are right; there is a sense of moral rectitude and an awareness of the hypocrisy and corruption of our enemies. And that is a very good start indeed.

Bicausalism Type-B in action!

The non-white Immigration Act of 1965

See Hunter Wallace’s excellent “bicausal Type-B” reply to Kevin MacDonald’s “bicausal Type-A” article on the immigration act that screwed up America. These articles were posted today and yesterday respectively. (For the explanation of the word “bicausalism” just see my previous entries.)

What tipped my apothecary scale?

Or:

Stephen Dalton’s point

Another way to see the difference between bicausalism type-A and type B is through the thought experiment of who would you blame the most, the anthropophagous Morlocks or the suicidal passivity of the blond Eloi in H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine? Those who focus on Jewry blame the Morlocks of course. But there are those who, like John Martínez, can see through the minds of the blond Swedes during the recent burning of Stockholm by Muslims and call a spade a spade: white suicide.

German stamp

I would like now to say something about what I said in my previous post on paradigm shifts. In an Apothecary scale, when a pan of the scale accumulates 51 per cent of either side, the scale will tip on the bottom stop. Following the metaphor of the scale, what accumulated the needed 51 per cent on the pan for the scale’s arm to lean my mind toward type-B bicausalism was the fact that some people in the white nationalist movement promote both sexual deviants and degenerate music. Since these people are perfectly conscious of the Jewish problem, I told to myself during those “mental warfare” soliloquies I spoke of in my previous post, this could not be attributed to Jewish influence. In other words, if even white nationalists—precisely the ones, one would expect, who would pursue healthy music and sexual mores—have fallen into the suicidal hedonistic mores, there must be another factor besides the Jewish one.

Let’s put it this way. In the thread of the article “Bicausalism Type B” at Occidental Dissent, Stephen E. Dalton said:

Too many people who are involved in white nationalism are ignorant, hyper-emotional fools who obsess about the other, claiming it’s all their fault (Jews, Blacks, etc.) while not paying attention to their own faults and weaknesses. Hunter & Jack’s [OD’s admins] message is, be aware of your strengths and weaknesses, and take responsibility for them, and be aware of your enemies strengths, weaknesses, and their subversive tactics, and avoid giving into their tricks. Too many of the commentators at OD tend to believe the enemy is all powerful, that he is everywhere. “It’s the Jooos” or some other group is their battle cry. This is nonsense, and let me tell you why.

Porn used to be a small mom and pop business found in the bad parts of a town, dominated by Jews. Now it’s a multi-billion dollar business that sells its filth over the internet. Why did porn become so big? It went big time because the white majority wanted it, lusted after it, and brought it. Sure, the pornographers, and their paid whores in academia, the law, the mass media, and medicine held the forbidden fruit in front of us, but the white majority of this country took that fruit and ate it. We made this enemy powerful by giving it our time and our money. We are the ones who must take responsibility to weaken and destroy it by refusing to feed the beast.

Of all I have read in the nationalist literature, my favorite quote has been what Andrew Hamilton said in one of his articles at Counter Currents: “What I failed to realize for many years was the depth of the evil and the resistance to individual redemption. Obviously, if people are evil when evil people rule, and good only when good people rule, they are not really good.” I have written about Hamilton’s quote in one of the most disturbing entries here at WDH, but for the moment I prefer to pass the microphone to Dalton:

Blaming the Jews for everything is a cop out. Yes they are responsible for a lot of mischief, but so are other groups. To claim that the Boston Tragedy was a Mossad-Jewish-Israeli false flag op is the height of idiocy. It was a Muslim planned op all the way. Yet some people commenting here on this blog and elsewhere refused to see the evidence right in front of their eyes. Instead, they allowed their feelings and emotions against one group to blind them to the reality of what really happened. It is this kind of blind hatred, motivated by paleologic [thinking] (putting emotions and feelings before facts) that kept me away from what is called the racial right for years.

Perhaps Dalton picked the word “paleologic” from what I told him in another recent thread at Occidental Dissent. This is a complex issue (in my book I explain the fundamentals of the concept of “paleologic thinking” here).

When Dalton wrote his comment he had in mind those silly nationalists that believe that the recent London decapitation incident was a Jewish hoax. But these people don’t only blame the Jews, instead of the Muslims, for that single incident: they blame the Jews for the recent Boston bombings too; the killings of Adam Lanza, the Breivik incident at Norway, 9/11 and some conspiracy theorists have developed crank theories about the 2005 London bombings (in Spain these idiots also believe that the Jihad attack of 2004 at Madrid was also staged). Dalton continues:

I now know, thanks to the work of men like Hunter, Jack, and others that there are people who can think clearly on this topic, and can sift through information on events, people, and ideas, and come up with logical answers that conform to what is actually reality.

Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer is one of the few sane voices that can discuss the Jewish Question without falling into paranoid delusions.

JVLIAN excerpts – VI

“Why were you so ungrateful to our gods
as to desert them for the Jews?”

—Julian, addressing the Christians

Julian

The Memoir of Julian Augustus

Suddenly the door to the charnel house was flung open and two old men ran out into the street, closely pursued by a dozen monks, armed with sticks. The old men got as far as the arcade where we were standing. Then the monks caught them, threw them to the ground, and beat them, shouting all the while, “Heretic! Heretic!”

I turned with amazement to Mardonius. “Why are they hurting those men?”

Mardonius sighed. “Because they are heretics.”

“Dirty Athanasians?” Gallus, older than I, was already acquainted with most of our new world’s superstitions.

“I am afraid so. We’d better go.”

But I was curious. I wanted to know what an Athanasian was.

“Misguided fools who believe that Jesus and God are exactly the same…”

“When everybody knows they are only similar,” said Gallus.

“Exactly. As Presbyter Arius—who was so much admired by your cousin the divine Emperor—taught us.”

“They poisoned Presbyter Arius,” said Gallus, already fiercely partisan. He picked up a rock. “Murdering heretics!” he yelled and hurled the stone with unfortunate accuracy at one of the old men. The monks paused in their congenial work to praise Gallus’s marksmanship. Mardonius was furious, but only on grounds of rectitude.

“Gallus!” He gave my brother a good shake. “You are a prince, not a street brawler!” Grabbing us each firmly by an arm, Mardonius hurried us away. Needless to say, I was fascinated by all this.

“But surely those old men are harmless.”

“Harmless? They murdered Presbyter Arius.” Gallus’s eyes shone with righteousness.

“Those two? They actually murdered him?”

“No,” said Mardonius. “But they are followers of Bishop Athanasius…”

“The worst heretic that ever lived!” Gallus was always ecstatic when his own need for violence coincided with what others believed to be right action.

“And it is thought that Athanasius ordered Arius poisoned at a church council, some seven years ago. As a result, Athanasius was sent into exile by our divine uncle. And now, Julian, I must remind you for what is the hundredth—or is it the thousandth?—time, not to bite your nails.”

I stopped biting my nails, a habit which I have not entirely broken myself of even today. “But aren’t they all Christians?” I asked. “Don’t they believe in Jesus and the gospels?”

“No!” said Gallus.

“Yes,” said Mardonius. “They are Christians too. But they are in error.”

Even as a child I had a reasonable logical mind. “But if they are Christians, like us, then we must not fight them but turn the other cheek, and certainly nobody must kill anybody, because Jesus tells us that…”

“I’m afraid it is not as simple as all that,” said Mardonius. But of course it was. Even a child could see the division between what the Galileans say they believe and what, in fact, they do believe, as demonstrated by their actions. A religion of brotherhood and mildness which daily murders those who disagree with its doctrines can only be thought as hypocrite, or worse. Now for the purposes of my memoir it would be convenient to say that at this moment I ceased to be a Galilean. But unfortunately that would not be true. Though I was puzzled by what I had seen, I still believed, and my liberation from the Nazarene was a long time coming.

But looking back, I suspect that the first chain was struck from my mind that day on the street when I saw two harmless old men set upon by monks.

Published in: on May 29, 2013 at 5:31 pm  Comments Off on JVLIAN excerpts – VI  

Paradigm shift

duck-rabbit_illusion

Kuhn used the duck-rabbit optical illusion to demonstrate the way in which a paradigm shift could cause one to see the same information in an entirely different way.


Most white nationalists start their intellectual career by believing that the West’s darkest hour is due to “homicide”: Jewish influence is killing us. I myself navigated in that ship. But the more I thought on the subject, the more water entered the ship in the sense that holes started to appear in my working paradigm. The recent exchange at several threads of Occidental Dissent on this subject gave me an opportunity to disclose my ideas in a popular forum outside the provinciality of this site.

It is a very difficult subject from the psychological viewpoint. And you will be surprised to learn that in the past I constantly shifted in my mind from Type-A to Type-B and vice versa—that’s to say, in my soliloquies I blamed Jews Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and Whites Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays!—depending on the sort of literature I happened to be reading.

The biggest hole that started to sink the ship, and I am following the metaphor in the sense that all of it was a mental warfare inside my head, was the fact that even when Christianity was healthy the Iberian whites, especially the Portuguese, ruined their gene pool by mixing their blood with non-whites in the very centuries when Jews had no power in the Iberian peninsula thanks to the Inquisition. I thought along those lines because, as my readers can appreciate, I was born in a place formerly known as New Spain. (Which explains why I could write so easily a long essay about the Aztecs that I translated for this blog.)

