The Aryan Question

by Adunai Le Vierte

Indeed, existence is tragic. Look at history—we’ve been on the back foot for millennia. Whenever a good race engages an enemy, it risks the purity of its blood, but the mongrels have no such disadvantage. So, the tides of Europeans grew ever thinner, until their reservoirs dried up.

I would even ask—when was the last time a Neanderthal could genuinely fear the might of the Aryans? 40,000 years ago?

Clearly not 3,500 years ago when Aryans failed to exterminate Dravidians in India.

Clearly not 2,000 years ago when Romans killed each other in bloody civil wars, their noble women becoming embarrassing whores, and their empire turning into a host body for la Creatura of Christianity.

Clearly not 500 years ago when the biggest achievement of the Iberian empires was the transfer of the Negro from Africa to the Americas.

Clearly not 100 years ago when the greatest legacy of the European empires was the eradication of many diseases afflicting Africans, Indians, Chinese and Latinos. And the genocide of Germans.

Even the high points of Whites seem like a joke. Time and time again, they achieve certain grandeur, then help as many Neanderthals as they can reach, and finally turn on each other. Having the best interests of the race in mind seems like the most unusual behaviour, whereas selling yourself to Mammon is a natural course of things.

Published in: on August 18, 2018 at 12:01 am  Comments (34)  

34 Comments

  1. In the Pompeii murals, there were depicted Roman women having sex with their black slaves.

    There was no evidence of Christianity found at Pompeii… so even in pre-christian times interracial sex was a problem.

    • Yes, even before Xtianity Rome had started to degenerate. That’s why even non-sexual miscegenation should be avoided at all costs. The fact that we are lusty creatures means that whites should live with zero non-whites around. Only Hitler and Co. saw things alright.

  2. That is why I consider Adolf Hitler our Leader and National Socialism the greatest leap forward ever in Aryan history.

    And then in another thread I saw dr Morales wondering about with what Christianity should be replaced. As if that isn’t crystal clear.

    We shouldn’t forget that this particular current era of anti-Aryanism is uniquely dangerous to our species. Because our own power is now 100% turned against us all, ever since 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created. Yes, thanks to Aryan traitors who fell for the spell of ‘the ring’. ( In my view especially the current supposed ‘old’ European Monarch families are the main traitors which should all be publicly executed )

    Again, It is the exceptionally high level of consciousness what renders our species the most advanced life form on this planet. It is precisley this highly developed ‘ability’ – compare to other species – to think abstract thoughts and notions far, far removed from animal instincts which is the core of our power, but which at the same renders us the most susceptible species for completely unnatural rubbish concepts like Christianity. For example, nobody here really thinks that the so-called Christian church going niggers Dylan Roof shot were really Christian? Of course not. They were only too happy to go along with that bullshit which preaches that they’re just as good as we are.

    It is a great paradox, really. A hundred years ago when Western civilisation was still Christian the vast majority of people were not Christians at all. They still thought traditionally and racist. Now the vast brainwashed majority of people don’t consider themselves Christian without realising that they actually have embraced equality, which is a 100% Christian notion. But of course our enemy didn’t leave it at that. It added even crazier notions. Life in the West is now like living in a freakshow. One hundred years ago you would have to pay to see the tattooed man and the bearded lady in a tent on a fair. Now freaks like that consider themselves ‘cool’ and you can see them for free, walking the streets of our diseased cities.

    National Socialism will liberate us.

    Heil Hitler.

    • National Socialism died in ’45. It was by far the greatest movement in history, it was also one of the shortest. The everyman doesn’t even know of its existence. Plus, there are hardly any nations anymore as much of our identity all over the globe has been lost. Forget idealism. Forget the stupid failed human race. Go the esoteric route. BECOME YOUR OWN GOD.

      • @ezra91

        All right, for your convenience, let me rephrase that then; National Socialism COULD liberate us.

