I had said…

I wouldn’t add any more entries to keep the Summer 1945 text up for three whole weeks, but yesterday something happened in the comments section of that thread that motivates me to write this post: a guy in the UK wants to commit suicide instead of fighting back to reclaim his nation!

Not only this guy: virtually all white people in the 21st century are mentally ill, a disease that grew out of propaganda against Hitler and the Third Reich. See my articles on mental health I wrote this year collected in my book Daybreak: the PDF of which can be downloaded from the sidebar.

Even among white nationalists you can see the madness of the white man. This election day in the US, instead of talking about the candidates, if these nationalists were revolutionaries they would be writing articles against democracy as a viable political system. In this the late Harold Covington was absolutely right: Democracy is a system designed not to change, to perpetuate itself ad infinitum and ad nauseam. If democratic insanity, inspired by Christian equality, had not destroyed monarchies and fascism in world wars, any new king or dictator after the old ruler dies could easily reverse the anti-white system of any Western nation.

This day, the most important sites of white nationalism aren’t uploading anti-democratic articles on their webzines vindicating Plato, who saw democracy as the worst of the systems of government. White nationalists are not Platonic on this point for the simple fact that they are part of the system. The Daily Stormer even holds an image today indicating who its visitors have to vote for. Greg Johnson in Counter-Currents also suggests to his visitors today that they vote for the same candidate.

When will truly noble racists come to realise that right-wing racialism in America is charlatanesque and that what we need is political thinking that brings, to the real world, what Covington and Pierce dreamed of? Or am I alone in the blogosphere, as always talking to myself?

13 Comments

  1. I wouldn’t have bothered to comment again, but you have misrepresented me, so I must interject. My plans to end my life are necessitated by the fact that my illness is incurable and worsening. There is no reason for me to suffer longer than is necessary to set my affairs in order. It is not my intent to insult you or anyone else here, but I should like to convey a few things to you, Cesar, about suicide, the situation our people find themselves in, and the predicament of all sentient life on this planet.

    Although analytic philosophers have said much about suicide, their focus has been almost exclusively on the question of whether suicide is ever morally permissible, as distinct from whether there is ever something stronger to be said in its favour. Moreover, most (but not all) such philosophical writing considers this question within the context of terminal disease or unbearable and intractable suffering. For some, these are the only bases for suicide that are even worthy of discussion. Others are prepared to extend the discussion to a limited range of other cases, such as those involving irreversible loss of dignity. Suicide on any other grounds, according to this view, must surely be wrong. I take this view to be mistaken. We cannot preclude the possibility that somebody’s life may become unacceptably burdensome to him even though his death is not already imminent and he is not suffering the most extreme and intractable physical pain or irreversible loss of dignity.

    Suicide has been criticized as a cowardly act. The idea is that the person who kills himself lacks the courage to face life’s burdens and is “taking the easy way out.” Courage, on this view, requires standing one’s ground in the face of life’s adversities and bearing them with fortitude. I would deny that accepting life’s burdens is always courageous. This will seem odd to you, given your obsession with soldierly virtues and your belief that an unswerving, fearless response to adversity is always courageous. More sophisticated accounts of courage, however, recognize that a steely response may be a failing. This is what lies behind the adage that sometimes “discretion is the better part of valour.” In a more sophisticated view, too much bravado ceases to be courageous and becomes foolishness. Once we recognize that courage should not be confused with its simulacra, the possibility arises that some of life’s burdens may be so great, and the point of bearing them so tenuous, that enduring them further is not courageous at all and may even be stupid.

    Moreover, I think there is something absurd about the earnestness of our pursuits. We take ourselves very seriously, but when we step back, we wonder what it is all about. The step back need not be all the way to the cosmos. One does not need much distance to see that there is something futile about our endless strivings, which are not altogether different from a hamster on its wheel. Much of our lives are filled with recurring mundane activities, the purpose of which is to keep the whole cycle going. Working, shopping, cooking, feeding, urinating, defecating, abluting, laundering, dishwashing, bill-paying, and various engagements with insufferable bureaucracies. Even if these mundane activities are thought to serve other goals, the attainment of those goals only yields further goals to be pursued. There is plenty of scope for questioning the significance of even the broader goals of one’s life. This cycle continues until one dies, but the treadmill is intergenerational because people tend to reproduce, thereby creating new mill-treaders. This has continued for generations and will continue until humanity eventually goes the way of all species, that of extinction. It seems like a long, repetitive journey to nowhere.

    You might suggest that the bad things in life are necessary in order to appreciate the good things, or at least to appreciate them fully. On this view, we can only enjoy pleasures because we also experience pain. Similarly, our achievements are more satisfying if we have to work hard to attain them, and fulfilled desires mean more to us because we know that desires are not always fulfilled. There are many problems with this argument. To the extent that the bad things in life really are necessary, our lives are worse than they would be if the bad things were not necessary. There are both real and conceivable beings in which nociceptive (that is, specialized neural) pathways detect and transmit noxious stimuli, resulting in avoidance without being mediated by pain. This is true of plants and simple animal organisms, and it is also true of the reflex arc in more complex animals, such as humans. We can also imagine beings much more rational than ourselves, in which nociception and aversive behaviour were mediated by a rational faculty rather than a capacity to feel pain. In such beings, a noxious stimulus would be received but not felt (at least not in the way pain is), and the rational faculty would, as reliably as pain, induce the being to withdraw. It would be much better to be that sort of being than to be our sort of being. It would similarly be better to be the sort of being who can appreciate the good things in life without having to experience bad things and without having to work hard to attain good things. Lives in which there is “no gain without pain” are much worse than lives in which there could be “the same gain without pain.”

    I understand that you and most others will not take to heart the conclusion that coming into existence is always a harm. It is even less likely that many people will stop having children. By contrast, it is quite likely that my views will be ignored or reflexively dismissed. As this response will account for a great deal of suffering between now and the demise of our people, it cannot plausibly be thought of as philanthropic. That is not to say that it is motivated by any malice, but it does result from a self-deceptive indifference to the harm of coming into existence. Consider also the predicament of our fellow animals. Confronted with the awful spectacle of billions of animals being eaten, often alive, by predators, humans typically do not attempt to propose any cosmic meaning to those lives. Indeed, both the monotheistic and the evolutionary response is to say that the purpose of animals is to be eaten by others higher up the food chain.

    The optimist’s impatience with and condemnation of the pessimist often has a smug macho tone to it, although men have no monopoly on this. There is a scorn for the perceived weakness of the pessimist, who should instead “grin and bear it.” This view is defective for the same reason that macho views about other kinds of suffering are defective. It is an indifference to (or an inappropriate denial of) suffering, whether one’s own or that of others. Presumably you would not take this attitude regarding the millions of Hellstormed Germans, at least not at first. But you would take that stance as soon as I used their suffering to argue that creating more white children is morally indefensible, at which point they would become expendable to you. This is what I mean when I say you don’t really care about our people.

    In short, life is bad, but so too is death. Of course, life is not bad in every way. Neither is death bad in every way. However, both life and death are, in crucial respects, awful. Together, they constitute an existential vise; the wretched grip that enforces our predicament. There is no net benefit to coming into existence, and thus coming into existence is never worth its costs.

    I don’t object to your Turner Diaries fantasies, Cesar, but I have gone beyond your 10 step program. Compassion is a weakness and a vestigial remnant of Christianity, yes, but what about compassion for our own people? As I said, I don’t think they really matter for you. What matters for you is “victory” at any price, no matter how many white people have to die in order to get you there. I do not accept that the guaranteed suffering and inevitable death of any of our people is worth it just so we can continue the senseless cycle that evolution has set in motion.

    • I have never said that one should go out charging against the enemy. In fact, I’ve said that Pierce’s advice to Bob Mathews was correct: don’t blow yourself up because it’s premature to fight.

      But it is a fact that several visitors to this site have a screw missing. Now an old commenter comes to mind that idolises a genocidal manic who caused irreparable damage to the white race. I don’t want to drop names, even if they are pseudonyms: but it is clear that this site tends to attract unbalanced people.

      • Thank you for allowing my comment to appear. Much effort goes into the long ones, and there is far too much censorship on the internet. Posting comments on youtube has become intolerable. You keep editing and editing the comments, trying to get past the censors, and many times I just give up, which is exasperating when you feel you have something important to say. By the way, that comment I put here the other day, when you said you didn’t read beyond my mentioning of suicide. Well, please read beyond that part. I mention a story about a young girl I know that is particularly heartbreaking, and I wanted to hear your thoughts on that.

        I am aware of that. You do seem to have an obsession with psychiatry though, Cesar, and while I’m sure you have good reasons for it, one does receive the impression that it is very personal to you, that you have had a very bad experience with that profession. I’m not calling you a crank, but I imagine there are many others who would. Not for your political views, I mean, but for your preoccupation with psychiatry in particular. It does make an impression.

        Which genocidal maniac is that? One could make the case that Hitler merits that description, as he ultimately gambled the lives of his people away, which in turn makes me question whether he really cared about them. I am well aware of the hostile forces that surrounded him on all sides, but him making the move that ostensibly ignited the war was a big mistake. It comes to a point where it doesn’t matter whether you personally know the truth and that your actions are justified. What really matters is the way the rest of the world will view your actions, because the rest of the world has the power to gang up on you and destroy you. At that point, the truth doesn’t matter, because nobody else knows it. Only appearances matter. Hitler was smart, but not as smart as some people claim, as he was ultimately very naive, greatly underestimating the power of the forces arrayed against him. A shocking claim, perhaps, but I stand by it. I don’t regard him as an infallible demigod. And, while I greatly admire his Posen speech, I do think that Himmler harboured some serious delusions. His Aryan race mythology was in many ways farcical, and Hitler himself said as much on one occasion. It reads to me like bad fanfiction.

        But I’m not here to talk about Hitler. I noticed that you didn’t actually address any of my more salient points about the nature of existence, and I would really like it if you did. These are ultimately much larger issues that go beyond the race and the nation, etc. I’m sure you don’t like me saying that, but matters are race and culture are ultimately secondary to these big questions about the nature and quality of life itself, and the value, if any, there is to be had in it. You strike me as the kind of man who wants us to perpetuate for the sake of perpetuating, regardless of everything I mentioned. I would actually imagine that you may have an easier time reading Hellstorm itself than you do confronting the things I mentioned, but these things I’ve tried to broach with you, they are more pertinent than anything, especially considering what has been done to our people in particular, and all the horrors that may, and in many cases will, be done to them in the future.

      • I only read until your phrase: “Hitler merits that description, as he ultimately gambled the lives of his people away, which in turn makes me question whether he really cared about them.”

        Again, please don’t comment on this site. This is a site for those who think that Hitler was the best person in the whole Western history. If you don’t believe that, this is not a forum for you.

        This time my “good bye” is permanent.

    • Spasticus:

      You give thought to many questions that one cannot answer. Your choice. But let me just dwell on one sentence, even if that is slightly unfair.

      “I understand that you and most others will not take to heart the conclusion that coming into existence is always a harm.”

      What if you (since we are discussing life as a spectator hare) chose yourself to come into existence?

      If you study the norse mythology, their concept of coming to Valhalla (or Folkvang) undoubtedly has an issue of suicide connected to it. You provoke your own death in battle to be worthy of such an afterlife. But you do it fighting for something.

      And I have to give Cesar credit for doing just that. In his own way.

      Nihilism is always tempting, as it can be so easily argued for.

  2. It’s your blog, you may do as you wish. I had thought we were making progress, but apparently not. I will say that it was the sycophantic, obsequiousness deference to everything Hitler said and did that ultimately led to the downfall of the nation the Nazis had built. As I said, we must not treat anyone as if they were an infallible demigod. Hitler did make mistakes, but it was his people who suffered for them, and immeasurably so. Please think about that.

    You do yourself a disservice by obstinately refusing to read any further as soon as you hear something you dislike, but I would say that’s a character flaw of yours. We all have them, Cesar, even Hitler himself, and it was his undoing in the end. I shall continue to read your posts from time to time. Farewell and best of luck.

    • Psychiatry is a false science.

      I have always said that Operation Barbarossa was a blunder. But he didn’t expect that the US would side the SU and later commit the Hellstorm Holocaust.

      It’s good to hear that you say Farewell.

    • You must be the biggest faggot to ever post on this website. Your rambling post reeks of self-pity, but I guess you are aware of this since you in befored criticism as “macho talk”.

      “Compassion is a weakness and a vestigial remnant of Christianity, yes, but what about compassion for our own people?”
      Your post is too long and rambling for me to answer everything, but I will say that I doubt you have read much of this site if you seriously think compassion is exclusive to christianity or that Cesar don’t value compassion.

      “coming into existence is always a harm”.
      Baseless assertion.

      “In short, life is bad, but so too is death”
      You are such a fag. Why don’t you have the balls to claim that death is better than life if suffering makes life irredeemable?

      ” It would similarly be better to be the sort of being who can appreciate the good things in life without having to experience bad things and without having to work hard to attain good things. ” This is just pretentious crap. Get over yourself. The good parts in life can redeem the bad parts. Face the fact that all we can do is eliminate all unnecessary sufferning.

      I disagree with Cesar in this case, you should absolutely commit suicide.

      • Yes: but I had in mind a pro-white revolutionary novel by Ward Kendall where a group of men in their sixties had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and, since they have nothing to lose, go directly to guerrilla action.

        That’s the spirit, but such things can only be uttered as fiction to avoid problems with the law or even with the policies of your specific internet platform.

      • “I had in mind a pro-white revolutionary novel by Ward Kendall where a group of men in their sixties had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and, since they have nothing to lose, go directly to guerrilla action”

        I was being facetious. He should commit sucide so the rest of us would be spared his awful comments. What you suggest is too practical for “woe is me” fags like him.

      • If coming into existence always entails more suffering than happiness, then logically those who buy into this philosophy should kill themselves, no? (At least providing they do not have loved ones). They could argue that the life instinct keeps them in the game to suffer and they are too cowardly to overcome it but I’m sure that most of us do not take such a morbid attitude to life. Even many routine and simple activities (eating, bathing, sleeping, reading, writing, speculating, going on walks, conversing with family and friends etc.) are pleasurable and make life worth living. And if your life or the life of your loved one’s becomes genuinely intolerable, a quick suicide is always an option, a la Joseph and Magda Goebbels.

  3. Did the software glitch or something?

    First, a good country would oblige, and send its suicidal people to mine Uranium, or hunt the last niggers, or explore Mars. Everyone wins.

    Second, are our monkey ancestors “extinct” because we, their ape descendants, are different? I don’t think so. Some of their genes live through us in our machine bodies.

    Third, I like the idea that having children is child abuse. But even C.T. will agree that it’s a necessary kind of suffering. Maybe, such conversations will be worthy to hold when the last Christian is dead.

    Remember, Hitler drafted teens (and older olks) into the Volkssturm. And yet, it’s not so bleak – is there anything more precious that a child filled with the hatred of Christians? Teen love and child soldiers! Remember how Westerners seethe when they encounter parents in the sandnigger East who are proud of their sons becoming suicide bombers?

    (From a philosophical point – you do not know whether death is possible at all. Maybe, raising a child not a fag is actually a service to him if reincarnation indeed exists. A slim chance, but your whole argument of antinatalism is based on creating life – and what if consciousness enters the foetus from the outside? Then good races would have a moral duty to reproduce, LOL!)

    > “This is what I mean when I say you don’t really care about our people.”

    The individual people or the people as a collective? “Macho views” are not “defective” if they enable the reproduction of our body-machines.

    > “What matters for you is “victory” at any price”

    To me, too. This is why I do not shy away from praising the heroes of the sandniggers. Figuratively speaking, a dead White whore in Morocco or a dead fag in France are as good as those dead White teens in Norway (again, I’m not saying that killing women is rational in a revolution). If your race can’t survive, murder is the only victory.

    • > ‘Did the software glitch or something?’

      The WordPress software does strange things once in a while. This time it put your previous comment right to the trash can.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: