Reflections of an Aryan woman, 10

It seems to me that I hear from all sides the objection that has been made to us from the very beginning of the Movement, from the very first speeches of the Master, from the first edition of the Book. I am quoting the words, written in black and white on page 507 of the Book, words which I too have recalled so many times, in public and private meetings, before, during and after the Second World War:

Political parties tend to compromise; the Weltanschauungen never do. Political parties take into consideration the opposition of possible opponents; the Weltanschauungen proclaim their own infallibility. [1]

If this is not the most cynical glorification of intolerance, what is? And I remember—and how!—from the response of all the enemies of National Socialism, from the enthusiasts of good Parliamentary Democracy to the most rabid Communists, also theoretical defenders of ‘human rights’, to the slightest suggestion of identical treatment of all ‘committed’, including the Hitlerites: ‘There can be no question of tolerating the intolerant…’

Are we really ‘intolerant’? And did the Führer, in the passage quoted, or elsewhere, exalt intolerance? Yes, he did. But it is not the same intolerance that I have tried to describe throughout the preceding pages. It is the response to it, the reaction against it, which is very different.

In ancient times, before the virus of Jewish intolerance was spread throughout the world, we were tolerant as well as racist, as were all the Indo-Europeans and all the peoples of the world, including the Jews themselves, before the great Mosaic reformation. I will say more: without it our Movement, with its intransigence and aggressiveness, would not have existed—would not have had any justification. For it can only be understood in an age of accelerated decadence.

It is the supreme, desperate reaction—the reaction of people who have nothing to lose, since whatever comes of their revolution cannot be worse than what they see around them—against this decadence. Now this decadence is, as I have tried to show, linked to two attitudes that complement each other: the superstition of ‘man’ and to the superstition of ‘happiness’. It is these two superstitions which give rise to intolerance of the type I have described above, not really ‘that of the Jews’ (with the exception, no doubt, of the prophets), but that of all the doctrines with roots in Judaism: that which the Jews use, after having aroused it in other peoples, to incite those peoples to fight for them, without even knowing it.

Intolerance can only be fought with the help of other intolerance based on another faith, just as terror can only be fought with terror: a terror exercised in the name of another idea.

Editor’s Note: I’ve already embedded a clip of the 1959 film Ben-Hur in a previous post, but it’s worth rewatching.

It is at this point that white nationalists err big time, as it is schizophrenic to try to awaken the masses of whites to the JQ and at the same time behave like Sextus, not like Messala: a revolutionary idea must be fought with another revolutionary idea.

Most white nationalists are so traitors to their race that they really think like Sextus (watch the clip: here).

We fight the intolerance of the devotees of ‘man’ and those thirsty for ‘happiness’—both directly born of Judaism, and the humanitarian rationalists with scientific pretensions, fed by the same two superstitions. We are fighting against it with our intolerance, which has arisen not from the naive desire to make all men happy in this world or any other, but from the will to keep pure and strong this human minority, the biological elite that our Aryan race represents, so that one day (probably after the end of the present time-cycle) a community may emerge which is as close to our idea of the overman—without faults or weaknesses—as the tigers are to the idea of the perfect feline.

It does not matter to us whether the individuals who make up this biological elite are ‘happy’ or ‘unhappy’! The Strong have no interest in personal happiness. Their function is to ensure, from generation to generation, both the continuity of the race in its beauty and virtues, in its health, and the continuity of faith in natural values. The pride they feel in fulfilling this function, and the pleasure of defying those who would draw them to other tasks, must suffice for their ‘happiness’.

Happiness in the sense that the vast majority of people in consumer societies understand it, i.e., material comfort plus the satisfactions of the senses and the heart, is good for the beasts who, deprived of the word, and therefore of the possibility of looking back on themselves, feel no particular pride in fulfilling their functions and have neither ideological adversaries to harass, nor ‘re-educators’ to challenge. It is, as I said at the beginning, their right. Even the ‘man’ of the inferior races should disdain to seek it—all the more so the average Aryan, and especially the Strong.

Moreover, our intolerance, like that of the orthodox Hindus, is manifested on the plane of life, of action, not on that of pure thought, for we do not believe that the basic propositions of our Weltanschauung are true: we know it. We are undoubtedly irritated by those uninformed people who persist in denying them—those who, for example, proclaim loudly that ‘race does not exist’.

We feel no more hostility towards them than towards madmen who go away repeating that two and two make five. We see that if we add two pebbles to two pebbles, and count the whole, we inevitably find four pebbles. And although this belongs to another order of ideas—the domain of natural science, and not to that of mathematics—we also see, and very clearly, that there are, among all the people who are called Indo-Europeans, or Aryans, common, well-defined traits. That some fools—or parrots, repeating what they have been fed on television by anti-racist propaganda—deny this does not change the facts. It is not to ‘save’ these fools, or parrots, from error, for the sake of their souls, or out of respect for their ‘reason’, that we would crack down on them if we had the power to do so, but only to prevent the repercussions their speeches might have in society, and especially among the young.

Their ‘reason’ is so unreasonable—and so little ‘theirs’!—that we have no respect for them. And we are not interested in the fate of their souls, if they have any. But the survival of our race—still so beautiful, wherever it has remained more or less pure—and the possibilities of assertion and action that a future, however threatening it may seem, interest us deeply. It is in the name of these that we would, if we had the power, take ruthless measures against them. In a society long since imbued with our spirit, in which every anti-racist, egalitarian, pacifist statement, contrary to the divine wisdom of Nature—every expression of the superstition of ‘man’—would be received with irresistible laughter, like a crude fairground joke, or with total indifference, even more deadly, perhaps we would not take action against our adversaries, but would let them yap all they want. They would not be dangerous, and would soon tire of it.

_________

[1] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, German edition 1935, p. 507.

The winds of winter

‘The Winds of Winter’ is the tenth and final episode of the sixth season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the sixtieth overall.

It opens with artistic scenes in the Great Sept that are worth watching even if you don’t see the rest of the episode. Martin was obviously inspired by the medieval church.

High Sparrow: ‘Will you fight to defend your faith against heretics and apostates?’

Brother Loras: ‘I will’.

But even in the Big Sept the writers put up a damn feminist scene. Addressing the High Sparrow, Margaery blasphemes (‘Forget about the Bloody Gods and listen to what I’m telling you!’) in front of the Faith Militant, a sort of inquisitors, and all the nobles gathered at the trial of Loras and Cersei.

This is something as inconceivable as a woman shouting something similar to the pope of other times in St. Peter’s Basilica with the Holy Inquisition present.

The scene is ultra-feminist because Margaery not only curses in a holy place. She’s so clever that she senses that somehow the Great Sept is going to be attacked—something unbelievable within the plot itself. After the Night King killed the old man tangled in the tree only his disciple, the new three-eyed raven, has the power to know these things clairvoyantly (wildfire cache about to explode under the Great Sept).

Even worse, much worse, is what happens after the Great Sept explodes killing everyone, religious and nobles included. This level of feminism is so repulsive that I will tell it very briefly. The girl Arya, who should be dead from the stab wounds she received in a previous episode, single-handedly murders the feudal lord of House Frey and his sons. (Before that scene, Tyrion, supposedly the most intelligent man in Westeros, tells Dany ‘I believe in you’ and Dany turns him into Hand of the Queen with all the ritual of kneeling before the queen, etc.)

But the ridiculous feminist messages don’t end there. In Winterfell, after a few words from Jon Snow now that the Boltons were defeated for good, the prepubescent Mormont girl lectures three mature feudal lords! And it is this girl who, speaking to all the assembled lords of the north, proposes, now that there is no longer a guardian of the north, Jon Snow as the king and all acclaim him.

I have said it elsewhere and it bears repeating. To understand the darkest hour of the West what is needed is to understand the greatest hits of mass culture, as it was in the 19th century Uncle Tom’s Cabin (remember that Lincoln told its author: ‘So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!’) and Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, which also became a tremendous bestseller in the United States. In the 20th century, the film based on it would win eleven Academy Awards, and in the 21st century BLM would inherit the message from the little woman Lincoln spoke to.

It is there, the hits, where we can calibrate the pulse of the white man’s collective unconscious. In other words, to understand the dark hour it’s better to understand Game of Thrones than the boring texts of the Frankfurt School. It’s pop culture that drives the stupid masses, not so much what Kevin MacDonald discusses in The Culture of Critique.

To culminate the end of the sixth season, after the suicide of King Tommen there are no longer any men sitting on the Iron Throne. Now it’s a woman’s turn:

Qyburn: ‘I now proclaim Cersei of the House Lannister, First of Her Name, Queen of the Andals and the First Men, Protector of the Seven Kingdoms. Long may she reign!’

But Cersei is not the only queen. In the final scene of the season we see Dany with a massive armada, with her dragons flying above, crossing the sea to conquer Westeros.

The Battle of the Bitches is what lies ahead…

Published in: on April 24, 2021 at 12:58 pm  Comments Off on The winds of winter  

Siding the Christians

Groypers, Spencer and Allied rapists

About the arrest and deportation of Greg Johnson from Norway for pre-crime of a possible thought-crime, isn’t it ironic that Johnson is the one who has written the most against the lone wolves? Will he learn the lesson? It is not enough to comply with the laws of a country: the anti-white System will still get you.

As axiologically I consider Johnson a pseudoapostate of Christianity (see my previous entry to understand the concept of pseudoapostasy), I prefer an openly Christian activist like Nick Fuentes (sample videos here, here and here).

Fuentes is the leader of the Groyper War that is currently exposing the American cuckservatives. Though I would much prefer something closer to what Hitler did in the 1920s, after Charlottesville the System made it clear that it will not tolerate such events, even if no laws were actually broken. So what we have in regards to tolerated activism is a movement led by Fuentes and three other Catholics: Vincent James, E. Michael Jones and Patrick Casey.

In The Fair Race I said: ‘I’m looking forward to Richard Spencer and James Edwards running for president and vice president in 2024 to let white nationalists know that, legally, they’re not going anywhere (cf. Charlottesville). The time has come to speak about a revolution within the limits allowed by the law of the United States’. But now that Spencer has gotten into trouble we should consider the Groyper movement which has deeper roots in America’s superficial culture than Spencer’s more profound Kultur. As a Counter-Currents columnist recently said, ‘The groyper movement is far more than a Nick Fuentes fan club. It is the primal scream of Deep America, of an American nation which intends to make itself known and rise on the world stage. Fuentes is riding this wave—how far, I cannot tell’.

Before the Spencer scandal (more on it below), the McSpencer Group recently assembled ‘to discuss the recent storming of Charlie Kirk’s “Culture War” tour by members of Groyper Nation. Speaking of the Culture War, the group also takes a deep dive into the history of the “paleoconservatives” and the politics of nostalgia—their triumphs, their limitations, and whether their movement and moniker make any sense in the 21st century’, according to the video’s abstract in YouTube. A commenter replied: ‘Got to give Nick credit. This is the type of IRL [in real life] activity we should be doing rather than street battles with Antifa’. But the Groyper movement has its problems for secularists who comment in Greg Johnson’s webzine, as Hector Quinn said a couple of days ago:

The only problem with this groyper uprising is its attachment to extreme right-wing Christianity. Not only does this alienate it from most people, but it’s also not particularly revolutionary. Their questions about gays and “Christian morality” are really just a throwback to the George W era. It’s not interesting and already has a place within mainstream conservatism. The pressing and truly vanguard issues that they should be focused on are those of race and Israel.