A paradigm shift is, according to Thomas Kuhn in his influential The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a change in the basic assumptions or paradigms within a ruling theory. See the image at the top of this entry and discover what happened in my mind:

During the process of wrapping my mind as I tried to solve the conundrum of who was guiltier, Jews or Whites, the only defense I had against such intellectual agony was simply to take a closer look at the evidence. For instance, investigate what had happened to the white people in cultures that predate the Jewish takeover of the western media today.

The closer I zoomed in, the more I realized that the phenomenon I was trying to grasp in my visuals was not a duck but a rabbit. It only looked like a duck at a distance because of an optical illusion. In other words, all shifting in paradigms is due to an internal change. It is the mind what “chose” to see it either way. That’s why I stated above that trying to decipher whether Western malaise is suicide or homicide is, in the final analysis, a psychological issue.

In other words, if you eat too many Jews for breakfast, as monocausalists do, you will always see a duck. It is only when you start to broaden, say, Kevin MacDonald’s perspective into the meta-perspective that William Pierce offers us in his last book, Who We Are, when in addition to the Jewish Problem you start to see a gigantic White Problem as well. Pierce’s book is what one finds at the deepest level of the rabbit hole.

In the last chapter of Who We Are Pierce says, “In the final analysis, however, none of these things changes the fact of profound moral illness on the part of the White populations of the Western nations in the postwar era. It is an illness with roots deep in the past, as has been pointed out in earlier installments, but in postwar America it bloomed. It is difficult to analyze the witches’ brew and place exactly the proper amount of blame on each ingredient.” And after mentioning the ingredients of the brew he added, “The evil spirit of the immediate postwar period was, at the time, apparent only to an especially sensitive few, while most could not see beneath the superficial glitter of change and motion.”

Take note that Pierce always was perfectly aware of the Jewish problem. As you can see, the article I mention at the sidebar, “Best article on the Jewish question” is #1 when I advertise his texts. But unlike monocausalists and Type-A bicausalists like Greg Johnson (“So, is it all “our fault”? Of course not”) Pierce knew that, after the Second World War, something monstrously evil in the white soul was ultimately the culprit of our woes.

That’s why I will always advertise Hellstorm as the starting text to understand this blog.

Is it suicide?

By Hunter Wallace

Keep in mind that Jews as Jews were never expelled from the United States, stripped of their citizenship and voting rights, required to live in ghettos, prohibited from marrying Gentiles, or banned from culturally sensitive institutions.

Contrast the United States with Spain which expelled Jews, persecuted them during the Inquisition, forced them to convert to Christianity and drove them out of the country. In the Northern states, the red carpet was rolled out for them in line with the dominant liberal ideology.

In light of the experience of the world in dealing with Jews, how could it have ended any other way? This is like a White man allowing his daughter to marry a negro and who is then shocked when he beats and kills her.

Published in: on May 28, 2013 at 11:30 pm  Comments (2)  

Bicausal corollary

These days my classification of “bicausalism” has stirred a long discussion through several threads at Occidental Dissent (see, e.g., here):

1.- Monocausalists – Most of the commenters at Age of Treason, and people like Dave Duke whom I deeply respect. These people believe that there’s but one cause of our woes: the subversive Jews.

2.- Bicausalists Type A – Those who, like Alex Linder and some commenters at Linder’s VNN Forum, believe that Jews are the primary cause of our woes, though there are other important factors as well. Unlike monocausalists, these bicausalists also blame our parents’ religion.

3.- Bicausalists Type B – Those who, like Tom Sunic, Manu Rodríguez and I believe that there’s something seriously wrong with us, extremely wrong actually. Whites’ mental issues (which include a Calvinist type of Old Testament Christianity that conquered North America) are the primary infection, and the Judaization of the West, a secondary infection (like AIDS / pneumonia, etc).

This is my corollary to the above classification. Note that I have added a #4, which means an antithetical monocausal stance to the one mentioned above. (Keywords: AoT = the blog Age of Treason; GoV = the blog Gates of Vienna):

1. AoT-like monocausalism – blames Jews 100%, Whites 0%

2. Bicausalism Type-A – assigns a blame above 50% to Jews

3. Bicausalism Type-B – assigns a blame above 50% to Whites

4. GoV-like monocausalism – blames Whites 100%, Jews 0%

Of course, in bicausalism you can either blame one or the other in diverse ratios depending on the specific bicausal individual, say, 90 / 10 percent or inversely; or 45 / 55 percent, etc.

Published in: on May 28, 2013 at 5:18 pm  Comments (10)