Why do some westerners hate the West?

The book I am presently writing will ponder on subjects touched in Kevin MacDonald’s piece, “Psychopathology and Racial Self-Hate among Whites”: that some adult whites hate the West as a pathologic defense mechanism, or displaced reaction, against earlier abuse as children.

I’m writing it because today’s suicidal ethos throughout the West is unimaginably deeper than anything that the common white nationalist has glimpsed. While pundits are good in describing part of the etiology of western decline, especially the Jewish question, with the exception of Tom Sunic they are clueless about the primary and the secondary causes of white decline: capitalism and Christianity (my most recent entries on these subjects can be read here and here).

In addition to capitalism, Christianity and the Judeo-liberal media, the most extreme cases of self-hatred can be traced back to the way some of us were raised by our parents, and the defense mechanisms we unconsciously built in response to the family dynamics. Although I believe this is the universal cause of extreme self-loathing, in the sense of aversion towards our parents’ culture, in a 2009 series originally written in my mother language I used a single case-study to illustrate why a westerner I interacted with hates her culture to the point of desiring its destruction.

My translation of “Una canaria apañada” can now be read in English at Ex Libris.

Published in: on December 31, 2014 at 10:00 pm  Comments (1)  

What is national socialism

Source: Metapedia


National Socialism is the opposite of international finance capitalism, i.e. the opposite of globalization. Under National Socialism, engineers would not lose their jobs to outsourcing, and great industrial cities would not be disintegrating and turning back to farmland. There would be no such thing as Goldman Sachs, or the Federal Reserve, or big box stores full of merchandise from China. If China were National Socialist too, the Chinese economy would not depend on exports. Instead of a globalized economy, there would be independent national economies. Countries would generate capital internally instead of depending on foreign investment. International trade would still exist (you could still drive a Honda if that’s what you want), but it would be a fraction of what it is now. The financial system would be simple and straightforward; there would be no such thing as “derivatives”. The economy would be based on industry and education, not on finance, insurance, real estate, casinos, and prisons.

There would be no dumbing-down policy in the schools or anywhere else.

There would be no TSA pat-downs. No such thing happened in the Reich, nor could it happen. An obscenity like that would be inconceivable. When you go through security at an American airport, the Zionists literally have you by the balls. Under National Socialism, the Zionists would not be running things, with all that that implies for both foreign and domestic policy.
Instead of dying, the oceans would be flourishing. On land, desertification would be reversed. The “cancer industry” would not exist. The environmental and psychological causes of cancer would be addressed, and cancer would be rare. There would be no need to argue about how to pay for health care, because most people would normally stay healthy without “health care” as we know it today.

Students would not have to go into debt to get an education.
Under National Socialism, cities would not be full of drunks and homeless people. There would be no such thing as multiculturalism, political correctness, or affirmative action. Schools would not teach kids to listen to hip-hop. First world countries would not turn themselves into third world countries. Just the opposite: National Socialism represents the gentrification of the world.

I did not know most of this until recently.

Like most people, I grew up believing that National Socialism was a Very Bad Thing. I thought it was all about war and exterminating people. If that were true, then of course it would be a Very Bad Thing. But in fact that is not what National Socialism is about.

When I was in the 9th grade, my world history teacher gave me an extra credit assignment. She asked me to read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, and write a report on it. That was a pretty stiff assignment for a 9th grader. I read the book all the way through and wrote a report, but the report was not very good. She gave me an A, but in my own mind I knew I did not deserve an A. Some of what I wrote was cribbed from Encyclopedia Britannica. My teacher expected a little too much from her star student. At that age I was not quite ready to read a book of that length and density, hold it all in my mind at once, and write a paper about it. I guess that’s where this page is coming from. Fifty years later, I am still working on that assignment. Anyway I believed everything in the book. And why not? It never occurred to me that my teacher might be misinformed, or that mainstream historians such as William Shirer might be lying. I accepted what they told me.

Since then I have discovered that what happened in Germany in the Hitler era was very different from what they tell us. On this page I am going to present some of the facts that my world history teacher should have taught me. This is what every high school student should know about National Socialism.

The question “what is National Socialism” can be approached in two ways: (1) what was Hitler’s original idea? and (2) what happened in the Third Reich?

Published in: on December 26, 2014 at 9:21 pm  Comments (18)  

Ancient book burning

Excerpts from Roger Pearse’s review of Joseph Hoffmann’s Porphyry’s Against the Christians: The Literary Remains:

The sixteen-book work by the Neoplatonist Porphyry Against the Christians is lost. Constantine ordered that all copies should be destroyed; a century later Theodosius tacitly acknowledged that this had not occurred by issuing a similar edict.

Constantine burning Arian books

Porphyry adopted an “idiot-boy” literalism as his tool to debunk. Anything that could be made to sound discreditable, anything that did not fit with the tenor of contemporary prejudice, any statement that could be made to sound contradictory, could be presented as a reason to deride the Christians. However, such a approach is unimpressive to anyone except a believer. Such people could have their faith in anti-Christianism bolstered, and be encouraged to sneer and have gibes ready to throw. But the unconvinced reader would see easily that such statements can be made about anything, however worthy.

Instead, the essential argument is an appeal to the irrational herd-instinct of mankind and its need to conform. Many of Porphyry’s arguments consist simply of assertion that something is shameful or embarrassing, rather than rational discussion. This can only work if the flavour of the times is such that the subject is unfashionable. To look for a modern analogy, modern readers will be aware that “anti-racism” has not acquired the power it has in our society by rational argument. Instead it relies on repeated assertion and intimidation, to create a climate in which only certain ideas can be said. In the ancient world, likewise, certain ideas went without saying. The Christian ethos was not part of this; and indeed, as a novelty, was embarrassing. The idea that the poor might be important was disgusting. Porphyry simply harps on the subconscious need to the reader to conform to what he knows society expects, rather than reasoning objectively what is right.

But once the times changed, the approach worked in reverse. It was Porphyry’s ideas that went against the tenor of the times.

Christmas gift

If, historically, the One Ring (greed) was the primary weakness for Western man, Christianity is also a major culprit. It is race-blind and compels us to navigate our passages favoring universalism. Based on theism, the belief in a personal, Hebraic god, it is hostile to “pagan” (Christian Newspeak for folkish) bonds for the supposed benefit of the “soul.” Our parents’ religion commands us to love our enemy (even Jews) and worship human weakness (including low-IQ negroes). Catholic and Protestant moral grammar goes at the very heart in today’s untamed equality: what Nietzsche called slave morality.

As Manu Rodríguez, a Nietzschean from Spain, said yesterday (my translation), “Christianity is the art of making wolves and bears into kids and lambs. It is the art of weakening, neutralizing and undermining the morale of the population, making even defense impossible.” Earlier this year another visitor of this blog sent me an email containing this paragraph:

Because of your blog I have ordered tons of books that you have read and thus gain the same insights that you do. I have Hellstorm on my shelf now; I have not read it yet. I am about to commence reading Porphyry’s Against the Christians. I can’t wait. The Bible is a book that has plagued me all my life. It is nice to finally read one of the original refutations of this Jewish nonsense.

A year ago I reposted excerpts of a chapter about the Gospels’ nativity fictions that I typed directly from a book authored by a secular scholar on the Bible. Porphyry (234-305 C.E.) was the forgotten pioneer in this field of research.

The reason white nationalists are uninterested in secular studies of the New Testament is the same they are so reluctant to assess the data about the subject that the dollar will crash. The double-helix of the US was precisely a structure intertweaving capitalism with Christianity. But American white nationalists want to save their race without destroying the One Ring wielded by the Kwa* and without dismissing their parents’ religion. They ignore that the nation of their founding fathers was hard-wired to become New Zion (click on the picture of Mammon on the sidebar).

Since this month we will celebrate Christmas with our families, I must say that an intellectual among those who blame Mammon also blames the other big factor. This is a translated quotation from “Rasse und Gestalt: unsere Identität,” a September 2013 speech by Tom Sunic:

The Christian teaching of equality and its contemporary offsprings, liberalism and Marxism is the main cause of so-called anti-racism and self-hatred as well as today’s mongrelized multicultural society. It’s futile to inspirit race consciousness or folk consciousness and to oppose mass immigration of non-Europeans, without first fighting and eliminating the legacy of Christianity.

I would go further and claim that the word “Christian” was 4th century Newspeak of the time. Translated back to Greco-Roman Oldspeak, we could say that Christian is a codeword for artificial Jew. What most significant can be that in this darkest hour of the West, on June 13 of this year in fact, Pope Francis said: “Inside every Christian is a Jew.”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose mother language is Spanish, is the first one in history who has adopted the name of St Francis (Francisco I) when nominated Pope. In my compilation of several authors, The Fair Race, you’ll find much support of Sunic’s quote: a deranged Christian sense of compassion à la St Francis did transmute into secular, runaway liberalism.

Elsewhere I have mentioned the image that Kenneth Clark chose to depict St Francis in the 1969 TV series Civilisation: Hesdin’s The Fool. I added that in Erasmus’ most famous book, The Praise of Folly, women, “admittedly stupid and foolish creatures,” are Folly’s pride. Erasmus took a surprisingly modern, “liberal” position about the role of women in society. Since Folly praises ignorance and lunacy, Erasmus reasoned, women must be instrumental for the Christian cause. In his book Folly is only interested in following the steps of Jesus, the exemplar of charitable simplicity against the budding intellectualism of the 16th century. The fact that Erasmus took St Paul’s (a Jew) “praise of folly” against the best minds St Paul encountered in Athens (whites) speaks for itself and needs no further comment.

I must iterate I find it most significant that the current Pope is the first one to use the name of Francis: the feminine, Christian paradigm of charitable simplicity par excellence. Last month, Pope Francis addressed the European Parliament saying that no longer fertile Europe should accept immigrants.

the-name-of-the-roseYes: I’ve put the Pope and all of his Cardinals in my black list for black sorcery

But here I can only say that the saint of Assisi was one of the most venerated religious figures in history and my idol when, at sixteen, I was struggling with my internalized father. Unlike the current Pope, the medieval Church somehow knew that when the purest gospel reached mainstream Christianity it would be the end of civilization. See, for example, Umberto Eco’s depiction of the Fraticelli in The Name of the Rose, which chapter on Jorge de Burgos’ scary sermon about the coming of the Antichrist I reread a couple of days ago.

Online you can also see the final pages of The Antichrist. If Nietzsche were alive, wouldn’t he say that the suicidal folie en masse that in the 20th and 21st centuries affects westerners is but the culmination of the psyop started by St Paul?



(*) Kwa means Amerikwa: a negative word used to describe the degenerate, racially destructive, Jewified, niggrified, pussified, and depressing place that America has become.

For the context of Sunic’s point of view see also “The Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem”: perhaps the entry I’ve updated the most in this blog.

Like Sunic I believe that reading literature in traditional, printed books is important to understand the darkest hour. My favorite historical novels are precisely Julian (1964), which depicts 4th century Christianity after the death of Constantine and The Name of the Rose (1980), a complete immersion into the zeitgeist of Christendom a thousand years later. If you prefer non-fiction, remember the above-cited words about Porphyry’s Against the Christians (“It is nice to finally read one of the original refutations of this Jewish nonsense”).

Christmas gifts of Nietzsche’s The Antichrist would probably be a little rude, even though the philosopher tells the plain truth about how the authors behind the gospels inverted our Aryan values. But Julian and The Name of the Rose may appear innocuous enough as gifts for our family, at least at the time of delivering the presents.