I disagree. It doesn’t matter that Groypers are stagnated in levels 3 and 4 in Mauricio’s metric. Compared to those racialists who use the Newspeak term ‘gay’ I am on their side, as can be deduced from what I said about sex in my article on pseudoapostates. Groypers are absolutely right that what the white man needs is a return to morals. Secular nationalists, on the other hand, seem to ignore the information from The Fair Race and other sources: the Spartans, the men in Republican Rome and even German invaders during Christian takeover of Imperial Rome were Puritans: the rock upon which a culture can be built.
 

Let’s go berserk!

Richard Spencer for one is a non-Christian. Regarding the audio about Spencer’s visceral reaction, immediately after the Charlottesville event, I remember seeing and hearing, if not that same audio (with an accompanying video), a very similar one in which Spencer, inside a moving car in the streets of Charlottesville, ranted against the vile ambush by the System.

When I saw that video in August 2017, I felt vindicated: finally someone speaks as violently I speak! But two years later, when the audio became public, Alt-Lighters see things exactly the other way. They talk about a ‘temper tantrum’ or a ‘meltdown’ of Spencer as if his super-healthy, super-cathartic explosion was something negative. How is it possible for normies to see things in photographic negative: white is seen as black and black is white; dark gray is seen as light gray and vice versa? If something ought to be considered positive it is precisely Spencer’s slurs about Jews and blacks in expletive-laden rants, even though for normies’ ears it sounds like the most poisonous kind of white supremacism! Only in a world where Aryan values have been 180° inverted, courtesy of Xtian ethics, could Spencer’s fury be considered mad.

One thing is clear: due to my apparently ugly self (‘ugly’ only for neochristian eyes) I find talking to myself on this site, where I now only post once a week. If this site were popular, many racially aware whites would already know the history of the Berserkers, included in one of the PDF chapters of the sticky post that appears above this article. The Berserkers story is fundamental: it shows that the blond beast must suffer, occasionally, outbursts of holy rage as the Vikings did during their war cries.

But for the castrated white after WW2, and this includes every notable figure in racialism except exterminationists like Linder, that is considered insane. When we talk about transvaluing Christian values to pre-Christian times we mean precisely to recover our warrior manhood, including the ultra-violent cries of war, as part of the psychogenic price we must pay to re-conquer the West. Alas, the average Alt-Lighter is closer to the ultra-pacifist Johnson than to the Viking of yesteryear…
 

Christian apologetics

A piece of older news is that Weev of The Daily Stormer was finally discredited in the movement. Good news, as a Jew would never have been accepted as a contributor in the Nazi tabloid Der Stürmer, times when whites had not castrated themselves.

Originally some people thought that The Daily Stormer would be the webzine for adolescent Berserkers but they could not be more wrong. If that were the case, once the legal age was reached, DS readers would graduate from websites like The West’s Darkest Hour or from those that guard William Pierce’s old essays and speeches. But they stay at the Anglin playground. As far as Andrew Anglin is concerned, more serious than the fact that he had collaborated with a Jew is the POV from which he starts: ‘We cannot let anyone influence our agenda, which must remain what it always was: Pro-White, Pro-Christian… Pro-American’.

Not let anyone influence you? This is also the problem among Groypers and American conservatives in general. What about the historical facts about the origins of Christianity, for the first time systematically exposed on a racist site (this one)? Pro American? Apparently, it doesn’t occur to American conservatives that their Philo-Semitic, Mammon-worshiper country is a major factor in white decline. The only way to fix the problem is to understand the fact that your race is your nation, which means accepting all Aryan history as the story of your true nation (once more, cf. Pierce’s historical essay in The Fair Race).

Recently, like Anglin and the Groypers, Hunter Wallace has been writing apologetics (‘It is a mistake to conflate our particular lifetimes with Christianity. Before the Second World War and the television era, there was no such thing as a social stigma on racism’). Wallace and the southern nationalists of his webzine do not seem to have listened recently to Alex Linder, or the argument which compares Christianity to cancer. Cancer, too, doesn’t necessarily kill immediately. You can have cancer for years until it suddenly metastasises and kills you (cf. Part II of The Fair Race).

These days, for example, I have been watching some of my favourite scenes from the 1959 Ben-Hur movie, based on a novel that was a tremendous bestseller at a time when there was still no television. I am surprised how, even in those times, the Yankees (the novel was written by a Yankee) idealised the Jewish quarter at the expense of Aryan Rome. When the movie was released I was one year old. With a few more decades, the comparatively small cancer that represented the values of that novel and film—the values of the American culture!—would metastasise at runaway philo-Semitic levels, and the anti-Roman values so to speak, of today (cf. the essay of Judea against Rome, also referred to in the sticky post).

Objections aside, I am glad that some American nationalists seem to be awakening on a substantial scale. But something infinitely more challenging that Groypers could be asking to cuckservatives are questions about the lies about the Second World War (‘You call me a holocaust denier but the real Holocaust deniers are you: Why hasn’t the Republican Party said a peep about the genocide of millions of Germans from 1945 to 1947?’).