  3. It is tragic, but it is also a comedy. The comedy of human existence. Isn’t this beautiful too? The world’s a stage. The time is out of joint. Maybe Shakespeare was the only one who got it(as seen in more than 10 of his plays). Did he embrace any ideology? No, he just let it be. Maybe the “great men” are all fools. I like Droysen’s view of history.

  4. @ Adunai,

    A few hours ago a Latin American troll from Ecuador tried to post this:

    “helping the Neanderthals”. Neanderthals were European, Homo Sapiens came from Africa. White people have the most Neanderthal genes in their genome.

    “Greatest legacy of the Iberian Empires”… blame France and the shit which actually turned the Western World into the cesspool it now is, liberalism and the idiocy of liberty, equality, fraternity, lofty ideals people were guillotined for.

    “Romans and their noble women” you mean like Livia, the wife of the very 1st Roman Emperor, Augustus, the whore who killed her own grandchildren and manipulated his husband like a toy? And this happened 300 years before Christianity gave the Western Empire another 100 years and gave the Eastern Empire over 1000 years.

    “by Adunai Le Vierte” you mean Adonai? Guess you have a hook nosed infiltrator.

    And your hero Julian was a reckless fool who went on to attacking the Persian Empire with no exit strategy, no successor, and on top of that he believed himself another Heracles and charged into battle without armor, thus killed by an arrow.

    I didn’t let pass his comment because the troll is calling you a kike.

    What this Latin American ignores is that Julian is not my favorite hero. I mention him a lot only because he was ‘the last flick of the tail of Rome’.

    Also, the troll ignores what we have said elsewhere: that the Hellenist Second Salutius, chosen by Julian if he was murdered, rejected the purple twice! As I explain in a footnote of the forthcoming Vol. I translation of Deschner’s book:

    Note of the translator: This is incredible. Hadn’t the Hellenist Salutius rejected the purple and with time named his own Hellene successor, the course of history could have been very different. Certainly, ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ (Edmund Burke).

    Second Salutius’ decision left the empire at the mercy of psychotic Xtians who would soon kill the classical culture.

    • I could clarify a few things!

      1. Speaking of Neanderthals, I meant it both literally and figuratively. And I also wanted to emphasize the ability of Aryans to exterminate – the skill they lost, yet which is indispensable for any nation, big or small (see the Mongol extermination of Iranians, or the Ukrainian massacres of Poles in Volhynia).

      2. Indeed, I would blame France – even from the times long before the Revolution. Blame France for the Albigensian crusades in the 12th century, for the bloody intersectarian strife in the 16th century, for intermarrying with the Indians in Québec, for not casting away Christianity in the Revolution, and for the short-sighted hatred of Germany in the 20 century.

      3. “And this happened 300 years before Christianity” – Exactly.

      4. “before Christianity gave the Western Empire another 100 years and gave the Eastern Empire over 1000 years.”

      Were those years worth living, however?

      5. My nickname comes from Adûnâim, a made up word by [Catholic!] Tolkien (this blog’s icon once was from the Legendarium, too). I wouldn’t personally take offence here as it might’ve been an honest mistake.

  5. @aryan son

    National Socialism COULD have liberated mankind if Germany won the war. But this is like saying saying was Napoleon born in Vienna there would have been no need of a Hitler. There are NO ifs with history and time rolls on. National Socialism was an answer(and a solution) to millennia-old ills but humanity was too far stepped in degeneracy and that was it.

    “Mankind’s work over thousands of years would again have been in vain. Chaos would take the place of the most thriving continent on earth. Its culture would be replaced by inconceivable barbarity.” – Adolf Hitler, 30 january 1943

    “If Bolshevism triumphed, mankind would lose the gift of laughter and joy. It would become merely a shapeless mass, doomed to greyness and despair.” – Adolf Hitler, Table Talks

    • Spahn,

      Alas, you are correct.

      A permanent implementation of National Socialist white civilisation is only a dream. I do realise that. On the other hand, no one can predict the future. And I am convinced that Adolf Hitler will be remembered for a long long time to come yet. There exists actual footage and soundfragments of him, which will keep on attracting new recruits. Besides, the current freak system will not last forever.

    • “There are NO ifs with history and time rolls on. ”

      The notion that things might have turned out differently than they did depends ultimately on the Christian idea of free will. Christianity didn’t invent this idea, but in the West Christianity’s stamp is all over it. For example, it’s at the root of egalitarianism, since if humans have free will, then niggers and kikes can start acting like white men any time they want; women can act just like men if they want, and so on. Taking the idea of free will seriously makes any kind of race or gender science impossible.

      It’s a token of how deeply Christian modes of thought have shaped the white man’s consciousness that even today, despite the prestige of science, which is based in determinism and the denial of the existence of free will, people still continue to believe in it. Even white racists believe in it, despite its rancid implications.

      Of course, there are other reasons. Our will seems to us to be free. But if science has proven anything, it’s that appearances can be deceptive. As Bertrand Russell put it, naive realism leads to physics, which leads to the conclusion that naive realism is false. The mere fact that our will seems to us to be free doesn’t prove anything. Yet if the will isn’t free, then it’s obvious that things that happened in the past could not have happened differently. So thoughts along the lines of IF Germany had won the war, or IF the Romans had done such and such instead of what they did are fairly vacuous, and amount to little more than wishful thinking. We are better off by far to try to understand why things happened as they did, and why they necessarily did so. Conceiving all behavior in terms of technique leads to this kind of understanding. If something fails, it’s like an animal going extinct. There’s a reason. Something in the environment changed adversely, and the animal couldn’t adapt. Anyone interested in saving the animal will have to change the environment back to what it used to be, or just reconcile himself to the extinction. Likewise, if you want Roman or Spartan culture, you have to change the technological environment back to what it was in those times. National Socialism worked locally in Germany for a brief time in the early to mid part of the twentieth century, but isn’t well-adapted to the present. If you want to bring it back, you’d have to restore the conditions of a previous era in industrial society. It’s not a question of exercising free will to will it back into existence. You won’t achieve it just by wanting it, or even by trying to convince others to exercise their own free will to bring it back — that’s the democratic delusion, deeply rooted in Western traditions, that is a sister to the notion of egalitarianism. No, if white people are to be freed, it will be against their will, not by it. It’s by their own so-called free will that they’ve placed themselves on the brink of extinction as a race. It’s time to discard the notion of free will entirely.

      • That ‘historical determinism’ sounds to me like some political philosophies (e.g. Stalinist Marxism). I prefer to think like Pascal: ‘Cleopatra’s nose, had it been shorter, the whole face of the world would have been changed’.

        A couple of examples in real life:

        Had Second Salutius accepted the purple after Julian was assassinated, the history of Christianity could have been different.

        Had a storm sank Columbus’ small ships, the English and not the Iberians could’ve conquered the continent.

      • I’ve veered toward that sort of deterministic thinking myself recently. I’ve come to believe everything happens as it’s meant to happen, that the Universe doesn’t make mistakes, that, to quote Charles Manson “things are the way they are because that’s the way they’re supposed to be. If it wasn’t that way, it would be different.” Nietzsche’s instruction that an Overman accepts reality as it is and recognizes nothing could be any different than what it is inspires me.

        I believe the laws of Nature maintain things a certain way. Physical laws that have been identified by science like the law of gravity, laws of thermodynamics and laws of biology like the survival of the fittest cause Time and Space to unfold as it does. I don’t feel a need to wish that history was any different from what it has been. I recognize an inexorable logic behind the unfolding of human history, including the present period. Sometimes I even become romantic about this and feel like I’m in some cosmic drama, some divine play decreed by starry space. I definitely derive a feeling of contentment from this.

        I believe National Socialism, as a socio-politcal system that attempted to put the laws of Nature to work in human affairs, came close to touching the essence of the Cosmos. Though I prefer to refer to the laws of Nature by religious terms like divine providence, fate, destiny etc.

