Wouldn’t whites be better off If Hitler had won the Second World War?

by Ferdinand Bardamu

Interviewer: And what in your opinion is the tragic element of our epoch?

Louis-Ferdinand Céline: Stalingrad…The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There’s been a cataclysm. Its epicenter was Stalingrad. After that you can say that white civilization was finished, really washed up.

— Interview, 1960

 

I: Western Europe’s Post-WWII recovery

WWII is considered the most destructive conflict in history. No other conflict, not even the 13th century Mongol invasions, comes even close. An estimated 60 million to 80 million are believed to have been killed during WWII; in contrast, the Mongols only killed an estimated 30 million to 40 million. Huge swaths of territory in Europe were reduced to ruin by Allied bombing. Germany, Poland and Russia suffered the most devastation. The combined wartime expenditures of both Axis and Allied powers were astronomical, running into the trillions of dollars in today’s currency. In the immediate wake of Axis defeat, there was chaos; Europe had no functioning governments or judicial systems. The economy had virtually disappeared, save for a thriving black market. Schools and universities were no longer open to students or the general public. Millions were left homeless; families were torn apart; entire populations, like the ethnic Germans of Eastern Europe, were forcibly driven from their homes. Armed bands of men took whatever they wanted and the occupying soldiers of the Red Army engaged in mass rape. Women of all ages and classes openly prostituted themselves for food and shelter. Many took advantage of the war’s end to settle old scores; National Socialist collaborators were rounded up, beaten and killed. Women who were perceived as being too friendly with the soldiers of the Wehrmacht were seized and had their heads shaven.

In 1948, Congress approved the four-year Marshall Plan, authorizing disbursement of billions of dollars in US funds to rebuild European industry and infrastructure. The amount given in aid totaled 5% of US GDP. By the time Western Europeans had received these funds, their continent was well on the way to full economic recovery. From 1947 to 1949, mining and manufacturing production was restored to pre-war levels in most areas; in 1950, per capita food production was restored to pre-war levels. West Germany, the most war-ravaged country in Western Europe, reached pre-war levels of per capita GDP in 1955. To all neutral observers, West Germany’s recovery and economic growth was nothing short of miraculous. It was known as the Wirtschaftwunder or “West German economic miracle,” the brainchild of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer’s Minister of Economic Affairs, Ludwig Erhard. He stimulated economic growth through currency reform, abolition of price controls and tax cuts. From 1950 to 1959, West German GDP grew faster than anywhere else in Western Europe. By the 1960s, West Germany had emerged as the largest and most influential economic power in Europe. In contrast, East Germany, its Stalinist counterpart, stagnated under Soviet rule.

Despite the enormous devastation caused by WWII, Western Europeans were able to rapidly recover and achieve levels of economic and industrial development far surpassing pre-war levels. This wasn’t the first time Europeans were able to easily bounce back from tragedy; they had also bounced back from the ravages of the Black Death and the Mongol invasions.
 

II: The hostile elite’s pathological “Europhobia”

Since the end of WWII, the hostile elite has been flooding Western Europe with non-whites from the developing world’s most impoverished and war-torn areas. Globalists advocated diluting white racial purity to never again experience the horrors of European all-out war. The hostile elite justified this race replacement using the most flippant excuses. “Europeans aren’t having enough children,” they complained, “we need more super-fertile Third World invaders!” “We need fresh blood for jobs no European wants to do,” others moaned, “without workers, who will support Europeans in their old age?” On deeper examination, the hostile elite’s reasons for Third World invasion must be immediately dismissed as deliberate falsehoods.

Globalists claim that low fertility is always a bad thing; but a reduction in the number of excess mouths to feed would allow wages and living standards to rise. Letting jobs go without anyone to fill them isn’t as damaging as the globalists would like us to believe; through the market’s built-in self-correcting mechanism, rising corporate demand would induce an increase in real wages and the labor supply would fix itself. If there is a genuine labor shortage, excess demand would be channeled into research and development, leading to the invention of labor-saving devices. Conversely, they could also stimulate the fertility rate by offering various incentives, like cash bonuses. Excessive reliance on foreign workers to support elderly Europeans is just another ridiculous Ponzi scheme; invaders would get old, requiring even more workers; needless to say, such infinite growth is ecologically unsustainable. There are limits to Europe’s carrying capacity; as neo-Malthusian ecologists are fond of pointing out, infinite growth with limited resources is an impossibility. A more logical solution would be to eliminate mandatory retirement age, allowing the elderly to work for as long as they wanted. Another serious problem with the fatuous “we need workers to support our elderly pensioners” is that Mohammed al-Baghdadi will not want to support elderly whites when his people form Europe’s next majority.

There is only one plausible reason for elite-managed Third World invasion: demographic aggression against Europeans in retaliation for the horrors of WWII. For centuries, whites were subjected to evolutionary selective pressures that maximized the prevalence of beneficial traits, but removed maladaptive traits from the gene pool. Not only did IQs rise, but high trust cultures fostering social cohesion and co-operative behavior were established. As a result, Europeans were able to rapidly recover from tragedies like the Mongol invasions and the Black Death. In fact, if Europe had been destroyed by a devastating thermonuclear war, the surviving whites would have still been able to recover because of their enormous social and human capital. After a few generations, the population would have returned to replacement levels of fertility and Western civilization would flourish once again.

Sub-Saharan Africans and Middle Easterners are the majority of Europe’s invaders. The sub-Saharan African is known for his penchant for violence and savagery; Middle Easterners are usually inbred hicks. In many Arab populations, the consanguineous marriage rate exceeds 50%. Because of low IQ, many are believers in militant Islam, an ignorant, crass superstition originating in the Saudi desert. As these two groups increase in Europe, Western population genetic structure will change for the worse, making it harder for Europeans to recover from tragedy. If the percentage of Africans and Middle Easterners becomes high relative to whites, white resilience in the face of tragedy will eventually disappear. Changes in the white race’s underlying genetic structure are irreversible, unless vigorous negative eugenic action is taken. By flooding Europe with Third World invaders, globalists are destroying the cradle of Occidental civilization, something the Mongol Hordes and the Soviet communists were never able to accomplish.
 

III: National Socialist-occupied Europe
vs. globalist-occupied Europe

In their propaganda literature, the National Socialists said they opposed the “big capitalism” of the “American economic system,” the globalism of the interbellum years. In the 1932 pamphlet “German Farmers, You Belong to Hitler!,” they warned that global expansion of American capitalism would turn the world into a “giant trust” concerned only with “profits and dividends”; man would be enslaved to the empty “slogans of progress, technology, rationalization, standardization.” The final aim of American “big capitalism” was “the world dictatorship of Jewry” through “parliament and the swindle of democracy.” National Socialism and globalism were diametrically opposed; only globalists promoted white genocide, whereas the Third Reich was preoccupied with issues of white racial survival.

Whatever destructive impact National Socialism had on the world stage was actually quite small, at least when compared to the destructive impact of contemporary globalism. The National Socialists, some of the most genuine European nationalists in Western history, treated their citizens with far greater compassion than the current hostile elites of Western Europe. The National Socialist party’s large-scale public investment in make-work schemes, the building of new autobahns and land reclamation, stimulated economic growth. Through these policies Germany managed to escape the Great Depression; by 1939, unemployment was almost 0%. National Socialists provided their citizens with one of the highest living standards in the world; at no point did they ever seek to exert negative pressure on real wages and living standards by artificially increasing labor supply. German racial hygiene was improved through eugenics; this meant euthanasia for the genetically unfit and Lebensborn, the controlled breeding of racially pure Aryan children. Through legislative policies and material incentives, the German fertility rate was increased. Abortion and birth control measures were outlawed, except for those deemed “useless eaters”; free money and food were given to women who had children. Women who had 6 or more children were exempted from paying income tax; those with 8 children or more received a Mother’s Cross made of pure gold, one of the Third Reich’s highest honors.

The barely disguised, murderous anti-white hatred of globalism makes it a far more destructive force than National Socialism. Globalists support Third World invasion because it reduces white fertility, the result of lowering wages and rising housing costs because of excess demand. The removal of economic opportunities for indigenous whites through outsourcing is considered a humanitarian duty. Third World invasion has other negative effects on whites. In Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests (2003), territories monopolized by “ethnies” are said to have very specific carrying capacities; if Great Britain’s maximum carrying capacity is 120 million, but is currently occupied by 60 million whites, the addition of 60 million non-white aliens would prevent indigenous Britons from increasing their numbers beyond 60 million. The presence of genetically distinct Third World invaders would result in substantial losses in white ethnic genetic interests. The disappearance of the white man’s distinctive racial traits would genetically transform the population. This is genocide through race replacement and miscegenation.

Compared to the Third Reich’s environmental impact, the globalist regimes of modern Europe are far more destructive. As most population growth in globalist-occupied Europe is both artificially induced and massive, there will be overcrowding, significant material scarcity and increased carbon emissions (cause for concern among those convinced by the scientific evidence for global warming). Exponential population growth in a finite territory always harms ecological sustainability; available resources for the next generation of whites would be substantially reduced.

German National Socialists tried to preserve, increase and enhance Western Europe’s white population. The globalists, on the other hand, actively seek to destroy Western Europe through physical and cultural genocide. Their favorite leftist weapons, feminism, multiculturalism and non-white invasion, will reduce indigenous whites to a minority. This will eventually lead to race extinction through miscegenation and race war. The end result of globalism will be far more destructive than the World Wars combined; at least under National Socialist rule, Western Europe would have survived and flourished.
 

IV: Globalism: more dangerous than
National Socialism… and Communism?

Cultural Marxism is the ideological foundation of contemporary globalism. This is the belief that racial and sexual inequality are caused by social oppression. Marxist ideology has informed all modern attempts to socially engineer humanity to reduce inequality. Since equality does not exist in nature, Marxist social engineering of egalitarian outcomes will always lead to mass murder and genocide. In The Black Book of Communism (1999), Stéphane Courtois and other European academics estimated communism’s death toll at 85 million to 100 million individuals during the 20th century, as opposed to the 25 million noncombatant fatalities attributed to the National Socialist regime (other sources generally place this at approximately 11 million). Whatever one thinks of the politics of the Third Reich, they were at least grounded in the scientific realities of neo-Darwinian biology, which is why they were far less destructive and far less murderous than communism and that other Marxist-derived ideology, globalism.

Interestingly enough, the greater internal weaknesses of communist regimes like the Soviet Union made them far less dangerous than their globalist counterparts. The inability of the centrally planned economy to efficiently allocate resources, as well as military expenditures vastly in excess of consumer goods spending, among other reasons, led to Soviet collapse in 1991. Cultural Marxist propaganda combined with neo-liberal capitalism is far more economically sustainable than Soviet communism. At least communist ideology did not ruin ordinary Russians by destroying their way of life and culture. The Soviet version of multiculturalism, the ethnofederal model, never dissolved Russian ethnic identity to replace it with a deracinated, faceless Homo sovieticus. On the other hand, the purpose of globalist multiculturalism is total destruction of Europe by erasing its indigenous culture and reducing indigenous whites to a minority, finally wiping them out through miscegenation and race war. If there is no anti-globalist revolution in the near future, this policy will continue indefinitely, until whites one day go extinct.

At least Russians were able to emerge from Soviet totalitarianism with their racial health still intact.
 

V: The 20th century’s greatest tragedy

Let us envision an alternative scenario where the Axis powers had emerged from WWII as the victors.

National Socialist-occupied Europe would stretch from the Pyrenees to the Russian Far East. There would be destruction, but far less than the wave of destruction unleashed by hostile globalist elites. Whites would be able to quickly rebuild and replenish their numbers through natural increase. Most importantly, their population genetic structure would remain intact. The National Socialist totalitarian regime would eventually crumble, as no system of governance endures forever, replaced by some other form of government promoting white racial interests. Obviously, there would be no globalism, multiculturalism or Third World invasion.

National Socialist eugenic policies would make Europeans stronger and healthier; this would increase their capacity to maintain and advance their own civilization. Because the Soviets were defeated by the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad in 1943, there would be no Cold War. If there is a Cold War between the Third Reich and the United States, the aim of American foreign policy may be “containment” of National Socialist power and influence in the Americas. If North America’s hostile elite embraces multiculturalism and Third World invasion following an Axis victory in WWII, dissident whites would at least have a safe haven to flee to; they would also have a base of operations to conduct covert anti-globalist activities against Washington.

An Axis victory in WWII would mean that whites would not be under attack, as they are today. By shielding their citizens from the genocidal race-mixing propaganda of the globalists, Soviet communism inoculated Eastern Europe from the twin pathologies of multiculturalism and non-white invasion. National Socialism would naturally have been far more effective at preserving white racial purity. An all-white Western Europe would be able to pick up the pieces when North America’s globalist regime inevitably collapses and devolves into both civil and race war, perhaps installing a sympathetic National Socialist government in Washington.

The Allied victory in Europe was a colossal mistake; the wrong side had won the war. The forces of darkness, represented by the liberal-leftist regimes of Roosevelt (later Truman), Churchill and Stalin, had triumphed over the racial and national freedom offered by the Italian fascists and German National Socialists, the real would-be saviors of Europe. Although not obvious then, this has become blindingly obvious now. Céline’s pronouncement on the fate of Western civilization remains prophetic: “Europe died at Stalingrad… After that you can say that white civilization was finished.”

Tarrant explained in 5 minutes

In the context of the New Zealand attack coach said, ‘I think we are in our way to the civil war, the Second Civil War. And I don’t think there is anything to stop it’ (start watching: here).

Published in: on March 27, 2019 at 8:07 pm  Comments (15)  

Feels lonely sometimes

This morning I was looking for another of Linder’s archived quotable Gab quotes and, while finding this one—:

The theory that “exposing the jews” would solve the problem was first put out there by Henry Ford. We now have 100 years to judge “how’s that theory working out for you, White man?”

—at the same time I was listening to the first episode of Black Wolf Radio: two voices of English men I’ve met personally. In the podcast, one of them used the word ‘Marxist’ repeatedly.

(Left, Soviet Union stamp commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Manifesto.) Luis Salazar, a Marxist teacher of the Madrid School (a school founded by those Spaniards who fled the Franco regime), taught us Marxism in Mexico City in the middle 1970s. This word has changed so much since the 70s that presently it means something altogether different.

In white nationalist circles, it now means the ideology of white genocide through the inversion of values. I still remember pretty well the content of the Communist Manifesto that we had to study at the Madrid School, and thus I believe that the term ‘neo-Christian’ would better describe the ideology of white genocide.

Of course: ‘cultural Marxism’ is the term in fashion in white nationalist circles after the old term ‘liberalism’, in the sense of liberalism ran amok, fell into disuse. But since classical liberalism and classical Marxism weren’t ideologies aimed at the extermination of whites, the priest of the 14 words should try to develop a more concise vocabulary. From the POV of the priest, white nationalism uses terms very loosely because it has failed to settle accounts with Christianity.

If one cries ‘Marxist’, the impression on the listener is that things were going on well until Karl Marx in the 19th century. But the French Revolution enforced egalitarian principles before Marx was even born. And long, long before the French Revolution white culture was overwhelmed by an ideology of Semitic origin that erased almost all vestiges of the original Greco-Roman world.

The terms used by white nationalists only convey the level of awakening in the movement, and this includes Linder’s quote above. Yes: some of those who destroyed the Greco-Roman world were anti-Semites, but the virus of enforced egalitarianism in the Ancient World (that could only be implemented by destroying everything noble that whites had created) was far more destructive for classical culture than to Judaism.

This is White history, as every regular visitor of this site should already know. Alas, as Mauricio said, ‘The leap from level 5 to level 6 is astronomical due to the Xtian malware rejection. Feels lonely sometimes’.

Russo-Jewish history

Yesterday, I received from FedEx the treatise of Richard Carrier that endorses the Christ myth theory at the postdoctoral level. White nationalists who continue to believe that there is historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed should obtain a copy of Carrier’s book. As I have said several times, the movement called white nationalism is schizophrenic in that, logically, there can be no such chimera as a Jew-wise movement that submits to the god of the Jews and, at the same time, loves a supposed Jewish dude called Jesus.

Yesterday I could barely tolerate a few seconds of the recent YouTube conversation between Richard Spencer, James Edwards and Kevin MacDonald precisely because of these internal contradictions that did not exist in the upper echelons of Nazi power. And it was precisely the Nazis who wanted to destroy the Soviet Union in which the genocidal Jews played a fundamental role. Precisely because white nationalists are more bourgeois than revolutionary, I fear that in the not too distant future the United States will become an open field of extermination at the mercy of Jews similar to Stalin’s willing executioners.

Solzhenitsyn only wrote two non-fiction books: The Gulag Archipelago and 200 Years Together. No wonder that the second of these books, which deals with Russo-Jewish history, has not been translated by recognised publishers in the Judaized United States. The good news is that Solzhenitsyn’s second non-fictional book has been translated for dissidents like us, who are only allowed to discuss these things on the internet.

I suggest saving the PDF of 200 Years Together on your hard disk. The PDF will become handy when the US becomes like the SU. I want to read it in the coming weeks and months and add some quotes on this site. For the moment, this is the table of contents:
 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
200 Years Together

 
Volume 1 – The Jews Before the Revolution:

Chapter 1: Before the 19th Century (translated by R. Butler and J. Harris)
Chapter 2: During the Reign of Alexander I
Chapter 3: During the Reign of Nicholas I
Chapter 4: During the Period of Reforms
Chapter 5: After the Murder of Alexander II
Chapter 6: In the Russian Revolutionary Movement
Chapter 7: The Birth of Zionism
Chapter 8: At the Turn of the 20th Century
Chapter 9: During the Revolution of 1905
Chapter 10: During the Period of Duma
Chapter 11: The Jewish and Russian National Consciousness Prior to WWI
Chapter 12: During World War I
 
Volume 2 – The Jews in the Soviet Union:

Chapter 13: The February Revolution
Chapter 14: During 1917
Chapter 15: Among Bolsheviks
Chapter 16: During the Civil War
Chapter 17: Emigration Between the Two World Wars
Chapter 18: In the 1920s
Chapter 19: In the 1930s
Chapter 20: In the Camps of GULAG
Chapter 21: During the Soviet-German War
Chapter 22: From the End of the War to Stalin’s Death
Chapter 23: Before the Six-Day War
Chapter 24: Breaking Away from Bolshevism
Chapter 25: Accusing Russia
Chapter 26: The Beginning of Exodus
Chapter 27: About the Assimilation
Author’s Afterword

Octavio Paz

Today in the morning I slightly edited yesterday’s entry, ‘Roma (2018 film)’, and added a postscript.

I must say once again that the paradigm from which I see white decline is different from the monocausal paradigm of many white nationalists.

Here in Latin America it is clear that in addition to the Jews the mestizos also want the whites to disappear, so I call them ‘little Jews’ insofar as they do not have the influence that the Jews have in the West. But the saddest thing is that the white intellectuals in Latin America also want, unconsciously, that the Aryans disappear from the map. And I do not mean only the famous Mexican film directors mentioned in my entry yesterday, but the Creole intellectuals: that is, the top intellectuals of Spanish descent.

Octavio Paz (Mexico City, 1914-1998) was a Mexican poet, essayist and diplomat. He won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1990 and the Cervantes Award in 1981. He is considered one of the most influential writers of the 20th century and one of the great intellectuals and poets of the Spanish language of all time.

In 1995 I saw a television program in which Ted Koppel interviewed the winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott, Czeslaw Milosz and I think others. When Paz told Koppel that the Anglo-Saxons should miscegenate as the Spaniards had done in Mexico, something in my heart rebelled very deeply…

I knew that these words of Paz represented something wrong, and that it had been insolent to utter them precisely on American television. But at that time the Matrix of political correctness had me in its power and I had not read a single ethno-patriot. However, the resentments against someone I admired were recorded in my memory, so much so that I remember my rejection of Paz’s words in 1995 as if it had been yesterday.

Presently I not only see as wrong the pronouncements of the winners of the Nobel Prize in the Koppel interview: I see them all as true idiots. Let’s see a fraction of the excerpts from the Koppel interview. Octavio Paz said:

A new solution must be found to this problem of the multiplicity of cultures and races and communities that are here [United States]. Such is the relevance of this debate. It differs a lot from Mexico. My country was also founded with a universal idea, only that it was not the Reformation and Protestantism, but Catholicism and the Counter-Reformation. We were also universalists and we are a mestizo country, something that you are not yet [my emphasis: just what made a memory dent after watching the program]. I am quite sure that, if you are wise, you will be multicultural. It would be a great thing.

‘Multicultural’ is a grotesque euphemism for miscegenation (‘something that you are not yet’) and, therefore, a euphemism of white extinction in the US.

Now I see that Paz, like the filmmakers that I mentioned yesterday, did not give a damn that the white race disappeared in the neighbouring northern country. This is the only one of the races (white, black, oriental and Indian) that is actively committing suicide precisely because of ethno-suicidal ideas such as those of Paz and the filmmakers mentioned yesterday. I have called this type of pronouncements the sin against the holy spirit of life: a sin that, personally, I do not forgive.

In the interview with Koppel, Paz also said: ‘He who could have deserved the Nobel prize but never received it was Céline. He was perhaps one of the great novelists of France, but he was anti-Semitic. What to do with it? It is really very complicated’.

Now, twenty years after Paz’s death I see that, like the ultraliberal Swedes who awarded the Nobel Prize to Octavio Paz, Paz himself was an absolute ignorant of the Jewish question. Ultimately, the laureate writers are as stupid as the rest of the treacherous elites.

Spencer on Bowers

Further to my claim that ‘Wallace’s and Johnson’s love is murdering the white race’.

After minute 28 Richard Spencer, in the show The Public Space #201, said that Robert Bowers ‘should be punished for this crime…’ Eight minutes later he said, ‘We absolutely condemn them’ (Bowers and Dylann Roof). Spencer is right that Roof and Bowers committed mistakes from the point of view of harming the movement. But that’s not the point of this post.

While talking about a hypothetical ethnic cleansing after minute 134, Spencer mocked the novel of William Pierce of ‘kill all these people… Turner Diaries… We are going to live through this slaughterhouse… It will be only us… That is both absolutely absurd and completely undesirable. I think our movement does need to recognise other people morally speaking; that they are going to have their place under the sun…’

Spencer is not a post-Nietzschean. He has not read my Day of Wrath. Like Hunter, Greg and thousands of other identitarians, Spencer is a neo-Christian. Stalin’s (((willing executioners))) killed about 60 million. In narcosis while diving, the most dangerous symptom is the impairment of judgement. How many millions more will they have to kill outside Russia to wake up Christians and neo-Christians from their axiological narcosis?

Published in: on October 30, 2018 at 12:02 am  Comments (9)  

Linder quote

This is simply racial war.

People keep saying there is going to be a civil war or race war, but this is wrong. There is one now, by official policy. It’s been going on for decades.

As demographics change, the government will get bolder and the war will get hotter.

Published in: on August 30, 2018 at 4:58 pm  Comments (2)  

Day of Wrath, 17

A critique of Lloyd deMause

Henry Ebel said that in psychohistory Lloyd deMause stands out among his epigones as a locomotive single-handedly tugging those who publish in his journal: all of them moving only thanks to a motor that is not theirs. Ebel had left the congresses of psychohistory even before I knew of their existence. However, no sooner I initiated my study of deMause’s texts I realized that both Ebel and deMause were human. All too human…
 

A string of nonsensical claims

One of the most cockeyed theories of deMause is that the warfare fantasies of political leaders and the media in times of war reflect childbirth traumas. Even Alice Miller has criticized this specific theory.

Glenn Davis was one of the first disciples of deMause: a young man that committed suicide. When Davis was doing his oral examination for his doctoral thesis, Stanley Renshon, a member of the committee, fired a question at Davis about something he had written following deMause’s theories: “It says in your book, ‘Groups go to war in order to overcome the helplessness and terror of being trapped in a birth canal’.” People laughed all around the table. What I find it fascinating is that, decades after Davis’ suicide, deMause still does not perceive the bad reputation that this sort of theories that he originated cause in his most serious readers.

In the issue of Spring of 2007 the Journal of Psychohistory published “The Conquistador and the Virgin Mary” by Madeleine Gómez. The article is an authentic string of nonsensical claims. According to this psychohistorian, in the Spanish conquest of the empires Mexica and Inca “the birth trauma was reenacted with few variations,” and on the next page she adds that the endeavor to conquer the seas in each exploration voyage is but “attempts to surmount the birth trauma.” After putting Cortés and the rest of the Spaniards as the villains of the story, Madeleine informs us that in the war for Tenochtitlan “the drumbeats in the air” can “easily be associated to the fetal heartbeat.” And writing on the denunciation by Francisco de Aguilar about the Indian sacrifices, she interprets that “it was easier to project upon the other…” That is, if the chronicler is shocked of the sacrifices, that only conceals the projections of his own European wickedness. Summarizing her interpretation of the Conquest, Madeleine writes: “There was arduous time spent in a womb-like mothership, with subsequent rebirth upon reaching shore.” These analytic interpretations remind me the worst nonsense of Freud recounted in my second book. The psychohistorian concludes that the Spaniards were “abusive, devaluing of women and children” without mentioning in the slightest the sacrifices of women and children in Mesoamerica.

Something similar can be said of deMause’s own views about the human placenta, a theory that he calls “The fetal origins of history.” Such importance he gives to this theory that he devoted the cover illustration of his book Foundations of Psychohistory to it. In an email I asked deMause what did he mean with the eight-headed dragon that appears on the cover. DeMause informed me that there were seven heads (the drawing is ambiguous), “a placental beast” that he relates with terrifying unconscious motivations.
 
Satanic Ritual Abuse

The confusion of my feelings about deMause—lucubration such as those are psychobabble but deMause’s discoveries potentially could be a great lighthouse for the humanities—moved me to annotate each cognitive error I encountered in his legacy.

In 1994 deMause devoted more than a whole issue of his journal to one of the scandals originated in his country that destroyed the reputation of many innocent adults: claims of multiple victims, multiple perpetrators during occult rites in daycare centers for children, known as “Satanic Ritual Abuse” or SRA. I was so intrigued by the subject that, when I read deMause’s article “Why Cults Terrorize and Kill Children” I devoted a few months of my life to research the subject by reading, printing and discussing in the internet (texts that would fill up the thickest ring-binder that I possess). I also purchased a copy of a book on SRA published by Princeton University. My objective was to ascertain whether the man whom I had been taking as a sort of mentor had gone astray. My suspicions turned out to be justified, and even worse: by inviting the foremost believers of SRA to publish in his journal, deMause directly contributed to the creation of an urban myth.

The collective hysteria known as SRA originated with the publication of a 1980 sensationalist book, Michelle Remembers. Michelle claimed that Satan himself appeared to her and wounded her body, but that an archangel healed it. In the mentioned article deMause wrote credulous passages about other fantastic claims by Michelle, and added that the people who ran certain daycare centers in the 1980s put the children in boxes and cages “as symbolic wombs.” DeMause then speculated that “they hang them upside down, the position of fetuses” and that “they drink victim’s blood as fetuses ‘drink’ placental blood,” in addition to force children to “drink urine” and “eat feces as some do during birth.” DeMause also referred to secret tunnels that, he wrote, existed beneath the daycare centers: “They often hold their rituals in actual tunnels.” In fact, those tunnels never existed. In Evil Incarnate: Rumors of Demonic Conspiracy and Ritual Abuse in History, published in 2006, professor David Frankfurter wrote about deMause’s article: “In this way a contemporary writer can assemble a theory of ritual power to explain rituals that have no forensic evidence.”

This is the sort of thing that, in Wikipedia’s talk page about psychohistory, culminates with rants like the one that I rescued before another editor deleted it: “Don’t ever listen to this lunatic!” (deMause). It is true that Colin Ross is another gullible believer of SRA, as seen in a book that includes an afterword where Elizabeth Loftus disagrees with him. But since the mid-1990s the SRA phenomenon was discredited to such degree that sociologists, criminologists and police officials recognized what it was: a witch-hunt that led to prison and ruined the lives of many innocent adults. The movie Indictment: The McMartin Trial, sponsored by Oliver Stone and based on the most notorious of these hunts, sums up what I mean. Using invasive techniques for adults in the interrogation of little kids, the therapists of the McMartin case and other kindergartens obtained confessions full of fantasies: that the children had been abducted and taken through a network of tunnels to a hidden cave under the school; that they flew in the air and saw giraffes, lions and the killing of a rabbit to be returned to their unsuspecting parents in the daycare center. Kyle Zirpolo was one of the McMartin children. At twenty-nine in 2005, several years after the trial, Zirpolo confessed to reporters that as a child he had been pressured to lie:

Anytime I would give them an answer that they didn’t like, they would ask again and encourage me to give them the answer they were looking for. It was really obvious what they wanted… I felt uncomfortable and a little ashamed that I was being dishonest. But at the same time, being the type of person I was, whatever my parents wanted me to do, I would do.

In its heyday in the 1980s and early 90s, and in some ways similar to the Salem witch trials of 1692, SRA allegations reached grotesque levels. Proponents argued that an intergenerational group of families raised and kidnapped babies and children in an international conspiracy that had infiltrated the police and the professions of lawyers and doctors. Conspiracy theorists claimed that the FBI and the CIA were involved to discredit the veracity of the phenomenon. The allegations ranged from brainwashing and necrophilia, kidnapping, sexual abuse and child pornography, to black masses and ritual killings of animals and thousands of people every year. In the McMartin case they talked about children washed away when the perpetrator pulled the toilet chain taking them to hidden rooms where they would be molested; orgies in carwash business, and even flying witches. Needless to say, no forensic evidence was found to support such claims.

After the legal catastrophe that McMartin and several other cases represented, small children have not been questioned with the aggressive techniques that led them to fantasize so wildly. Nowadays there is no witch-hunting going on in the US, Britain or Australia caused by coercive techniques of fanatics that induce either false memories or outright lies (like Zirpolo’s) to please therapist and parent. However, despite the consensus in sociology and criminology of the new century—that the SRA was a case of moral panic from which there is no forensic evidence—deMause did not change his mind. The work that describes his thinking more broadly, The Emotional Life of Nations, published in 2002 and translated to German, contains a brief passage where he still regards SRA as something real.
 

Revisiting Zweig

I do not regret having compared deMause with Newton in a previous chapter. In the days when deMause disappointed me I watched the film The New World starring Colin Farrell and Christopher Plummer. It bothered me greatly the myth of the noble savage when Farrell’s voice in off says the following about an idyllic village of American Indians:

They are gentle, loving, faithful, lacking in all guile and trickery. The words denoting lying, deceit, greed, envy, slander, and forgiveness have never been heard. They have no jealousy, no sense of possession. Real, what I thought a dream.

At that moment Farrell plays with a few naked, happy Indian children outdoors. Of course, the historic reality was not so bucolic. Remember the photo of the little Indian boy swaddled by their parents in this book? This was a very common practice among those tribes. I felt Hollywood’s falsifying of reality so insulting that I left the theatre. Psychohistory also made me reconcile with Spain after almost a lifetime of hating her because of the conservative culture of my family which had hurt me so much as a boy. I owe much to deMause for having awakened me to the fact that the earlier Amerindian culture was incomparably more brutal, both for children and for adults.

Isaac Newton is the paradigm par excellence of scientific genius. He invented calculus, discovered the law of gravity, enumerated the laws of motion and showed that light is a mixture of colors. His findings not only revolutionized physics but also finally cracked down the pedestal on which Europe had Aristotle. Europe discovered her genius in Newton: a psychoclass comparable to that of the best Greek minds began to evolve in the 17th century.

The self-esteem that the European scientific mind recovered after Newton is difficult to overestimate. But very few know that after his third year of life Isaac’s mother abandoned him to the house of the grandmother: something that borders on what deMause calls the “abandoning mode” of childrearing. Newton’s biographers know that the child suffered this betrayal greatly. In order to burn his agony, in his early twenties he turned his mind into science. At twenty-six Newton had already discovered all of the mentioned above and even more. However, since at that time there were no survivor forums to vent the anger he felt for his mother and stepfather, Newton suffered a severe depression.

When he recovered he lost his mind: he dedicated the rest of his life to alchemy and fundamentalist theology. His manuscripts on these topics sum millions of words: incomparably more than the Principia Mathematica that Newton had written in his youth. He collected a hundred and fifty books on alchemy and tried to turn metal into gold. Newton “always believed in a personal God—nothing like the God of Spinoza—; in the literal narrative of Adam and Eve, the existence of the devil and in hell.” From this fundamentalist point of view Newton estimated the age of the world in some 3,500 years before his age and invested a huge amount of time to interpret the books of Daniel and the Revelation of John. He thought he had cracked the cipher of both books just as he had deciphered the laws of planetary motion. “It is sad,” writes Martin Gardner, “to envision the discoveries in mathematics and physics Newton might have made if his great intellect had not been diverted by such bizarre speculations.” When Newton died, it was found in his body large amounts of mercury: a poisoning resulting from his alchemical experiments.

However, the difference between Newton and deMause is considerable. Unlike Newton, deMause blended his brilliant Principia to his lunatic Alchimia under the same covers. DeMause’s major works where he did not collaborate with other authors, Foundations of Psychohistory, The Emotional Life of Nations and The Origins of War in Child Abuse are a mixture of historical science with pseudoscience; unprecedented discoveries about the history of the human soul with gross lunacies. Like Newton, deMause was terribly abused as a child. On page 136 of his journal, in the Fall 2007 issue he confesses that when his father beat him with a razor strap, as a way to escape he hallucinated that he floated to the ceiling. And on the first page of Foundations deMause writes: “I, like Hitler, have been a beaten, frightened child and a resentful youth. I recognize him in myself, and with some courage can feel in my own guts the terrors he felt…” The key phrase in this passage is “some courage,” not the full courage that I now discharge across my books. After that line of Foundations deMause’s soul disappears and his theories à la Newton appear: his brilliant insights eye to eye with his string of nonsensical claims.

From the point of view of the psychogenesis that he himself discovered, deMause’s main error is the error of psychoanalysts. Losing his mind was due to the fact that he failed to delve deeper into the wounds of his inner self. DeMause’s work, inspired by political sociology and analytical treatises, worships the intellect at the expense of autobiographical insight. One objective of this work [Hojas Susurrantes] is to break away from this intellectual limitation and unconfessional, academic literature.

Half a century before the publication of Julian Jayne’s book, Stefan Zweig wrote in Adepts in Self-Portraiture that when Western literature began with Hesiod and Heraclitus it was still poetry, and of the inevitability of a decline in the mythopoetic talent of Greece when a more Aristotelian thought evolved. As compensation for this loss, says Zweig, modern man obtained with the novel an approach to a science of the mind. But the novel genre does not represent the ultimate degree of self-knowledge:

Autobiography is the hardest of all forms of literary art. Why, then, do new aspirants, generation after generation, try to solve this almost insoluble problem?

[For a] honest autobiography […] he must have a combination of qualities which will hardly be found once in a million instances. To expect perfect sincerity in self-portraiture would be as absurd as to expect absolute justice, freedom, and perfection here on earth. No doubt the pseudo-confession, as Goethe called it, confession under the rose, in the diaphanous veil of novel or poem, is much easier, and is often far more convincing from the artistic point of view, than an account with no assumption of reserve. Autobiography, precisely because it requires, not truth alone, but naked truth, demands from the artist an act of peculiar heroism; for the autobiographer must play the traitor to himself.

Only a ripe artist, one thoroughly acquainted with the workings of the mind, can be successful here. This is why psychological self-portraiture has appeared so late among the arts, belonging exclusively to our own days and those yet to come. Man had to discover continents, to fathom his seas, to learn his language, before he could turn his gaze inward to explore the universe of his soul. Classical antiquity had as yet no inkling of these mysterious paths. Caesar and Plutarch, the ancients who describe themselves, are content to deal with facts, with circumstantial happenings, and never dream of showing more than the surface of their hearts.[…]

Many centuries were to pass before Rousseau (that remarkable man who was a pioneer in so many fields) was to draw a self-portrait for its own sake, and was to be amazed and startled at the novelty of his enterprise. Stendhal, Hebbel, Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, Amiel, the intrepid Hans Jaeger, have disclosed unsuspected realms of self-knowledge by self-portraiture. Their successors, provided with more delicate implements of research, will be able to penetrate stratum by stratum, room by room, farther and yet farther into our new universe, into the depths of the human mind.

This long quote explains why I decided to devise a hybrid genre between the self-portraiture that betrays the author and penetrates beyond the strata pondered by Romantic autobiographers, while, at the same time, presents a unified field for the findings of Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause.
 

Playing the fool

So far I have focused my criticism on the crank aspects of Lloyd’s legacy. In the remainder of the chapter I will discuss, in addition to the psychohistorians’ crackpot ideas, their moral faults.

It is not apparent that Lloyd has read Tom Szasz or other very well known critics of Sigmund Freud. This is fundamental for a true psychohistory. As we saw in the discussion of Ark, there are two camps in depth psychology: the deniers of the after-effects of psychological trauma who can be traced back to Freud, and those who recognize it, led by Alice Miller.

Unlike Ark, deMause never broke completely away from his psychoanalytic roots. The logo of his website has the symbol of a globe on an analyst’s couch, and the written presentation of the International Psychohistorical Association mentions the pioneering work of Freud, Reich and Fromm, informing us that psychohistorians come from many fields, including psychoanalysis and psychiatry. It is true that deMause is anything but an orthodox psychoanalyst, but it is extremely annoying that he mentions Freud while ignoring the amount of criticism that has been written about him. As we have seen [I refer to a chapter in Hojas Susurrantes], Freud took sides with the parents against their children, while deMause presents himself to his readers as a defender of children.

The lack of the most basic knowledge about the critics of Freudism makes deMause write about claims that have been abandoned. For example, Freud’s vision of Leonardo da Vinci has been refuted decades ago. On page 173 of Foundations of Psychohistory deMause candidly mentions the Freudian study of da Vinci as if the ongoing refutations had never been published. It is important to mention that when deMause was going to graduate, in his youthful infatuation with psychoanalysis he wanted to insert Freudian ideas in his doctorate of political science. It is understandable that his tutors at Columbia University prevented it. DeMause never obtained his doctorate. Many years later, in the article “The Universality of Incest” deMause even sided Freud against Alice Miller and the most articulate critic of Freud, Jeffrey Masson. Since after 1897 Freud dismissed his original discovery, that some parents sexually abused their daughters, deMause’s position is contradictory.

DeMause’s moral errors are even more worrying when we see his stance on contemporary child psychiatry. How appropriate to quote the key passages of my correspondence with him. In one of my e-mails of March 2006, I wrote:

In your country the psychiatrists hired by the parents are abusing millions of children and teenagers. Even before the advent of drugs in the 20th-century psychiatry had routinely tortured children on behalf of their parents. My quest for your back issues [of the Journal of Psychohistory] has to do with something that very much puzzles me. Have you or the journal contributors exposed this kind of traumatogenic mode of childrearing [i.e., child psychiatry]?

DeMause, who over the years has answered almost all of my e-mails, did not answer this one. Three days later I wrote him again:

I don’t want to press you on a point that you seem reluctant to discuss. I just want to thank you for your work, which I believe will prove to be the most significant in the study of history.

Playing the fool, deMause replied:

I just don’t know anything about what psychiatrists do to patients. I’m not a psychiatrist. Sorry.

“Patients” is Newspeak for sane children in conflict with their parents. I gathered from deMause’s response that no article about the crimes committed by psychiatry with children and adolescents had been published in his journal [the sort of crimes reported in my second book of Hojas Susurrantes].

The funny thing is that we could easily use deMause’s statements against him. He wrote: “Every childrearing practice in traditional societies around the globe betrays a profound lack of empathy toward one’s children,” and a couple of pages later he gives an example: “The use of opium on infants goes back to ancient Egypt, where the Ebers papyrus tells parents: ‘It acts at once’.” But this is precisely what psychotropic drugs like Ritalin do to children not in the distant and exotic Egypt, but in the city where deMause lives!

When I realized that deMause was not going to read the literature on the psychiatric abuse of children that I recommended in another of my e-mails, I knew that sooner or later I would have to publish a critique. And incidentally: the page 166 of The Emotional Life deMause swallows the pseudoscientific propaganda that depression is due to a lack of serotonin. Similarly, the psychohistorian Robert Godwin wrote in one of his articles that some people need to ingest psychoactive drugs; and Henry Ebel commended Melanie Klein, the notorious analyst who blamed infants for projections from their parents, as Jeffrey Masson and Alice Miller have so cogently argued.
 

At the left of Chomsky

In Foundations of Psychohistory deMause wrote:

Our conclusion is that Jimmy Carter—for reasons rooted both in his own personality and in the powerful emotional demands of American fantasy—is very likely to lead us into a new war by 1979.

This is a pretty crazy statement. Foundations was published in 1982. Having had the opportunity to mature the lesson given to him by history, deMause did not retract when his prophecy about Carter, who left the White House in 1981 behaving like a dove before the Iranian crisis, was not fulfilled. What is this: publishing in all seriousness a prophecy refuted by history? It exposes a man completely trapped in his own theory. Also, in The Emotional Life of Nations deMause blinded himself before the threat that Cuba and the Soviet Union represented during the missile crisis. Without taking seriously the threat of nuclear annihilation that these missiles posed to his own country, deMause psychoanalyzed Kennedy’s actions as a case that he unraveled: a psychological reductionism as kooky as what his disciple Madeleine wrote about Cortés.

DeMause went back to his old ways in his latest book, The Origins of War in Child Abuse, first published in his journal, where he psychoanalyzes the 1835-1836 war that his country waged against Mexico to annex the territory of Texas. He also interprets with his bizarre theories the US intervention in the two world wars and continues to speculate on those lines about the wars in Korea and Vietnam. But his followers surpass him. But his followers surpass him. The Fall 2007 issue of the Journal of Psychohistory published an article by Robert McFarland in which the author endorses the most lunatic theories that the US government orchestrated the attacks of September 11, and in the Spring 2008 issue Matt Everett uses quite a few pages of the journal to continue to promote the conspiratorial paranoia. This continued in the Journal of Psychohistory of Spring 2009 and in a book review of the Fall issue of that year. His journal is located at the left of Noam Chomsky, who at least has had enough sanity to dismiss conspiracy theories such as 9/11. In short, deMause reduces all international politics to fantastic speculations. No wonder that after the initial success of the one of his books free of nonsense—The History of Childhood, published in 1974, that sold thousands of copies in several languages—, the wrong turn deMause and his followers took has disappointed the vast majority of his readers, so much so that in a 2010 audio interview deMause acknowledges: “I dropped from 6,000 to 800 subscribers of my journal.” But of deMause’s colleagues among whom, I suppose, many are Jews, there is something much more sinister than all that.

 
The psychohistorians and the hatred of the West

It is striking that, except the articles by deMause himself, many articles in the Journal of Psychohistory have little if anything to do with the original psychohistory. As I said, the original psychohistory tells us that non-Western cultures are more barbarous than ours. Conversely, the Journal of Psychohistory of Winter of 2009 contains an article by Arno Gruen praising the Pawnee Indians without mentioning how they treat children (Gruen even talks of “the white invasion”). The Summer 2009 issue of the journal published a much worse article, “The European-American psychosis” by Frederick Hickling: a diatribe against the West and the white people. From the perspective called transcultural psychiatry, Hickling calls the war of Cortés in Mexico as “delusion of genocidal eradication” ignoring that extermination was never the intention of the Spanish, proof that pure whites are now a tiny minority in Mexico. (Hickling misspells the name of the conqueror, a very common error in those ignorant of the topic, as “Cortez.”) But he does quote Bartolomé de Las Casas accepting the blackest interpretation of the Black Legend: that the Spanish murdered millions of Indians on purpose. Hickling thus minimizes the real cause of the diminution of the native population in the 16th century: the epidemics upon which the natives had no antibodies. The Europe of that century was called “the racist European formation,” and using inflammatory rhetoric Hickling writes of “the European ruthless viciousness to indigenous people in the Americas and in Polynesia,” and calls the European wars in the New World in the 17th century “the delusion of White Supremacy.” And he says something similar about the wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, with expressions like “colossal theft of Africa by Europe.” Writing about contemporary Islamic terrorists, Hickling puts quotation marks to the word “terrorists,” and he quotes Marxist revolutionary Frantz Fanon as he writes of “freedom fighters.” Hickling, a professor of psychiatry in Jamaica, goes so far as to suggest that it is possible to apply the concept of delusion “to a race or civilization” as a whole, referring to the white race and Western civilization.

Hickling is not alone. The same 2009 issue of Journal of Psychohistory contains the article “Some Thoughts on Psychoclasses and Zeitgeist.” Christian Lackner, one of the two authors of the article, translated into German deMause’s The Emotional Life of Nations. Following the most progressive political trends the article by Lackner and Juha Siltala welcome the European Union and praise the profile of the new European psychoclass of males as “androgynes” (sic) for whom war is old history. The gem of the article is that it ends by conceding that “the demographic picture” with such androgynous males must result in that “the population of Europe will eventually die out” without having it for something bad, or a demographic suicide against which we must fight.

DeMause and his little journal have reached their nadir with this issue: pure evil. These pair of articles are not the only of their kind. Other issues of the Journal of Psychohistory idealize the black Obama, and what is worse, the journal does not say a word about the dangers that the growing Islamization of Europe represent for what they themselves, the psychohistorians, call the “helping mode of childrearing.” Alarmed, when I was living in Europe, I sent deMause an e-mail asking what he thought of the Islamization of Scandinavia. He answered me once more by playing the imbecile, saying that Nordics “are helping their children.”
 

The sin against the holy ghost

The migration of Muslims into Europe in recent decades illustrates what is an encounter of psychoclasses. Instead of the chosen example—the encounter between Europeans and Amerindians—, the ongoing clash of psychoclasses with the millions of immigrants could have been the paradigm of this book.

But the Islamization of Europe in the 21st century is only the most conspicuous tip of the iceberg. The current group fantasy among westerners is genocidal self-hatred. Demography is destiny. But the West has lost its appetite for life, as seen in the ever-shrinking birthrates of whites. At this rate there will be no replacement for the white people in the coming generations. Westerners do not believe anymore in they ethnicity; in heterosexual marriage, or in their civilization as they still believed when my parents were young. An overreaction against the two great wars appears to have metamorphosed them into pods, as in the movie of the 1950s Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Their most unforgivable sin has been their handing over their lands to millions of non-Caucasian immigrants.

Massive Third World migration into the United States, Europe and Australia, promoted by Western governments, is the highest betrayal to one’s own people ever perpetrated in history. While the scenario might remind us the hostile takeover of Rome by a Levantine cult, it is infinitely worse. Constantine may have surrendered the empire to the bishops, dragging it straight into the Middle Ages, but no explicit anti-white exterminationist program was implemented by him and his successors; the program was implicit. In contrast, in the West of today massive numbers of non-whites are being imported at the same time with the demographic decline of the native population: an explicit, anti-white exterminationist program.

This is the most important issue of anything we can imagine: even more important than the child advocacy understood in terms of all races, the theme of this book. If Hyperboreans disappeared, my thirst to fight in the resulting mongrelized culture would die out. It would be a Neanderthalesque regression from my most cherished ideals. Think of the most beautiful female specimens of the Aryan race, for example the painting Lady Violet on the cover of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. What whites are doing to themselves is the real sin against the holy spirit of life: placing the very crown of evolution on the path to extinction.

Just as in the past the infanticidal psychoclass sacrificed their children in times of great prosperity, a phenomenon that deMause has called “growth panic,” a mad generation—including deMause’s—, indoctrinated in anti-white racism, sacrifices the future of their children; their grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren… Large numbers of abortions and intercourse with condoms or pills—and mixing their blood with non-whites!—can only mean that an ethnic group is committing suicide. Westerners have decided to erase their history, culture, identity and what is most valuable: their genetic capital.

Such self-destruct ethos reminds me the determined campaign of destruction that, in my family, my mother led when she fell sized with panic before her thriving teenager. Like my parents with me in our beloved home of Palenque [the subject of my other books], reaching the height of its prosperity the West succumbs to unconscious forces turned into a monster which etiology nobody seems to know, not even the readers of Alice Miller, let alone the psychohistorians.
 
___________

The objective of Day of Wrath is to present to the racialist community my philosophy of The Four Words on how to eliminate all unnecessary suffering. If life allows, next month I will reproduce another chapter. Day of Wrath is available: here.

The Story of Philosophy, 2

On the uses of philosophy

There is a pleasure in philosophy, and a lure even in the mirages of metaphysics, which every student feels until the coarse necessities of physical existence drag him from the heights of thought into the mart of economic strife and gain.

Some ungentle reader will check us here by informing us that philosophy is as useless as chess, as obscure as ignorance, and as stagnant as content. “There is nothing so absurd,” said Cicero, “but that it may be found in the books of the philosophers.” Doubtless some philosophers have had all sorts of wisdom except common sense; and many a philosophic flight has been due to the elevating power of thin air. Let us resolve, on this voyage of ours, to put in only at the ports of light, to keep out of the muddy streams of metaphysics and the “many-sounding seas” of theological dispute.

But is philosophy stagnant? Science seems always to advance, while philosophy seems always to lose ground. Yet this is only because philosophy accepts the hard and hazardous task of dealing with problems not yet open to the methods of science—problems like good and evil, beauty and ugliness, order and freedom, life and death; so soon as a field of inquiry yields knowledge susceptible of exact formulation it is called science. Every science begins as philosophy and ends as art; it arises in hypothesis and flows into achievement.

Philosophy is a hypothetical interpretation of the unknown (as in metaphysics), or of the inexactly known (as in ethics or political philosophy); it is the front trench in the siege of truth. Science is the captured territory; and behind it are those secure regions in which knowledge and art build our imperfect and marvelous world. Philosophy seems to stand still, perplexed; but only because she leaves the fruits of victory to her daughters the sciences, and herself passes on, divinely discontent, to the uncertain and unexplored.

So let us listen to these men, ready to forgive them their passing errors, and eager to learn the lessons which they are so eager to teach, “Do you then be reasonable,” said old Socrates to Crito, “and do not mind whether the teachers of philosophy are good or bad, but think only of Philosophy herself. Try to examine her well and truly; and if she be evil, seek to turn away all men from her; but if she be what I believe she is, then follow her and serve her, and be of good cheer.”
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s comment:

All this sounds very nice. I will never have a command of the English language as Durant had it. But I had to celebrate more than fifty springs to begin to understand things I did not see when, as a teenager, I wanted to pursue a philosophy course. Now I see things that not only an adolescent is incapable of seeing on his own, but that even when doing a philosophy career the ‘mature’ academic usually doesn’t see.

With elementary knowledge of the central tragedy of the West—the takeover by the Judeo-Christians that destroyed the classical world—, Durant’s exposition seems ignorant. Although he does not devote whole chapters to the scholasticism that he so despises, he does not seem to notice, as Ferdinand Bardamu realised in an entry reproduced this month, that the ‘secular’ liberals, socialists and utopians were influenced by the Christian ethic in an extraordinary way.

But long before I read Bardamu I was extremely irritated by the philosophy of the back doors of Kant and Descartes (and I don’t forget the chapter on ‘The New Understanding of God’ in Does God Exist? by Hans Küng and in his erudite study on Hegel). Descartes alleged that he began his philosophical system in tabula rasa but, as soon as he reached the conclusions he wanted, he immediately went to the church to thank Providence. The self-deception not only of Kant and Descartes but of other modern philosophers is truly overwhelming: everything opposite to the ‘Know Thyself’ that was recorded in the Oracle of Delphi before the damned Christians destroyed it.

Now I see from another point of view what in the academy is called philosophy. The transition from Christianity to an authentic secularism is so traumatic that the so-called modern philosophers were stuck in a sort of chess for the sophisticate: epistemologies and metaphysics, instead of using their minds to culminate the apostatising process from Christianity.

Only Nietzsche started to succeed from the viewpoint of this new understanding of philosophy. Keep in mind that not even the vast majority of secular white nationalists have apostatised altogether, as seen in the fact that they continue to preach love for the Jews, whom they want to deport to Israel. Compare such love with the hatred the Jews feel for the Aryans—no ethnic state for them until they become extinct—and we will see how ‘Neo-Christians’ are still those atheists among contemporary racists. The love that these ‘racists’ feel for the Jews and other races is something that the Greeks and Romans of the ancient world would not have understood. Comparing it to chess again, those who have the white pieces but hold Semitic malware in their minds and ‘love their enemies’, the coloured pieces, are doomed to lose the battle.

In the previous entry about Durant’s book I said that philosophy did not exist. I exaggerated and would like to correct myself. We can rescue the term philosophy as long as we apply it to the thinkers of the Greco-Roman world. There has not been, nor will there be again, philosophy in the West until the day when all the churches that have installed Semitic malware on the Aryan psyche have been brought down by a triumphant Fourth Reich.

As I said a couple of days ago, the message on this site is the very opposite of what Andrew Fraser recently wrote in The Occidental Observer.

Blue-pill continent

Last year I sent an email to Prof. Kevin MacDonald complaining about an influential Mexican Jew and he asked me if I’d okay publishing it in his webzine, with a little editing. Of course I accepted and it can be read: here. But I knew that if I had written a lengthier piece I’d have mentioned something even more alarming. In Latin America, Jew and gentile intellectuals are on the same page. A single example will illustrate my point.

Every Monday the Mexican viewers of Foro TV can watch a roundtable with two Jews and two gentiles. Leo Zuckermann presides the program Es la Hora de Opinar. On Mondays he usually invites another Jew, Jorge Castañeda (second from left) and two non-Jews, the mestizo Héctor Aguilar Camín and the criollo Javier Tello Díaz.

Earlier this year I heard Castañeda pronouncing these lovely words in that program (my translation): ‘…the fact that Angela Merkel has allowed almost two million refugees to enter—and how good she did it! How good—I mean: we should congratulate ourselves, and congratulate her for having done so’. [1]

Not surprisingly, the two gentiles, Tello and Aguilar, not only agreed with such outrageous statement but even expanded Castañeda’s premise, concerned about the recent surge of nationalist sentiments in Germany in face of the so-called refugee crisis.

This has been my experience with intellectual gentiles in Latin America: the way they see the world is the same as the Jews do. This is why I have so many difficulties with the single-cause hypothesis of Western malaise. Not even those gentiles who phenotypically are indistinguishable from the Spaniards, like Javier Tello and many others, think different. In fact, there’s no single notable intellectual in the whole of Latin America that I am aware of who defends the white race from the ongoing exterminationist campaign.

That’s why I call it the blue-pill continent. That’s why I have almost zero contact with the intelligentsia in the country where I happen to be living. That’s why I have been forced to blog in a second language.

________________

[1] ‘…el que Angela Merkel haya dejado entrar a casi dos millones de refugiados—¡y qué bueno que lo hizo! Que bueno, o sea: hay que felicitarse, y felicitarla, por haberlo hecho’.