In stark contrast to the above American news, I would like to change the mood to my usual gravitas and cite some pages of Tom Goodrich’s book on the Americans’ rape of European women:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Meanwhile, to the west, the Americans were engaged in their own version of sexual conquest. Soon after they stormed ashore on D-Day, June, 1944, the worst elements in the US Army were allowed virtual free reign to rob, rape and kill.

“Reports that disciplinary conditions in the army are becoming bad,” General Eisenhower’s personal driver and mistress, Kay Summersby, candidly recorded. “Many cases of rape, murder, and pillage are causing complaints by the French, Dutch, etc.”

Expecting an army of heroic liberators, the Europeans were naturally surprised and shocked at the lack of discipline among the Allied forces, especially that of the Americans. Drunkenness, theft, wanton destruction of public and private property, casual sex on streets and in parks, but above all, violent sexual assault—many French soon referred to the American occupation as a “regime of terror… imposed by bandits in uniform.”

Historian, Mary Louise Roberts, poignantly recounts one such incident:

The handsome American soldier was Elisabeth’s tenth client that evening. Working her trade on the top floor of a dingy apartment block in Paris, she felt that she had seen them all.

For the past four years, the men had been Germans, and now, since the city had been liberated in August, 1944, they were Americans. It made little difference.

Elisabeth held out three fingers of her hand to indicate the price of her body—three hundred francs.

“Too much,” said the soldier.

Elisabeth sighted. She had seen that before as well. Wearily, she kept the three fingers held up, almost as an insult.

There was no negotiation—three hundred was little enough as it was.

“Two hundred,” the soldier insisted.

“Non,” said Elisabeth. “Three hundred or nothing.”

The soldier approached her, hate in his eyes. Elisabeth glowered back, starting to feel scared.

“In that case,” said the soldier, “it will be nothing.”

The soldier then placed his huge hands around Elisabeth’s neck and started to squeeze. She struggled as hard as she could, lashing out, but it was in vain.

After a minute or so she slumped down, her lifeless body falling on to the stained sheets. The soldier then calmly removed his trousers and had sex with her. For nothing.

Afterwards, he went through Elisabeth’s belongings and stole her cash and jewelry. He then went round the block, found another prostitute and took her to dinner and the movies.

For the GI, it had been a swell evening. Paris was just as they said it was.

“The French now grumble that the Americans are a more drunken and disorderly lot than the Germans and hope to see the day when they are liberated from the Americans,” admitted one US general in disgust. “I am informed the Germans did not loot either residences, stores, or museums. In fact the people claimed that they were meticulously treated by the Army of Occupation.”

After raping and robbing their way across France and Belgium, the US Army reacted much like the Soviets once they crossed into Nazi Germany in early 1945. Imagining the Americans to be much like the disciplined and well-behaved Wehrmacht, many German women, young and old, actually greeted the invaders euphorically as the long­sought symbol that the war was finally over and peace was at hand. Unfortunately, most found out too late, just as the boys at Dachau discovered, that these were not the Americans of their imaginations.

“We were crazy with happiness when the Americans came…,” lamented one woman, “[but] what [they] did here was quite a disappointment that hit our family pretty hard.”

“After the fighting moved on to German soil, there was a good deal of rape by combat troops and those immediately following them,” offered Australian journalist, Osmar White, a war correspondent traveling with the Americans. Soon after entering towns and villages the rapes began. Indoors or out, night or day, on park benches, against walls, on shop floors, the sexual attacks continued as the American conquerors laid claim to the conquered. Often going house to house in search of victims, some rapists initially claimed that they were looking for weapons, or food, or German soldiers in hiding. All too quickly their true purpose was made clear. In one German town, a group of six GIs found an attractive mother and her teenage daughter home alone. In the struggle to drag the victims upstairs, the females escaped out the door and hid in a neighbor’s closet. Finding their hiding place, the soldiers immediately threw the mother and daughter onto beds and one after another took turns raping the females, even as the daughter cried out, “Mama, Mama.”

At the Bavarian village of Ramsau, revealed one priest, “eight girls and women [were] raped, some of them in front of their parents.” In other villages, “heavily drunken” US soldiers helped themselves to the females. After raping one woman, a GI bragged that he had “liberated” her. In an apparent attempt to make the job easier for their men, some US officers required all homes to state the names and ages of their inhabitants and then nail the lists to their doors.

“The results of this decree are not difficult to imagine…,” a priest from one town answered. “Seventeen girls or women… were brought to the hospital, having been sexually abused once or several times.”

Rather than use their authority to punish the criminals and thereby stop most of the sexual attacks, American officers, much like their Soviet counterparts, seemed utterly indifferent to the crime, preferring instead to either ignore it entirely or blame the victims. Instead of arresting black soldiers for a massive number of rapes, the victims themselves were blamed because they “smiled” at the negroes while begging food. US Lieutenant General Edwin Lee Clarke went even further. “German women are creating a feeling of great insecurity among our soldiers by untrue charges of rape…,” announced Clarke. “These tactics might be part of a German plan.”

As with the Soviets, the Americans seemed to have no age limit and an elderly woman of 65, or older, could expect to be raped just as could a child of seven, or younger. There were other similarities. Revealed an Allied official:

German women were more frequently injured, beaten unconscious, abused more frequently in front of husbands or relatives and more frequently penetrated orally or anally by Gls than by the British or French.

“Americans look on the German women as loot, just like cameras and Lugers,” confessed a reporter for a New York newspaper.

“[W]e too are considered an army of rapists,” admitted a US sergeant matter-of-factly.

Added a writer for Time magazine succinctly: “Many a sane American family would recoil in horror if they knew how “Our Boys” conduct themselves… over here.

And the duty of concealing from the American public these crimes their husbands and sons were committing in Europe—and later, in Japan—was the job of the Office of War Information. Issuing its unequivocal marching orders to a small army of journalists following along with American troops, the OWI simply perfected a Soviet style censorship on all news and information destined for the US. “The rules for correspondents [were both]… imposed and self-imposed,” explained the American writer, John Steinbeck, about how he and other reporters hid the truth:

There were no cowards [or rapists or murderers] in the American Army, and of all the brave men the private in the infantry was the bravest and noblest… A second convention held that we had no cruel or ambitious or ignorant commanders… We were all a part of the War Effort. We went along with it, and not only that, we abetted it. Gradually it became a part of all of us that the truth about anything was automatically secret and that to trifle with it was to interfere with the War Effort. By this I don’t mean that the correspondents were liars… [but] it is in the things not mentioned that the untruth lies. We felt responsible to what was called the home front. There was a general feeling that unless the home front was carefully protected from the whole account of what war was like, it might panic. Also, we felt we had to protect the armed services from criticism, or they might retire to their tents to sulk like Achilles.

Thus, in effect, each “reporter” was expected to ignore or deny the looting, rape and murder committed by the Americans and exaggerate or invent the war crimes committed by the Germans; to dutifully deify their friends in the one breath and viciously vilify their enemy in the next. In essence, a corp of conscientious, diligent newsmen during times of peace had been transformed into an obedient herd of propagandists during times of war.

While some upright American officers, like their Russian counterparts, tried manfully to control the scourge of rape in their units, most did not. For German women, the baffling contradictions in each army was itself a source of nonstop terror and stress. Near Berlin, when a family encountered their first Soviets at war’s end they were naturally paralyzed with fear, fully expecting a riot of robbery and rape to envelop them. Surprisingly, the Russians were very polite and left without harming anything or anyone, including the family’s females. When the Americans later arrived, however, one of the daughters was raped so brutally that years later she still had not recovered.

Although sexual assaults by French troops in Germany were fewer than other allies, perhaps only because there were fewer French troops to begin with, not so the African colonials under their command—Moroccans, Senegalese and others who raped on a massive scale. Just as with their American and Soviet allies, the French commanders seemed indifferent to the fate of German civilians, especially women. Indeed, many French officers seemed to gloat in their power and allowed their black troops to run wild, robbing, raping, and murdering. “In the next few nights,” boasted one French sergeant, “no woman will go untouched.” When Senegalese troops reached Stuttgart in southwest Germany, they herded thousands of women, and a number of men, into the subway then raped and sodomized them all at their leisure.

While the British were far and away the most disciplined and correct of all Allied forces, that army too had its criminal element. “I didn’t go out and chase my chaps away from the women,” laughed one junior officer. “I didn’t have time. I was doing it myself!”

And thus, in the east, in the west, in their thousands, in their tens of thousands, in their hundreds of thousands, perhaps in their millions, the sexual assaults and spiritual slaughter of German females continued long after the war was declared over.

“I was panic-stricken. I was always afraid that everybody could see it in me. I was insecure in myself. I felt so empty,” confessed one young victim expressing the emotional chaos and confusion of countless others. “I wanted to do away with myself and kept crying. My mother would not let me go anywhere alone, not even to the toilet.”

“Is this the peace we yearned for so long?” cried Elsbeth Losch from a town near Dresden. “When will all this have an end?”

_____________

Editor’s note: Pages 42-47 of Summer 1945. The footnotes have been omitted. Summer 1945 is a book that exposes the atrocities committed by the United States in Japan and Germany. If the reader is interested in a book by the same author that focuses on the holocaust perpetrated by the Allies solely in Germany, obtain a copy of Hellstorm, The Death of Nazi Germany: 1944-1947 (sample chapter: here).

Why pay attention to Game of Thrones?

Normies don’t read The Occidental Observer or Counter-Currents. I remember so well Andrew Hamilton complaining in the latter webzine that comparatively so few read his articles.

After the finale of Game of Thrones Alt-Right folks are complaining that only classic books or films prior to the 1960s are valid forms of escapism. They completely fail to notice that Ivanhoe, a historical novel remarkable because its sympathetic portrayal of Jewish characters, was published by Sir Walter Scott in 1819. The novel, authored by the non-Jew Scott (raised a Presbyterian but adhered to the Scottish Episcopal Church) started to idealise the subversive tribe in the popular mind.

Remember the point of view of this site: Christianity and the Jewish Problem are one and the same. At the other side on the Atlantic über-cuck Lew Wallace published in 1880 Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. It is considered the most influential Christian book of the 19th century and became a bestseller surpassing another über-cuck author in sales (Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin). Ben-Hur remained at the top of the US all-time bestseller list until the publication of Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind the next century.

Debunking pop culture is more important than debunking Das Kapital.

Published in: on May 20, 2019 at 2:24 pm  Comments (5)  
Tags:

Messala to Sextus

I was one-year-old when Ben-Hur, the epic religious film directed and produced by the Jews William Wyler and Sam Zimbalist, and starring Charlton Heston as the title character, was premiered. I watched it about ten years later on the silver screen with my family.

The film made a huge impact in my life when I was a Christian. I must say that, even today, I can enjoy some scenes. The following is my favourite scene, with the old commander of the Roman garrison discussing with the new commander about the Jews:

Sextus: You can break a man’s skull, you can arrest him, you can throw him into a dungeon. But how do you control what’s up here? [taps his head] How do you fight an idea?

This happens while the Roman Messala is naively planning to use his childhood friend, the Jew Ben-Hur, to find the zealots who, as Sextus complains, ‘smash the statues of our gods, even those of our emperor’.