      • The mere fact that we are ignorant of the genetic and environmental variables that governed the length of Cleopatra’s nose or Secundus Salutius’ decision doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. To think such things are exempt from laws of cause and effect that govern everything else in the world is quite unscientific. One may as well believe in magic, or voodoo.

      • the Universe doesn’t make mistakes,

        If that were true, no tragedy would have befallen on our own lives (you know what I’m talking about—cf. what you told me about Alice Miller in the context of a certain woman).

        to quote Charles Manson “things are the way they are because that’s the way they’re supposed to be. If it wasn’t that way, it would be different.”

        Manson didn’t advance that theory. It’s old Hegelian stuff (‘What is real is rational and what is rational is real’) studied in the departments of philosophy long before Manson was born. Hegel was another advocate of determinism.

        Nietzsche’s instruction that an Overman accepts reality as it is and recognizes nothing could be any different than what it is inspires me… I don’t feel a need to wish that history was any different from what it has been.

        And precisely because of believing it he became insane. Literally insane (eating his own faeces, etc). I strongly recommend your reading of Zweig’s book on Nietzsche, that I excerpted in my Ex Libris site (here). It proves beautifully my point that the philosophy of amor fati (love one’s own fate) means a direct passport to the Fruit Cake Hospital.

      • @ S. Ranch,

        We agree to disagree.

        Voodoo for me is the psychohistory of Isaac Asimov, who in his Foundation sci-fi series advanced the (extremely preposterous) idea that advanced mathematics can predict human behavior, all human history. (*)

        There’s a chance to chose good over evil.

        Even a reading of all my Day of Wrath (which merely are some translated chapters) doesn’t convey the full force of my argument on this very subject.

        More than an argument: as I use a tragedy in real life to prove my point.

        But ultimate philosophical stuff cannot be conveyed in blog entries, let alone in comments sections (sooner or later my two books must be translated into English).

        ___________

        (*) Cf. a book of Karl Popper and John Eccles, The Self and its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism. Like me, Popper didn’t believe in post-mortem survival. But quoting a passage from Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason, he says that there are two universes: the objective universe and the subjective one. That the subjective universe exists is easily seen when one thinks about one’s own death: a whole universe dies.

        Asimov and his ilk simply ignored the existence of the second universe.

      • Mmm, I see.

        Well, if it is true that the way things currently are is the predetermined and thus only possible outcome of history we can all pack it in and go home and spend our time otherwise. No sense in trying to change one bit of it at all, really.

        It of course automatically implies that the Jews are indeed correct about they being the ‘chosen ones’. Chosen and thus entitled – go ask the Universe, it’ll tell ya – to rule this earth as they should be,

        I’m really relieved to know that the universe has determined that capitalism destroying the ecosystem, killing millions of animals daily and filling the oceans up with plastics for nothing more than profit for ((( multinationals ))) , not to mention the promotion and spread-like-wildfire of homosexuality, transgenderism, soon to follow by pedophilia and racemixing is actually something that just has to be. Now we don’t have to try and change all that.

        I’m so glad. Things make a lot more sense now. :-)

        Well, that’s cleared that up.

      • @Cesar Why does a Universe that doesn’t make mistakes have to be a utopian universe where no human tragedy occurs? Human tragedy is part of the Universe. Evil and suffering are part of the Universe and I don’t view them as a mistake. I don’t think the Universe can be any different than what it is.

        I know Manson didn’t advance that theory I just like the way he phrases it. I’d wager this idea is much older than Hegel.

        So you’re saying it was Nietzsche’s doctrine of Amor Fati that caused him to become insane? As I’m sure you know love of one’s own fate is meant in the context of a love of the Universe as a whole and is strongly related to Nietzsche’s commandment to remain faithful to the earth and not to wish for some utopian heaven devoid of suffering to escape from reality as it is.

        The problem with your argument that belief in Amor Fati leads to insanity is that I’ve had the same argument told to me about Nietzsche many times by many people when I quote something from Nietzsche. They say something like “well, look where he ended up!”. It is the old “Nietzsche became insane therefore this invalidates his philosophy” argument.

      • I’ll respond in a whole post…

      • “Well, if it is true that the way things currently are is the predetermined and thus only possible outcome of history we can all pack it in and go home and spend our time otherwise. No sense in trying to change one bit of it at all, really.”

        No, that doesn’t follow at all. Just because outcomes are predetermined doesn’t mean you don’t have to try. It just means the outcome — good or bad — is already fixed. For the racial right, the choice is between continuing to try all the same things it’s been trying that have led only to failure, or to try a new method. As far as I’m concerned, people who can’t understand this are welcome to keep beating their heads against a wall for 70 more years. If that’s what you want to do, go for it.

      • “Like me, Popper didn’t believe in post-mortem survival. ”

        I’ve never been impressed with Popper who, as you may know, was a Jew. But if you are a dualist who supposes that people aren’t really their bodies, there’s little reason NOT to suppose that they continue after death. If the mind is so tightly bound to the body that it perishes with it, its separate existence becomes a superfluous hypothesis.

        Anyway, I’ve read Popper was an agnostic, not an atheist. If so, as an agnostic, he’s certainly in no position to assert anything about an afterlife, pro or con.

      • Okay: forget Popper (he was citing Kant anyway).

        ‘Dualism’ is a weaponized word used against the followers of Descartes (which obviously I am not). That our own deaths destroy whole universes is something we ought to ponder about.

        The epistemological flaw of academic psychology started in the 19th century when autobiographical confessions were abandoned. This happened along with the rise of biopsychiatry, which presently is drugging millions of healthy brains, including smart white children, for the sake of Big Pharma’s pocketbook.

      • @ Spahn,

        Hey, who’s banging his head? Not me. I am not the one in search of that ‘mysterious’ working model. Because we already have a working model, it’s called “National Socialism”. And it DID work. As a matter of fact, it worked phenomenally well, like clockwork actually, until it was deliberately destroyed by evil.

        A perfect analogy to this is John Harrison’s chronometer. That worked too, But any fool could have smashed it to smithereens so that it would stop working. And that’s precisely what has happened to NS Germany. And as long as that evil, standing by with bricks to smash any attempt to restore or rebuild it, is in charge, this otherwise perfectly working model will not get a chance to once more work. Or – to get back – would you say that if there was a fool present at the time who smashed the chronometer that this device was a failure in keeping time and that John Harrison therefore should design another mechanism? Just because it was deliberately smashed?

        So what are you saying, Spahn, that because this evil – alas powerful enough – is standing by to prevent it from working we should give up on it? That’s just brilliant.

        Now, I’m not saying that NS will ever be restored or rebuilt, but that is an entirely different matter and discussion.

        But don’t tell me to not defend and promote something that has proven itself.

        Carolyn Yeager said on this blog that we are not National Socialists. And she’s right, we’re not. We are just honouring those men who were and risked everything to gain control, for which they fought hard. James Mason said that National Socialism was a political party (a movement at a time when it was needed. It was the solution to an unbearable situation. And as soon as it was able to it fixed that situation. In an amazingly short time as well) and now it is a religion. I agree with him.

        Like I said, I’m not banging my head. Far from it. But the least I can do is stick to what is right.

        Cheers.

      • @ Aryan son,

        I could not have said it better. Only determinists worship history ‘only because it happened’. Here in Mexico, the nationalists cannot even condemn child sacrifice in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica because it ‘happened’.

        This blind worship, of course, has huge implications on how children continue to be mistreated in this horrible continent.

  6. History of mankind doesn’t give us any evidences about long periods of a higher idea’s reign. The Golden Age is a pre-historic concept. And the millennial Reich is a post-historic one.

    We human being always are in becoming and falling. It means the scale of a man depends on the flame of his thinking and on the sword of his deeds, in spite of how defective is the epoch he was born in.

    Truth never triumphs in the world, but It prevents lie to became really absolute…

    • “Science is not about the attemlt to acquire infinite knowledge, but about the attempt to make finite infinite ignorance.”