Messala: Sextus, you ask how to FIGHT [great emphasis in Messala’s voice] an idea. Well, I’ll tell you how… with another idea!

Presently the Roman-like idea is of course German National Socialism, not American white nationalism which through Christianity and Neochristianity is cucked to the core—as cucked as the 1880 novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ by Union general Lew Wallace.

Incidentally, in the 1959 film the Jews deceived us by using a Nordish-like actor for the title character. In the Judea of the 1st century a rich Jew should be looking more like the centurion of the above clip; and the centurion should look like Charlton Heston. But who’s really worse: the kikes who made the film or the Xtian general, a staunch supporter of the Union, who wrote the greatest religious bestseller of his time?

Ben-Hur

clasicos-de-oro-ilustrados-ben-hur

Appalled by the ongoing racial suicide throughout the West, and by the fact that men with honor are practically nonexistent even in the pro-white movement, yesterday I tried to find some refuge in one of my readings as a kid. I revisited my decades-old illustrated books and booklets and picked up exactly the same translated copy of Ben-Hur that I read as a child.

Alas, once you are unplugged from the Matrix you cannot take the bluepill and enjoy another moment of blissful, childhood ignorance again! Yesterday I was immediately confronted by the fact that even on the first pages of this abridged version the author put a Manichean dialogue between Messala and Judah Ben-Hur, where it is clear that the Roman will be the bad guy of the story and the Jew the good guy.

I then searched in the internet for an exposé of the American general who wrote and published the novel in 1880, Lew Wallace. At Stormfront I found Christians blaming the 1959 movie adaptation of Ben-Hur, directed by Jew Willy Wyler, instead of blaming the Christian author himself! After all, Ben-Hur was considered “the most influential Christian book of the nineteenth century” with book sales surpassing Gone with the Wind. Long before the famous adaptation was filmed starring Charlton Heston, in the late 19th century Pope Leo XIII had said that Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ was the first work of fiction to be honored! You can imagine how such an influential book could have been a contributing factor in the runaway American philo-Semitism of the following century…

My poor white nationalist Christians: Why beholdest thou the mote that is in the Jude’s eye but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

The fact that there are lots of mentally-blinded Christians in White Nationalism is one of the reasons why I have now completely abandoned it and presently only favor National Socialism.

Published in: on October 19, 2013 at 10:10 am  Comments (8)  
Tags:

On classic pederasty

This article has been edited in September 2017.
For a longer version of this article see: here

 
Julian Jaynes argued in The Breakdown of The Bicameral Mind that Homeric Greeks were, psychologically, vastly different from historical Greeks. Semitic cultures were even more different. In the online edition of my Day of Wrath I refrained to reproduce this image for the simple reason that it would have meant retro-projection.

In the image we see women, presumably the mothers, trying to rescue their children from a propitiatory child sacrifice to Moloch Baal. The disturbing truth is that, in real life, the parents themselves handed over their crying children to the assistants of the priest, hence the inflammatory sentence with which I ended one of my books (“In the final book of this work I’ll go back to my autobiography, and we shall see if after such grim findings mankind has the right to exist”).

In Hollywood such sort of retroprojections are ubiquitous in movies about the historical past. For instance, Australia, a pro-aboriginals film set before the Second World War, had an upset Nicole Kidman telling another white person, “No mother would leave her child!” when in real life, as recounted in Day of Wrath, quite a few Australian abbos not only abandoned some of their babies, but killed and ate them (for scholarly references supporting this claim see Day of Wrath).
 
Psycho-classes

By “retroprojection” I mean projecting one’s own morals and frame of mind onto the Radical Other, insofar as most people are unaware of the existence of “psychoclasses.”

Westerners, and incredibly, child abuse researchers included, have not awakened to the fact that there have been very dissimilar psychoclasses or ways of childrearing in the world; and that this has had enormous implications for the mental health of a people, primitive or modern. For example, in my Day of Wrath I said that Rhea hid Zeus and presented a stone wrapped in strips, which Cronus took as a swaddled baby and ate it. Cronus represents the pre-Homeric Greeks, the archaic Hellas. After the breakdown of the bicameral, or schizoid mind, historical Greeks considered barbarous the practice of child sacrifice, symbolized in Zeus’ successful rebellion against his filicidal father. Though they still practiced the exposure of unwanted babies, the historical Greeks at least stopped sacrificing them in horrible ways: a practice that their neighbors continued. Nonetheless, if films on both Homeric and post-Homeric Greeks were historically accurate, the exposure of babies, which was practiced even in Roman times, would be visually depicted.

Recently I saw two films that I had not watched for a long time. In the 1959 Hollywood interpretation of Ben-Hur starring Charlton Heston, Tiberius’ Rome and Jerusalem are idealized far beyond what those cities looked like in the times of Jesus. Think of how, to impress the audience with the grandeur of the Roman circus in a Hollywoodesque Palestine, for the chariot race sequence the director made it look as large as Constantinople’s circus! Conversely, in Fellini’s 1969 Satyricon, freely based on Petronius’ classic, the Roman Empire is oneirically caricaturized to the point that the film’s extreme grotesqueries bear no visual relationship whatsoever to the empire of historical time. Both extreme idealization and oneiric caricature constitute artistic ways to understand the soul of Rome. One may think that an Aristotelian golden mean may lie somewhere between Ben-Hur and Fellini-Satyricon, but not even in HBO’s Rome, a purportedly realistic TV series that claimed paying more attention to historical women, dared to show that such women abandoned their babies who died on the hills, roads and the next day were found under the frozen streets: a custom approved even by Plato and Aristotle.

Growing in a “late infanticidal” culture, to use Lloyd deMause’s term, makes members of that psychoclass greatly different compared to our modern western psychoclass. (One could easily imagine what a shock for the modern mind would represent the spectacle of white babies dying on the streets of Vermont, Bonn or Florence with nobody bothering to rescue them.) So different that I believe that the hostile takeover I do of deMause’s Psychohistory to deliver it to the nationalist community will revolutionize the understanding of history once it is properly digested and understood.

In my Day of Wrath I quoted psychohistorian Henry Ebel (no ellipsis added between unquoted sentences):

DeMause’s argument had a breathtaking sweep and grandeur such as we associate with the work of Hegel, Darwin and Marx. Moreover, it seemed to be a valid response and interpretation of a series of gruesome facts that had been consistently understated or suppressed by conventional historians. “The Evolution of Childhood” has proved a morsel too large, too complete, too assertive, and in many ways too grim for the historical profession to digest. Since adult styles and roles, including the academic and professional, are mainly denial-systems erected against those early needs and terrors, the academic consideration of deMause’s argument has been, understandably enough, of less than earthshaking intelligence.

Once we integrate Psychohistory to our view of history, it is easy to notice that when Greg Johnson talks of Greco-Roman homosexuality he does it retroprojectively, as if it was similar to the mores of today’s world: consenting sex between adults. But if Jaynes and deMause are right, the peoples of the classical world inhabited an altogether distinct psychic universe, especially before Solon. So different that sometimes I even wonder if Francis Parker Yockey has a valid point when he wrote that the Italian Renaissance is sold as a link between two cultures that, according to him, have nothing in common.
 
The real Greco-Roman homosexuality: pederasty

A splendid example of such discontinuity is what André Gide called normal pederasty, the ancients’ infatuation for adolescents. Keep in mind that Gide did not condemn such customs. On the contrary, he considered his Corydon, published in 1924 and which received widespread condemnation, his most important work. However, since I can only understand the geist of a culture through the visual arts, before quoting Gide let me convey visually what “homo”-sexuality signified for the classical world through a couple of scenes of the Italian movie Satyricon (YouTube clip: here).

Cinematic experiences aside, what are scholars saying about what I call pseudo-homosexuality: pederasty (which must never be confused with pedophilia)? In the introduction to On Homosexuality: Lysis, Phaedrus, and Symposium, published by Prometheus Books, Eugene O’Connor wrote (again, no ellipsis added):

Benjamin Jowett’s introduction to his translation of Plato’s Symposium expresses prevalent Victorian, Edwardian, and even later attitudes, particularly in England and America, toward Greek homosexuality. Some excerpts from the introduction will illustrate this “clash of cultures.” Since Jowett’s day much has been done to counter and correct this willful distortion of ancient sexuality. We may now consult, for example, the more sober appraisals of K.J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (1978), and Saara Lilja, Homosexuality in Republican and Augustan Rome (1983) to help us redress the oversights of earlier scholarship.

The composition of [Plato’s] Symposium owes much to the Greek tradition of “banquet literature,” often a collection of informal discussions (in prose or verse) on various topics, including the power of love and the delights of young men and boys. Indeed, a whole body of homoerotic literature grew up around the themes of male beauty and how one ought to woo and win a boy.

The customary social pattern was this: a boy in his teens or, at any rate, a younger man (called an eromenos, or “beloved”) was sought out by an older male (called an erastes or “lover”), who might be already married. Women in classical Athens were kept in virtual seclusion from everyone but their immediate families and their domestic activities were relegated to certain “female” parts of the house. As a consequence, boys and young men—partly by virtue of their being seen, whether in the gymnasium, in the streets, or at a sacrifice (as in the Lysis)—became natural love-objects.

Strict rules of conduct bound both parties: adult males could face prosecution for seducing free-born youths, while Athenian boys and young men could be censured for soliciting sexual favors for money. That would make them in effect equal to courtesans, who were hired companions and lacked citizen status.

This erastes-eromenos (lover-beloved) relationship, although it was sexual and in many ways comparable to typical, male-female relations, with the man assuming the dominant role, was meant ideally to be an educative one. The older man instilled in the younger—in essence, “made him pregnant with”—a respect for the requisite masculine virtues of courage and honor.

Socrates in the Phaedrus describes how the soul of the pederast (literally, “a lover of youths”) who is blessed with philosophy will grow wings after a certain cycle of reincarnations. In recent centuries, the word “pederast” has come to be viewed with opprobrium, fit only to describe child molesters. But in ancient Greece the word carried no such negative connotation, and was employed in a very different context.

Surrounded as he often was by the brightest young men of Athens, Socrates jokingly compared himself, in Xenophon’s Symposium, to a pander or procurer. These are witty, humorous characterizations of Socrates to be sure; yet, in the end, Socrates was the best erastes of all; the loving adult male teacher who sought to lead his aristocratic eromenoi (male beloveds) on the road to virtue.

I have read Xenophon’s Symposium and on chapter VIII it does look like Socrates and others had intense crushes with the eromenoi.

In his Corydon Gide shares the Platonic view that what he calls “normal pederasty” (to distinguish it from child molestation) is a propitious state of the mind to shed light on truth and beauty. In the last pages of his slim book Gide concludes: “I believe that such a lover will jealously watch over him, protect him, and himself exalted, purified by this love, will guide him toward those radiant heights which are not reached without love.” In the very final page Gide adds that “From thirteen to twenty-two (to take the age suggested by La Bruyere) is for the Greeks the age of loving friendship, of shared exaltation, of the noblest emulation,” and that only after this age the youth “wants to be a man”: marrying a woman.

But not only I need visuals to properly understand a culture. Narrative is fundamental too as a way to get into the unfathomed deeps of a bygone world. Below, a tale recounted by an old poet, Eumolpus in the first long novel that Western literature knows, Petronius’ Satyricon:

I relocated the hilarious, though rather long, quotation of the Satyricon as an isolated quote in another of my blogs: here

However, the erastes-eromenos relationship was not always as hilariously picaresque as Petronius depicts it. In my previous response to Johnson, when I added the image of a terracotta statuette of Zeus carrying off Ganymede, I included no references. Here I’ll add a couple of them. In the academic work that O’Connor mentioned above, Greek Homosexuality, K.J. Dover writes:

Ephoros, writing in the mid-fourth century, gives a remarkable account (F149) of ritualised homosexual rape in Crete. The erastes gave notice of his intention, and the family and friends of the eromenos did not attempt to hide the boy away, for that would have been admission that he was not worthy of the honour offered him by the erastes. If they believed that the erastes was unworthy, they prevented the rape by force; otherwise they put a good-humoured and half-hearted resistance, which ended with the erastes carrying off the eromenos to a hide-out for two months.

At the end of that period the two of them returned to the city (the eromenos was known, during the relationship, as parastatheis, ‘posted beside…’ or ‘brought over to the side of…’) and the erastes gave the eromenos expensive presents, including clothing which would thereafter testify to the achievement of the eromenos in being chosen; he was kleinos, ‘celebrated’, thanks to his philetor, ‘lover’. [p. 189]

John Boswell, a homosexual professor at YaleUniversity who died at forty-seven of complications from AIDS, specialized in the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity. For this reason alone it is interesting to compare his claims with James O’Meara’s on exactly the same subject. Boswell abstains to mention the word “rape” which Dover unabashedly used in his treatise published by Harvard University. But in Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe Boswell describes in less academic, and more colorful language, the legal arrangements regarding such abductions:

Apart from the abduction aspect, this practice has all the elements of European marriage tradition: witness, gifts, religious sacrifice, a public banquet, a chalice, a ritual change of clothing for one partner, a change of status for both, even a honeymoon.

The abduction is less remarkable, by the standards of the times, that it seems. The ruler of the gods, Zeus, mandated a permanent relationship with a beautiful Trojan prince, Ganymede, after abducting him and carrying him off to heaven; they were the most famous same-sex couple of the ancient world, familiar to all its educated residents. Zeus even gave Ganymede’s father a gift—the equivalent of a dower or “morning gift”. The inhabitants of Chalcis honored what they believed to be the very spot of Ganymede’s abduction, called Harpagion (“Place of Abduction”). Moreover, as late as Boccaccio (Decameron, Day 5, Tale 1) an abduction marriage that takes place seems to find its most natural home in Crete.

Heterosexual abduction marriage was also extremely common in the ancient world—especially in the neighboring state of Sparta, with which Crete shared its constitution and much of its social organization, where it was the normal mode of heterosexual marriage. It remained frequent well into modern times, and even under Christian influence men who abducted women were often only constrained to marry them, and not punished in any other way. In a society where women were regarded as property and their sexuality their major asset, by the time an abducted woman was returned most of her value was gone, and the more public attention was focused on the matter the less likely it was she would ever find a husband. And in a moral universe where the abduction of Helen (and of the Sabine women) provided the foundation myths of the greatest contemporary political entities, such an act was as likely to seem heroic as disreputable. The Erotic Discourses attributed to Plutarch begin with stories of abduction for love, both heterosexual and homosexual. [pp. 91-93]

This last sentence about the foundation myths of both the ancient Hellas and Rome is absolutely central to understand their moral universe. However, Boswell omits to say that Zeus would be considered a bisexual god with strong heterosexual preferences—Hera and many other consorts—according to current standards, in no way a “gay” god.

Furthermore, unlike the same-sex unions of today, the erastes-eromenos relationship wasn’t meant to be permanent. The continuance of an erotic relationship was disapproved. In dramatic contrast to contemporary “gay marriages” and the myth promulgated by James O’Meara at Counter-Currents, romantic relationships between adult coevals were disrespected. In fact, the former eromenos might well become an erastes himself with a younger youth when he got older. Boswell, who strove to use classic scholarship to support the so-called “gay marriage” of our times, overstates his case in other passages of Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. What struck me the most of his study was that on page 66 he misled the readers by claiming that the Satyricon protagonists, Encolpius and Gitone, are simply a same-sex couple. I have read a couple of translations of the Satyricon and it is all too clear that Boswell omitted two fundamental facts: Gitone’s age, an underage teen for today’s standards, and another lover of Gitone, Ascyltus (who also appears in my embedded YouTube clip way above).
 
Discussion

Classic pederasty did not resemble what currently is called the “gay movement,” let alone O’Meara’s preposterous claim that homosexuals have represented a sort of Western elite, in some ways superior to the bourgeoisie of the Christian world. The causes of pederasty are to be found not only in what O’Connor said above: women being kept in seclusion and men transferring their affections to younger boys. More serious was something that neither O’Connor nor Dover or Boswell dared to say: Infanticidal Greece and Rome produced a surplus of males as a result of the exposure of babies, especially baby girls. As I said in my Day of Wrath, it was not until 374 AD that the emperor Valentinian I, a Christian, mandated to rear all children. What apologists of homosexuality fail to understand is that that was a psychoclass distinct from our own, since for modern westerners it is unthinkable to expose baby girls.

In a nutshell, the Greco-Roman erastes-eromenos institution was not “gay” in the modern sense of the word.