  7. “But don’t tell me to not defend and promote something that has proven itself. ”

    To quote Tom Metzger, you don’t have to believe me. Let the pain teach you. If 70 years of failure haven’t been enough, you may learn eventually. If not, well, that’s the way it goes. But screaming “EVIL!” isn’t enough to change anything. A plan of action is needed, and the racial right doesn’t have one.

    Actually, I think we’re going on about two entirely different things. I’ve been suggesting ways to save the white race, not necessarily NS. NS pertains to a certain way of life in an industrial society, and as you may have surmised by now, I don’t regard industrial society an a particularly good thing. The only reason I concern myself with NS at all is that its purported goal had bearing on saving the race. But it’s not the only way to do it.

    • Spahn,

      I know how you feel about industrial society and I’m not arguing the negative consequenses of it. But this is due to the evil which controls society. Not the tech. Cars do not drive by themselves, guns don’t go off by themselves and scientific knowledge doesn’t cause polution or disasters on its own. It is the will behind it which determines the use and purpose of it. Human will.

      Yes, even in good hands tech makes society more complex and less free for the individual. But that too is part of evolution. We simply have to deal with it as best we can.

      Besides, now we really do have a phenomenon – industrial society – that actually is a 100% inevitable outcome of history/evolution and now you say we should abolish it. Wishing to deliberately inhibit the development of industrialisation is an example of free will.

      And again, everything falls or stands with the leadership of the social species people are.

      And it is THAT which determines what happens to society. And leadership IS a matter of willpower, hence, free will. Just as today’s ((( powerhouse ))) renders things the way they currently are, because they concsiously choose so. No other reason.

      • “Wishing to deliberately inhibit the development of industrialisation is an example of free will.”

        Nobody doubts that our will seems to us to be free, but if causality is a closed system as science tells us, it can’t be. My perception tells me that the table I’m typing on this is solid, but physics tells me it’s mostly empty space; or it tells me that the sun revolves around the Earth, when the opposite is true.

        If someone comes to destroy the technological system and deliver the white race from extinction — at least for a while, for nothing lasts forever, and someday even the universe itself will disappear — then the advent of that savior will have been in the cards all along, predetermined as you’ve put it. I’ve an idea that in fact that might be the solution to the Fermi Paradox, the observation that although there’s a high probability of alien civilizations, when we look to the stars there’s only silence. I suspect it could well be that, due to their inherent limitations, technological systems all fail within a relatively brief period of time. It’s an evolutionary bottleneck for life. The question then becomes whether it necessarily destroys the planet before it fails, or whether there can be a “soft landing” that preserves life after the collapse.

      • Fermi Paradox, the observation that although there’s a high probability of alien civilizations, when we look to the stars there’s only silence.

        Exactly my same suspicions! There’s a Clarke novel, The Songs of Distant Earth. The plot is located in a far planet after the Sun turned into Nova, where humans long abandoned searching for ET life in the Milky Way (presumably because there was none).

        Clarke didn’t expect that his own acceptance of miscegenation (in Imperial Earth he painted a future where the melting pot was already a consumed reality) is now conducting to a future with no civilisation on Earth. He himself committed the sin against the holy ghost: having sex with young boys at Sri Lanka instead of marrying an English rose!

        (You can only imagine what I’d have done with fame as a writer and living in the island that I call the ‘lake of swans’, the English girls…)

        He left no heir. All of his estate passed to the browns of Sri Lanka.

  8. The irony is that Second Salutius rejected an offer of absolute power from an emperor, while also being ready to die if the emperor had seen such disobedience as treason… Was he of a higher psychoclass or just a pretentious short-sighted philosopher?

    • He was an idiot. It was Julian’s civ-destroying blunder to have chosen him as the ‘heir’.

    • He rejected it only after Julian’s death, when the army offered it to him.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salutius

      • Of course. And even when the next Christian emperor died, Salutius rejected the purple for the second time!


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: