Why Deschner

Why reproduce passages from Karlheinz Deschner’s book?

When more than eight years ago I discovered the internet sites that claimed to defend the West from mass migration, I was delighted. The first of those places where I interacted with people was Gates of Vienna. It was the first time in my life that I encountered Jews in serious discussions.

Then I knew nothing of the Jewish problem. But the way that half-Jew Takuan Seiyo reacted when I began to awaken to the Jewish question was so bilious that in my mind it had the diametrically opposite effect: it made me see that his critics were right.

Then I started having problems with the star of the anti-jihad movement: the Norwegian Fjordman especially when, in a thread of Gates of Vienna, I mentioned that famous YouTube clip in which a Jewess emigrated to Sweden says that the Jews will play a central role in turning European countries multiracial. Fjordman became furious, and I did not understand his fury until, thanks to the Breivik incident in Norway, later it was revealed that Fjordman’s father was Jewish.

That means that Fjordman is a crypto-Jew, something that in time I also came to suspect of another commentator of Gates of Vienna, Conservative Swede: as in August of 2009 he became furious with me in a discussion thread when I mentioned Hitler. (That happened before I openly converted to National Socialism.)

Another Jewish fellow in the counter-jihad movement with whom I had problems was the late Lawrence Auster. Once I woke up to the Jewish question in 2010, Auster slandered me on his site saying that I wanted to exterminate the Jews—in times when I didn’t say such a thing. As his site View From the Right received many hits on Google, that defamation caused me problems, as one of my family’s friends is a Jewess; and the gossip of what Auster wrote came to her ears and eventually to my family’s.

Thus, over time I realized that the anti-jihad movement was full of ethnic Jews, half-Jews and crypto-Jews. But all of this paled with the way Edward S. May (‘Baron Bodissey’), the admin of Gates of Vienna, reacted to my awakening.

As I’ve said in this blog, the ‘Baron’ interrupted the publication, in his site, of the series of chapters that I now collect under the title Day of Wrath. But what surprised me the most was that the ‘Baron’ is neither a Jew nor a crypto. He is one of those typical boomers who almost feel devotion for the Jews. I will never forget the e-mail he sent me when notifying me that he would interrupt the publication of my book. This pious Christian spoke of the ‘sanctity’ of the Jews he knew! So the underlying problem in Gates of Vienna was the gentile administrator, more than the kikes that orbited his site.

Gates of Vienna, I later learned during my awakening on the Jewish question, was only the tip of the iceberg. In Esau’s Tears, a book I bought when I still wanted to communicate with them, I was exasperated how, throughout the 19th century, Europeans handed the press over to the subversive tribe. The platform that the modest Gates of Vienna provided to those Jews was only a gecko compared to Godzilla in the wider world! And all, over the years I came to realise, because of a version of Christianity sympathetic to Jewry—precisely the version of Christianity in the United States.

The way I see things now is uncomplicated. I could compare it with an influenza virus that damages our defences and makes us prone to a bacteria that infects our throats.

White nationalists are very aware of bacteria. But very few—Tom Sunic among them—are aware that bacterial subversion was not the product of spontaneous generation but was internalised via a religion of Semitic origin, Christianity. So, and here I go beyond Sunic, if we hate the ‘virus’ (Christian ethics) to the point of destroying it, the bacteria problem would be solved because our defences would be robust again. This is why I am now adding more blog entries of Deschner’s Criminal History of Christianity.

Which white nationalist knows the history of Christianity? Who was aware of, say, the rabid fanaticism with which the Fathers of the Church and the early theologians fought each other (see my latest entries from Deschner’s book)?

The truth is that nationalists ignore the history of their religion: they know only the myths, legends and lies they told us as children educated in the Christian faith.

It is time for someone to understand the Christian virus from its origins, in the hope that the Aryan man will be able to recover his defences and win the battle against (((bacteria)).

Lightning revisited

Edward May

Seven years ago, when the West’s Darkest Hour was not hosted by WordPress but by Blogspot I wrote “A Lightning in the Middle of the Night!” It was a milestone in my awakening on the Jewish question that merits reposting:

These days of February 2010 have been the most important since I discovered the subject of the Islamization of the West in September 2008 and that there was a substantial body of literature on white nationalism a year later. Until recently, Lawrence Auster’s writings had been a lighthouse to approach these subjects. The fact that all of his great grandparents were Eastern European Jews did not bother me the least bit.

But… a single phrase that I recently discovered in a June 2009 Gates of Vienna (GoV) exchange had the effect of a lightning bolt in the middle of the night. It made me revaluate my values in a subject that I previously called “anti-Semitism.”

Take note that GoV is a philo-Semitic blogsite, with a big Star of David in its main page stating “We Support Israel.” Below I quote a comment from the 2009 exchange at GoV. Avery Bullard said:

“As I have often pointed out, socialism is by and large a disease of the intellectuals, and Jews are over-represented among intellectuals, due to a high native intelligence and a tradition of giving their children as much education as possible. Jews were also over-represented amongst musicians, physicists, and capitalist entrepreneurs. But they are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority, only those that weaken that majority [the lightning!].

“That is why they’ve been expelled from so many very different countries over so many centuries. Yet with the possible exception of Albert Lindemann (Esau’s Tears) they never want to know the reasons why they’ve been so disliked in order to prevent more tragedies in the future. Instead they dismiss all anti-Semitism as scapegoating.”

Bullard’s comment in the words I italicized above was the lightning that changed my worldview: from philo-Semitism to anti-Semitism in a single stroke! The lightning struck my mind so hard that I must say something about the Austeresque masthead I had chosen for my blog.

If by March I don’t get a convincing rebuttal of the Bullard statement by my visitors, with the accompanied relevant facts, I will add a hatnote in all of my previous entries where the Jewish question is mentioned, something like: Postscript: I no longer believe in the philo-Semitic opinions expressed herein…

The “Austeresque” masthead on Blogspot contained a sentence inspired in Auster, who became distressed after the lightning struck me.

The “lightning” post also resulted in that Edward (“Ned”) May, the editor of GoV (penname: Baron Bodissey), interrupted publication of my Return of Quetzalcoatl. Furthermore, a half-Jew who used to contribute to May’s blog under the deceiving name of Takuan Seiyo became hysterical (see the comments section of my piece at Blogspot).

The challenge of that essay (“If by March I don’t get a convincing rebuttal of the Bullard statement by my visitors…”) also marked my realization that apologists of Jewry simply don’t respond when challenged with a most serious accusation (Jews “are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority, only those that weaken that majority ”). Last year Ned May authored a short piece, “The Jewish Counterjihad” for his GoV, which contains this sentence:

In response to those who lament the over-representation of Jews in far left Multicultural organizations, I frequently point out the massive over-representation of Jews in the Counterjihad. On both sides of the Atlantic, but especially here in the USA, some of the staunchest and most dedicated activists resisting Islamization are Jews, in numbers far greater than their proportion in the general population.

Does this respond to my February 2010 challenge? Hardly. May’s argument has many holes.

First, the “West” is a euphemism for the white race. The counter-jihad movement is unrelated to the preservation of the white race, and therefore of the West. There cannot be a Western culture if all whites commit thoroughgoing mestization in the same way that, due to an almost complete mestization, New Spain died in this continent as an extension of Spain to become “Mexico.”

Second, if I remember correctly, in 2009 May once told me in one of the threaded comments of his blog that since he had a coloured member in his family I should be sensitive about posting my racist views there. More than once, in those old conversations at GoV May’s wife, Ceara Sullivan, boasted about her black neighbours that she hoped will greatly thrive in life. “Western preservation” for this very Christian couple could mean preserving Christianity versus Islam even if that means that their country will become brown.

Third, the Jews concerned about the advance of Islam in Europe are concerned about their tribe (e.g., the fate of Jews in Malmo, Sweden), not about the preservation of the Aryan race there or of Anglo-Saxons in America. Who among those Jews that May considers “staunchest activists” would accept the 14 words? Before our sacred words, wouldn’t they cringe like vampires facing a crucifix?

Fourth, take a note about the book Esau’s Tears that Bullard mentions above. When I tried to discuss with May after he expelled me from publishing in his site, I took heed of an advice by Fjordman: that only Jews or half-Jews would be able to criticize Jews objectively. I played their little game and called their attention to Esau’s Tears, an academic work published by Cambridge University and authored by the Jew Albert Lindemann. The book, that I have read, elicited good reviews from Jews and it demonstrates that the Jewish problem is not an Aryan hallucination, as Takuan Seiyo claimed in the comments section of my lighting article.

In 2010 I received no reasonable response from May, Fjordman, Seiyo, Auster and even Conservative Swede about approaching the JP according to their rules (only Jews should criticize Jews, etc). They simply ignored Esau’s Tears!

In conclusion, Jews are never overrepresented in organizations that advocate Aryan preservation. In the specific case of counter-jihad it is full of Jews, half-Jews and self-bamboozled gentiles trying to get you stuck just there. Their memes are Don’t cross the psychological Rubicon! Don’t reach the other side and realize that all’s about racial consciousness!

For instance, in the comments section of “The Jewish Counterjihad” May commented: “It’s the same error (or syndrome) as blaming all Jews for what Jewish lefties do.” But the point is that even if not all Muslims in Europe are jihadists, Muslims in general should be deported from Europe.

Exactly the same can be said about the other Semites living in the West.

For the visitor of this site who has not crossed the psychological Rubicon, or cannot get a copy of Lindemann’s book, I recommend William Pierce’s “Seeing the Forest.”

Published in: on June 14, 2017 at 5:57 pm  Comments (2)  

Iceland – Normie Land

In today’s Daily Stormer article, “Anti-Jihad figure Robert Spencer poisoned by leftist in Iceland,” Spartacus wrote:

I spent about half an hour looking at the media in Iceland, and I could not find a single kike in any position, at all. No kike owners, no kike CEOs, nothing.

They do have foreigners writing as journalists, like this maggot, but even there I couldn’t identify any kikes. Unless some of them are cryptos, then that means the goyim running Iceland are trying hard to be the best goyim in the world. I couldn’t find a single article in any publication in Iceland that isn’t on par with HuffPoo on every single thing you can think of. I didn’t spend enough to be certain, but the media in that country might be worse than in any other I’ve ever looked at.

A commenter, LeMonsieur, said: “White people don’t need a jewish presence to behave in the same leftist/suicidal way. You can take the most remote paradisiac village 100% White for millennia, you would find the same will to receive immigration and the same leftist women in charge. Every single time.”

For those who don’t believe that concurrently to the Jewish problem there’s an Aryan problem I ask the question, How do you explain it?

Daily Stormer commenters have no answer to this question. Most of them don’t want to see that there is a Christian problem and an Aryan problem to boot. At least, Kevin MacDonald at The Occidental Observer has been researching the Aryan problem for some time, but like the Stormer he won’t tackle the Christian problem, with the exception of allowing Tom Sunic’s anti-Christian articles on the Observer once in a while.

Last month, on the comments section of this blog I replied to Joseph: “You say Jews and perhaps you are right from the Anglo-Saxon world. But here at the south of the US it is flabbergasting to see mestizos, criollos and Jews exactly on the same page. I cannot distinguish the criollos from the Jews while watching TV programs of debate. I have to see the name if it sounds Spanish or looking at Wikipedia for clues if one of these TV commenters is Jew or not. Mestizos are easier to spot because of their skin color and racial features. But what is surprising is that both Jews and gentile criollos think exactly the same liberalism. So who’s the enemy? At the thread of Hitler’s birthday I called your attention to a very prolific WN pundit who publishes in the blogsites Alternative Right, Counter Currents and The Occidental Observer. This WN [Colin Liddell] called for the destruction of Germany three days ago as if he was the Morgenthau Jew of 1945! So who is the enemy? The conclusion I have arrived is what Pierce said the year he died: ‘There are several ways one can look at our problems…. One could say that everything is the fault of white American man. We used to run this country. If the Jews have taken over our mass media it is because we [emphasis in Pierce’s voice] let them do it’…”

For those unfamiliar with the content of this site, see on the sidebar the advertisement of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, which contains essays not only about the Christian problem and the Aryan problem, but on the Women problem as pointed out by LeMonsieur above.

One final note. When I lived in Normie Land this was the path, my stepping stones that helped me to cross the psychological Rubicon:

• 1st stone: Robert Spencer and other online counter-jihadists (late 2008)

• 2nd stone: Larry Auster, who went beyond counter-jihadism onto stepping a racial and anti-feminist stone (but he was Jewish)

• 3rd stone: Jew-wise White Nationalism, especially the webzines under the watch of Greg Johnson in the late 2009 and 2010. In the following years I became disillusioned because of some ethno-suicidal traits among authors of Counter-Currents and the broader WN movement.

At the other side of the river I found the very solid ground of National Socialism.

About the non-fatal poisoning this month of Robert Spencer in Iceland, a man who helped me to step on the first river stone, see also: here. In the late 2008 and early 2009 however the appearance of Jihad Watch was much better than today. The same can be said about the appearance of Occidental Dissent that used to show off Scuola di Atene, one of the most famous frescoes by Raphael. Presently, like Jihad Watch, Occidental Dissent looks awful.

Published in: on May 19, 2017 at 10:55 am  Comments (8)  
Tags:

A postscript to

“A lightning in the middle of the night!”

When in late 2009 and early 2010 I contributed to Baron Bodissey’s Gates of Vienna (GoV) I was a philo-Semite. Then I awoke to the real world and distanced myself from Bodissey, after I realised that he was unwilling to discuss the Jewish Question.

It seems that Bodissey still does not allow legit commentariat at GoV. See for example “What Gates of Vienna wouldn’t publish” that appeared in Diversity Macht Frei in November 2015. I’ve just discovered that article.

In the GoV thread Dymphna, Bodissey’s wife, replied to another critic thus: “Jews are over-represented in music, the arts, science, etc. Shall we view the Nobel Prizes for science with suspicion since Ashkenazi Jews abound there?” Once more, she forgot the very crux of the Jewish problem. As I quoted and commented in February 2010 in “A lightning in the middle of the night!”:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Take note that GoV is a philo-Semitic blogsite, with a big Star of David in its main page stating “We Support Israel.” Below I quote a comment from the 2009 exchange at GoV. Avery Bullard said:

As I have often pointed out, socialism is by and large a disease of the intellectuals, and Jews are over-represented among intellectuals, due to a high native intelligence and a tradition of giving their children as much education as possible. Jews were also over-represented amongst musicians, physicists, and capitalist entrepreneurs.

But they are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority, only those that weaken that majority [the lightning!]. That is why they’ve been expelled from so many very different countries over so many centuries. Yet with the possible exception of Albert Lindemann (Esau’s Tears) they never want to know the reasons why they’ve been so disliked in order to prevent more tragedies in the future. Instead they dismiss all anti-Semitism as scapegoating. In other words: are Jews more responsible for communism, based on their proportional representation amongst the intelligentsia, than any other intellectuals? If they are over-represented in the intelligentsia then they had disproportionate influence in the direction the intelligentsia took. Many Russian intellectuals were Slavo-philes. Before Jews could access the most important U.S. universities the old WASP intelligentsia in the U.S. was much more traditionalist.

Bullard’s comment in the words I italicized above was the lightning that changed my worldview: from philo-Semitism to anti-Semitism in a single stroke!

______ 卐 ______

 
As I have said, I wrote about my “Damascene conversion” more than six years ago. Nowadays I feel I’m light-years ahead from the Counter-Jihad movement.

For those who doubt that Jews “are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority, only those that weaken that majority,” read Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy.

Published in: on August 5, 2016 at 9:06 am  Leave a Comment  

Solitude

Below, my comments of the ten threads about Nietzsche’s
prologue to Thus Spoke Zarathustra in a single entry:


1

Visitors will be surprised to learn that a Spanish edition has more detailed endnotes than the academic English translation of Nietzsche’s magnum opus.

This is because Spaniards are fed up of Catholicism. North Americans have a few centuries experimenting with Christianity. Spain has more than a millennium and a half, and our parents’ religion is on its last dying breaths there.

Andrés Sánchez-Pascual’s scholarly translation of Nietzsche’s books since the early 1970s became so popular that over the decades he has received hundreds of letters from his Spanish-speaking readers. The book’s edition of Así Habló Zaratustra that I purchased this month for example (I lost the old copies that I used to read sporadically in the 1970s and 80s) is its twentieth edition.

So fed up of Catholicism are Spain’s thinking classes that, again, the copies I bought of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums which introduction appears in my compilation The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, were translated to Spanish for an audience unexpectedly avid of this sort of extraordinarily scholarly material (Deschner’s maximum opus has yet to be translated to English).

Another example. Manu Rodríguez, who has had a place of high honor in this site and in The Fair Race, is also an avid reader of Sánchez-Pascual’s translations of Nietzsche. Thanks to his revaluation of Christian values, Rodríguez overcame his original prejudice against National Socialism in his later posts of La Respuesta de Europa. With the exception of non-Christian geniuses like Revilo Oliver and William Pierce, I have not seen such a metamorphosis of the mind in most of the English-speaking racialists.
 

2

“Could it be possible! This old saint in his woods has not yet heard the news that God is dead!

This is one of the most quoted passages of Nietzsche’s literature. I abandoned theism long ago. Presently I don’t believe in the existence of a personal god, let alone in the existence of the Jewish god (which would be absolutely dead in the heart of any fanatic of the 14 words if the white nationalist “movement” was not all bluff). That doesn’t mean that I’m an atheist, as Hegel and other philosophers of Classic German Idealism developed a new understanding of God: panentheistic views that I am not prepared to dismiss.

The theological issues of Zarathustra’s encounter with the old hermit aside, I’d rather say something about the soliloquy in the previous post of this fictional character, something related to the very meaning of this blogsite.

The darkest hour is just before the dawn. In the endnotes about the opening soliloquy in Nietzsche’s book, Andrés Sánchez-Pascual interpreted the term Untergehen as follows: “By sinking into his decline, like the sun, Zarathustra moves to the other side. ‘Passing to the other side’ means surpassing oneself and becoming the Overman.”

This is what nationalists have failed to do, and was the message of the last pages of my compilation The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour: white nationalism as a stepping stone at the middle of a river, not as the promised land itself which is beyond the rapid waters.

That was my metaphor.

As to Nietzsche’s metaphor, we could say that today’s whites, including Christian and libertarian white nationalists, have yet to “sink themselves into their sunsets.” Some force may be with them but they’re not overmen yet; they have not surpassed themselves as Hitler’s SS men did (always keep in mind my “Where are the Syssitias?”).

The purpose of this blogsite is to prepare a few metamorphosing men, those in the process of “passing to the other side” (Übergang) from the soul’s darkest night into the coming dawn of the fair race.
 

3

I don’t claim to have reread the Zarathustra since my adolescent infatuation with Nietzsche. But these are surely the words that made a very powerful impression in my mind since my first reading:

“I teach you the Overman. Human being is something that must be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?

What is the ape to a human? A laughing stock or a painful embarrassment. And that is precisely what the human shall be to the Overman: a laughing stock or a painful embarrassment.

You have made your way from worm to human, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now a human is still more ape than any ape.

Behold, I teach you the Overman!

The Overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the Overman shall be the meaning of the earth!”

The passage “…and you want to be the ebb of this great flood and would even rather go back to animals than overcome humans?” nails perfectly contemporary whites.

This is exactly what they are doing to themselves—white nationalists included, so reluctant to fight (or preparing to fight by saving precious metals before the dollar crashes). As Jack Frost has asked the clueless, feminized males of The Occidental Observer more than once, “Where’s the resistance?” to the anti-white, exterminationist System. Where are the cells for would-be soldiers that treasure William Pierce’s three books as their New Tablets?

I see none of it. And many Jew-wise nationalists are themselves etnosuicidal because they simply ignore that Christianity inverted healthy values—negative values that they themselves subscribe! Cowardice similar to this in the 19th century explains why Nietzsche’s Zarathustra gives the biblical verse an antithetical sense from the original.
 

4

Now Zarathustra looked at the people and he was amazed. Then he spoke thus: “Mankind is a rope fastened between animal and Overman – a rope over an abyss. What is great about human beings is that they are a bridge and not a purpose: what is lovable about human beings is that they are a crossing over and a going under.”

Again, this brings in mind my metaphor of the bridge. This is what I wrote in the final essay of The Fair Race: “White nationalism is only a stone at the middle of the rapid-flowing waters of a dangerous river; a stepping stone that can help us in our endeavor to jump to the other side. I myself used that stone during my crossing from Christianity and Liberalism to National Socialism. In fact, I could even write such a spiritual odyssey in a text that might be titled ‘From St Francis to Himmler’.” But no American white nationalist today is prepared to wear a T-shirt of Herr Himmler, not even in the privacy of their homes.

“I love the great despisers, because they are the great venerators and arrows of longing for the other shore. I love those who do not first seek behind the stars for a reason to go under and be a sacrifice, who instead sacrifice themselves for the earth, so that the earth may one day become the Overman’s. I love the one who lives in order to know, and who wants to know so that one day the Overman may live. And so he wants his going under.” [sinking in his sunset according to Sánchez-Pascual]

This cannot contrast more with today’s white nationalists, so reluctant to sacrifice themselves as Rockwell did. They want it both ways: enjoy their homely comfort zones and try to “save” the race from the ongoing extermination.
 

5

In Ecce Homo Nietzsche wrote:

In this sense Zarathustra first calls the good “the last men”… He finds them the most harmful kind of man, because they secure their existence at the expense of truth just as they do at the expense of the future.

Do “the last men” sound like contemporary whites overwhelmed with guilt? But white nationalists are the Overman’s “last men” too. Think for example of the voices from those self-righteous, Christian and atheist nationalists who recently called a lone wolf “an evil sociopath” in Dixie, basically subscribing the meme “black lives matter.”

White- or Southern nationalism is phony, was phony and will be phony until societal collapse forces the survivors to grow a hairy pair. This is Pierce’s Diaries: “His forehead was then marked with an indelible dye, and he was turned out and could be readmitted permanently only by bringing back the head of a freshly killed Black or other non-White.”
 

6

Just for the record, about 150,000 copies of a specially durable wartime Zarathustra were distributed to the German troops during the First World War.
 

7

“A nice catch of fish Zarathustra has today! No human being did he catch, but a corpse instead!” looks like me trying to convey Nietzsche’s message to a dead race!
 

8

“I want to teach humans the meaning of their being, which is the Overman, the lightning from the dark cloud ‘human being’.”

For some unfathomable causes, this sentence from the previous section, Prologue §7, reminded me my identification with the art of the pre-Raphaelites and Maxfield Parrish. One of the inner realities that distances me from white nationalists is that they don’t seem to love this 14-words art (“That the beauty of…”) as much as I do.
 

9

“It dawned on me: I need companions, and living ones – not dead companions and corpses that I carry with me wherever I want.”

Just what happened to me during my experience in counter-jihad: after these guys didn’t want to hear about the Jewish problem it was like I had to get rid of their corpses—dead companions. But it also happened to me in white nationalism! After these guys didn’t want to hear about the Christian problem it was like I had to get rid of their corpses.

“It dawned on me: let Zarathustra speak not to the people, but instead to companions!”

Pierce did something similar after the calamity of Rockwell’s murder: instead of speaking to the masses he predicated to a smaller group of companions.

“Look at the good and the just! Whom do they hate most? The one who breaks their tablets of values, the breaker, the lawbreaker – but he is the creative one.”

Hitler was the creative one. Read his table talks.

“Companions the creative one seeks and not corpses, nor herds and believers. Fellow creators the creative one seeks, who will write new values on new tablets.”

Less than a handful visitors of this blog share the moral grammar on my New Tablets…

“Fellow creators seeks Zarathustra, fellow harvesters and fellow celebrators Zarathustra seeks: what need does he have of herds and shepherds and corpses!”

…but still no one wants to become a priest of the 14 words in a latter-day “Syssitia” (like the one Rockwell had).

“I do not want to even speak again with the people – for the last time have I spoken to a dead person.”

Occasionally I still comment at The Occidental Observer but even that has to end—the commentariat and even the authors are clueless that Christian axiology enabled the Jewish problem and the Negro problem and the Mestizo problem and even the more recent empowerment of Asia.

“I shall join the creators, the harvesters, the celebrators: I shall show them the rainbow and all the steps to the Overman.”

Hitler and Pierce showed this rainbow but who among us really follows their revaluated axiology? Most white nationalists follow the Old Tablets; atheist nationalists share also the Christian moral grammar and even the neonazis have not really broken the Tablets.

“I want to go to my goal, and I go my own way; over the hesitating and dawdling I shall leap. Thus let my going be their going under!”

This describes me…
 

10

And so Nietzsche’s lyric prologue ends. Below, some snippets from the Cambridge introduction by Robert B. Pippin:

Zarathustra leaves his cave to revisit the human world because he wants both to prophesy and help hasten the advent of something like a new “attempt” on the part of mankind, a post “beyond” or “over the human” (Übermensch) aspiration. Such a goal would be free of the psychological dimensions that have led the human type into a state of some crisis (made worse by the fact that most do not think a crisis has occurred or that any new attempt is necessary).

The problem, then, that Zarathustra must address, the problem of “nihilism,” is a kind of collective failure of desire…

Nietzsche clearly thinks we cannot understand such a possibility, much less be both shamed and inspired by it, except by a literary and so “living” treatment of such an existential possibility. And Nietzsche clearly thinks he has such a chance, in the current historical context of crisis, collapse, boredom, and confusion, a chance of shaming and cajoling us away from commitments that will condemn us to a “last man” or “pale atheist” sort of existence, and of inspiring a new desire, a new “tension” of the spirit…

As noted, the problem Zarathustra confronts seems to be a failure of desire; nobody wants what he is offering, and they seem to want very little other than a rather bovine version of happiness. It is that sort of failure that proves particularly difficult to address, and that cannot be corrected by thinking up a “better argument” against such a failure.

The events that are narrated are also clearly tied to the question of what it means for Zarathustra to have a teaching, to try to impart it to an audience suffering in this unusual way, suffering from complacency or dead desire. Only at the very beginning, in the Prologue, does he try to “lecture publicly,” one might say, and this is a pretty unambiguous failure.

The reminder here of the Prologue appears to indicate that Zarathustra himself had portrayed his own teaching in a comically inadequate way, preaching to the multitudes as if people could simply begin to overcome themselves by some revolutionary act of will…

He had shifted from market place preaching to conversations with disciples in Part I, and at the end of that Part I he decides to forgo even that and to go back to his cave alone.

rosa_s_pak

Bicausal corollary

These days my classification of “bicausalism” has stirred a long discussion through several threads at Occidental Dissent (see, e.g., here):

1.- Monocausalists – Most of the commenters at Age of Treason, and people like Dave Duke whom I deeply respect. These people believe that there’s but one cause of our woes: the subversive Jews.

2.- Bicausalists Type A – Those who, like Alex Linder and some commenters at Linder’s VNN Forum, believe that Jews are the primary cause of our woes, though there are other important factors as well. Unlike monocausalists, these bicausalists also blame our parents’ religion.

3.- Bicausalists Type B – Those who, like Tom Sunic, Manu Rodríguez and I believe that there’s something seriously wrong with us, extremely wrong actually. Whites’ mental issues (which include a Calvinist type of Old Testament Christianity that conquered North America) are the primary infection, and the Judaization of the West, a secondary infection (like AIDS / pneumonia, etc).

This is my corollary to the above classification. Note that I have added a #4, which means an antithetical monocausal stance to the one mentioned above. (Keywords: AoT = the blog Age of Treason; GoV = the blog Gates of Vienna):

1. AoT-like monocausalism – blames Jews 100%, Whites 0%

2. Bicausalism Type-A – assigns a blame above 50% to Jews

3. Bicausalism Type-B – assigns a blame above 50% to Whites

4. GoV-like monocausalism – blames Whites 100%, Jews 0%

Of course, in bicausalism you can either blame one or the other in diverse ratios depending on the specific bicausal individual, say, 90 / 10 percent or inversely; or 45 / 55 percent, etc.

Protected minorities

The point I was trying to make in my previous post and in a related discussion is that during my first internet experience in 2006-2008, for the group of Alice Miller’s fans the subject of child abuse in the Muslim world was taboo. These pseudo-followers of Miller had in their minds a protected minority—Muslims—even when these Sub-Saharan Africans practice genital mutilation on pubescent girls on a massive scale.

The next internet group I became active was the counter-jihad blogsites, where I was active from the latest months of 2008 to the beginning of 2010. These people too had a protected minority in their little minds: Jews. They would not argue with me even when I typed long excerpts from an academic Jew that demonstrated that the Jewish problem was not a gentile hallucination at all.

Finally, when I arrived to white nationalism after distancing myself from Jew-blind counter-jihadists I expected that this later movement wouldn’t have protected minorities. I was wrong. Many of them still have a protected minority that, like the other minorities, is deleterious to our interests as Guillaume Faye knows: homosexuals.

homonegroThe fact that Tom Sunic and Robert Stark have interviewed Counter-Currents’ philosophical catamite James O’Meara without asking him tough questions during their respective interviews, proves that at least some of today’s nationalists don’t have the moral caliber to say what the Nazis said about faggotry, or even the first American incarnation of white nationalism one or two generations ago.

That this “new generation” is fond of what my beloved Nazis called “degenerate music” means that they have a rotten soul compared to the one which flourished not so long ago.

Are monocausalists paranoid?




At Age of Treason, last March an interesting debate ensued when the admin expelled a regular commenter (no ellipsis added between unquoted sentences):

Tanstaafl said…

Daybreaker, I get the distinct impression you are in some way jewish. Would you mind setting the record straight, one way or the other?

Daybreaker said…

I’m not Jewish.

My personal background is not your business, and I’m not going to share it on the Internet, but I’ve been looking it up and I’m definitely not Jewish.

Your “distinct impression” lacks any foundation. The quote you gave just before saying you have this “distinct impression” (“Our default setting is highly universalistic compared to Jews, and likely compared to anybody else” [–Daybreaker]) is not a rational basis for an impression that I’m Jewish in any way.

Let me be blunt. You’re being paranoid.

Pat Hannagan said…

Well, Tan’s impression is one I got Daybreaker, or at least I questioned.

Your comments in this thread were beautiful but, when I’ve read you elsewhere you seem to me to have flip slopped and taken on the opposition’s side. It’s not paranoia, just trying to work out if you’re legit or not.

Daybreaker said…

I’ve said what I am, minus what particular countries my all-White and all non-Jewish ancestors hail from. And I’ve done what I can to clear up the main points that may cause confusion.

There’s nothing else I can do. I accept that you and Tanstaafl are not being paranoid. But you’ll just have to keep wondering and working on it, because I can’t make myself any plainer than to give you a straight no, which I already have.

Tanstaafl said…

Daybreaker, let me be blunt. Your comments, here and on previous posts, are too long and too many. You seem to be trying to take charge of the discussion, to manage it. Stop it.

That’s one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you’re a jew. Calling me paranoid is another. People think you’re a jew because you act like one.

Daybreaker said…

That’s a “shut up” and I will.
But first…

“That’s one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you’re a jew. Calling me paranoid is another. People think you’re a jew because you act like one.”

Based on that additional evidence, I retract my retraction. You definitely are paranoid about Jews and imagined Jews.

Tanstaafl said…

You definitely won’t be missed.

Rollory said…

“Daybreaker, let me be blunt. Your comments, here and on previous posts, are too long and too many. You seem to be trying to take charge of the discussion, to manage it. Stop it. That’s one of several indicators that gives me the distinct impression you’re a jew.”

Wow, that’s all it takes to avoid the accusation?

What alarmed me was that other commenters at Age of Treason I respected continued to comment as if Daybreaker’s ethnicity had been properly demonstrated. It looked unfair to me even though I had no means to ascertain if Daybreaker was telling the truth. I felt disappointed and promised to myself, silently, not to comment at that blog again. But…

Yesterday and today I received some emails from Tanstaafl asking me if I have Jewish blood in my veins! Apparently Tanstaafl is now trying to see a Jew under the wrong stone because he’s extremely upset about my recent posts criticizing his pet theory, “monocausalism.” However upset he may be, that is no excuse for his rudeness in his recent emails. Here there are some sentences of our email exchanges. Originally, he reacted as a result of my comments at Carolyn’s blog:

Tanstaafl wrote…

Could you tell me what is going on in your mind? Do you not recognize a criticism of your position? Are you not willing or able to defend it? Did you discover some marrano roots or something?

I replied…

If you don’t mind, I will respond in my blog, but first I must know if it’s OK with you to quote your email.

Tanstaafl replied…

Haven’t you been “responding” at your blog, and elsewhere, for months already? You can’t sum up whatever you have to say to me in an email?

I replied…

I can sum up: as far as I know I have zero J ancestry (a couple of old uncles are pretty obsessed with genealogy and I trust their research). And I am astounded that you may think of me having “marrano” ancestry.

Tanstaafl replied…

Why would this be astounding anyway, then or now? Were you not aware of the marrano element sprinkled throughout latin America?

What is astounding about the question considering this position you’ve taken? Being marrano would help explain it.

Tan

Did Tanstaafl imply that I lied in my previous email when I explicitly said that I have zero Jewish blood? Since I consider his rudeness a personal insult (not only is he apparently doubting my word, marrano also means “pig” in Spanish) now I don’t feel compelled to ask permission to publish his above emails. This said, another clarification is in order. In his last email he also said:

“You seem similarly single-minded in your drive even farther back into Roman history. Naturally I’m curious why excusing the jews has become so important to you, especially when your criticisms are aimed, at least in part, at me.”

Where the hell Tanstaafl got the idea that I am “excusing the jews”? My criticism of monocausalism has nothing to do with defending Jews and everything to do with accusing Whites of weakness—as Severus Niflson explained so well last Monday in Yeager’s show, the subject of my previous entry.

It now looks to me that Tanstaafl is the symmetrical opposite of Fjordman. Just as Fjordman gets mad every time I suggest at Gates of Vienna that Jews have been involved in the West’s crisis, so Tanstaafl gets mad when I suggest at other forums that Whites are involved too in the same crisis. Although Fjordie and Tan are ideological antipodes with regard to the Jewish Question, for them the whole question is “either or”, never—God forbid!—“both.” As Niflson put it in his audio reply to Tanstaafl:

“We can’t just go out there and mention the jews the jews the jews, yeah we can mention other people, but we can’t be childish and just think that it’s all to blame on other people and by magically addressing the issue of their existence that suddenly our character will become magically well.”

Niflson is not alone speaking out about the character flaws of present-day whites. If I wrote for this blog the articles criticizing monocausalism it’s because notable people moved my train of thought toward that direction after Michael O’Meara became disenchanted with the webzine Counter-Currents:

1) Tom Sunic for one has been openly dismissive of monocausalism in his radio podcasts.

2) Michael O’Meara’s best 2011 article at Counter-Currents dismissed monocausalism as something silly and quite stupid.

3) Many of Harold Covington’s radio rants convinced me that, although the subversive Jew must be named, something horribly wrong—“yellow dogs” is one term used by Covington—is going on within the character of today’s Whites.

4) Hunter Wallace has been contradicting monocausalism for at least two years at Occidental Dissent. Although I disagree with his claim that America is run by blacks (I believe that Jews are far more influential) I have quoted some of his recent pronouncements on monocausalism, which Wallace calls “single-cause hypothesis.”

5) The harshest diatribes against these weakened whites I’ve read comes from the pen of William Pierce: one of the best minds that the movement produced in the continent.

6) Even Kevin MacDonald himself doesn’t seem to support strict monocausalism!

The heavyweights convinced me that strict monocausalism is silly, and that besides naming the Jew we must also note our flaws that empowered the tribe since the French Revolution.

Perhaps the next step in Tanstaafl’s escalating paranoia will be to ask these notable people if they too have some Jewish blood—and when receiving answers in the negative then insisting in follow-up emails that they must, notwithstanding, be Jewish?

This is the second time that this happens to me since I became involved in the white nationalist movement by the end of 2009. The first time happened when I criticized the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Monocauslaist J Richards, who even blames the American Civil War on the Jews, claimed at Majority Rights that that alone was proof that I was Jew! (see my comment about it here). Again, since the Majority Rights admin never apologized for allowing Richards’ claim within the main text of an article, I promised never to comment at that site again.

Aside of these insults directed at me by mail and in the blogosphere the real issue is, Are other monocausalists paranoid too?

I would appreciate comments on this question. It seems to me that character flaws are far more endemic in the movement than what I previously thought.


Postscript

When I finished the above writing I learnt that Severus Niflson recorded a follow-up audio response to Tanstaafl even if this time Niflson didn’t name him. At Carolyn’s blog Niflson added a textual reply as well, of which I’ll quote a sentence:

Generally, my point is more on the side of practicality and honesty. The honest truth is that we have plenty of blame for our current situation, we could all make a list. This isn’t to remove blame on other people, but to be reasonable and forthright. Anybody who claims that all of our issues are to be laid on the feet of Jews is basically crossing the line into the realm of religion and faith, which in all honesty isn’t my favorite area since it crosses from rational into emotional.

Listen to Niflson here.

Greg Johnson’s second thoughts on Breivik

Originally titled:
“Breivik: A Strange New Respect”



My initial reaction to Anders Berhing Breivik’s killing spree on July 22, 2011 was largely anger, because I feared that his actions would harm not just Norwegian ethno-nationalism but white nationalism around the world.

I was relieved to learn that Breivik was a product of the Jewish-controlled Counter-Jihadist movement, which eschews racial nationalism and builds a case against the Muslim colonization of Europe on “Judeo-Christian” religious and cultural grounds. I was quite content to let them take the heat. But of course both our enemies and our chosen audience are none too concerned about such fine distinctions.

I also, frankly, took a visceral dislike to Breivik, who struck me as a creepy, narcissistic dork.

However, since Breivik went on trial last month, I have found a strange new respect for him. He has comported himself in a dignified manner and made a forceful, intelligent, well-argued case for his views and actions. His only real gaffe has been to insist on the existence of his make-believe Knights Templar organization.

By the end of the first week, the trial was being pulled from front pages around the world, for the simple reason that Breivik was making too much sense to too many people.

Breivik admits to the killings. But he demands to be acquitted on the grounds of what is essentially ethnic self-defense. Based on news coverage, machine translations of trial transcripts posted on the internet, particularly at Tanstaafl’s Age of Treason and Attack on the Labor Party, and our own Andrew Hamilton’s translation of Breivik’s Opening Statement on the second day of his trial, the rationale for Breivik’s attack and his defense is the following.

The Norwegian Labor Party and its allies in the press are primarily responsible for imposing non-white immigration on Norway and for stigmatizing and silencing Norwegian opposition. The Labor Party has imposed multiculturalism without a popular referendum. Their policies have led to the rape, murder, brutalization, and ethnic displacement of Norwegians by non-white immigrants—crimes to which the Norwegian establishment, including the media, has responded with lies, cover-ups, and psychological warfare against Norwegians, labeling them “racist” and “xenophobic” and denigrating their culture and traditions.

Since, moreover, these non-white immigrants are far more prolific than Norwegians, who are taxed to subsidize the invaders, the long term consequence of the Labor Party’s policies is the destruction of Norwegians as a distinct people.

Although Breivik does not, to my knowledge, use the term, this is actually genocide as defined by the United Nations, which holds that genocide is not merely the outright murder of a people, but the creation of conditions that make its long term survival as a people impossible.

Thus the Norwegian Labor Party and its allies have imposed a genocidal regime on Norway. And if there are any absolutes in the world today, the moral rectitude of resisting genocide is chief among them.

Under international law, the leaders of the Norwegian Labor Party, as well as their collaborators, should be removed from power and tried and punished for genocide. But dissenting voices about multiculturalism are silenced, so rational debate and peaceful political change are impossible. As Breivik says in his Opening Statement:

More and more cultural conservatives realize that the democratic struggle is pointless. It is not possible to win when no real freedom of speech exists. As more realize this in the coming decades it is a short path to the weapon. When a peaceful revolution is impossible, a violent revolution is the only possibility.

Thus, Breivik planned and executed his attacks. The purpose of the attacks appears to be fourfold.

First, Breivik wished to punish people in the Labor Party who were responsible for instituting anti-Norwegian genocide. He failed at this, because most of his victims were innocent bystanders, low-level functionaries, and youth activists.

Second, Breivik wished to publicize his 1518 page manifesto, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, a compendium of Counter-Jihadist writings. In this, he was wildly successful.

It is unfortunate, however, that his manifesto was such a vast and indigestible data-dump. If it had been a slender, concise work, like The Communist Manifesto or the Unabomber’s Industrial Society and Its Future, it would have had a far greater impact, because it would actually have been read by far more people.

Furthermore, although Breivik did not expect to survive his attack, he has used his imprisonment and trial to refine his message and garner new publicity. At this, he has been extremely successful.

Third, Breivik hoped to inspire imitators, perhaps even someone who will actually bring into existence the fictional Knights Templar order outlined in his manifesto. To my knowledge, he has not yet succeeded in this aim. But it seems inevitable, given enough time, that others will follow Breivik’s example.

Fourth, Breivik hoped to increase political tension and polarization, perhaps even provoking a crackdown on moderate nationalists, including the various democratic nationalist parties that are actually making some progress in Europe. This, of course, is what I fear the most, and I find it especially galling that Breivik intended this outcome. His rationale is that such a crackdown will radicalize nationalists to take up arms.

But if one is going to polarize the political field in order to empty the middle ground by forcing moderates to the extremes, one needs to give them somewhere else to go—somewhere real, not a fantasy order of Knights Templar elaborated with all the detail one would expect from someone who spent countless hours in online role-playing games. Otherwise, polarizing the field will only lead right-leaning moderates to give up entirely.

Furthermore, the existence of moderate shades of political opinion in nationalist circles actually provides channels of influence bridging the gap between the mainstream and the radical fringe. Radicals can actually utilize this moderate infrastructure to influence and radicalize people who might otherwise be unavailable to them.

Finally, although nationalists today labor under huge handicaps, we still enjoy some freedom of speech and association, and we benefit far more from them than we would from the possible radicalizing effects of a real crackdown.

Even though Breivik is stridently anti-Nazi and anti-Communist, his basic political model shares much with the Old Right and the Old Left. He hoped to create an armed, conspiratorial, revolutionary party (in the form of an initiatic knightly order) as a vehicle for halting and reversing the Islamic colonization of Europe.

From a New Right perspective, Breivik’s overall strategy is counter-productive. Our race will not be saved by armed struggle, but by the transformation of consciousness and culture. The Norwegian Labor Party did not come to power by force of arms, but because the New Left laid the intellectual and cultural groundwork. For the New Right to do the same, we need to maintain freedom of speech and association and learn to use the infrastructure of the political mainstream to spread our message outward and draw people and resources in a more radical direction.

It is necessary for the New Right to draw a bold, clear line between our approach and Old Right approaches like Breivik’s, because his approach does not compliment ours but fundamentally undermines it.

As for Breivik’s rationale for violence, he claims that indigenous peoples have special rights to their homelands, which entitle them to resist invaders with violence. It is a principle of ethnic self-defense. It is true that indigenous peoples have the right to ethnic self-defense. But surely that right extends to all peoples. All peoples have the right to resist genocide by all necessary means, including violence. Morally speaking, there is simply no valid argument against political violence per se, particularly in resistance to genocide. The justification of a particular act of violence depends entirely upon whether or not it actually is necessary to serve a moral end.

The weakness of Breivik’s case is not the moral premise, but the choice of his targets: If he had killed the actual leadership of Norway’s Labor Party, or the leaders of the Norwegian press—as opposed to people as young as 14—his defense might actually hold water. It is really shocking that Breivik put so much thought and planning into his acts, but didn’t think just a bit more about his targets. He chose the wrong targets, both from the point of view of their culpability and from the point of view of publicity, of propaganda of the deed.

Breivik was not indifferent to innocent life. But some “collateral damage,” i.e., killing of the innocent, is necessary and unavoidable even in just struggles. Breivik tried to minimize such deaths. His error was in ascribing culpability to young people whose only crime may have been to believe the multicultural propaganda they were steeped in from birth.

The leaders of the Norwegian Labor Party have taken one of Europe’s most homogeneous, harmonious, and happy societies and colonized it with hostile, fast-breeding aliens. Since racially, culturally, and religiously diverse peoples inevitably end up hating and killing one another when forced to coexist within the same system, the Norwegian Labor Party has responded to these tensions by hushing up both crimes and criticism. They created a boiling cauldron of social and psychological turmoil. Then they clamped a lid down on it. Then they were shocked—shocked!—that the whole thing exploded in their faces. First and foremost, Breivik needs to be seen as the inevitable consequence of the Labor Party’s policies.

The establishment obviously wished to use the Breivik trial to stigmatize ethnonationalist sentiments. But Breivik was making too much sense, so they are drawing a veil of censorship over the proceedings. In short, they are doing the very thing that made Breivik’s rampage necessary in the first place. Will they ever learn?

I grew up around a lot of Norwegian Americans in the Pacific Northwest. They are known for being taciturn and for not expressing their feelings. I still remember the only Norwegian joke I ever heard: “Did you hear the one about the Norwegian man who loved his wife so much that he almost told her?” Nordics don’t just keep back positive emotions, either. They are notorious for suffering a long time in silence, bottling up their anger, until, eventually, there is an explosion and someone goes Viking.

There will be more Breiviks. Of course the multiculturalists will merely blame Breivik for that. But the truth is that Breivik himself was merely a product of the hatred and violence that multiculturalism predictably brings. The Norwegian Labor Party is responsible for all of the violence caused by their policies, including the inevitable violence by Norwegians who get fed up and finally fight back. That includes Breivik. Primarily he needs to be seen as a victim of an evil system. (Breivik, of course, bears some responsibility for his acts. These were not crimes of passion but the products of lengthy, meticulous premeditation.)

Yet in the end, for all of his crimes and mistakes, I cannot judge Breivik too harshly. He is an awakened white man, and those are all too rare. He was a loyal Aryan, and ultimately that matters more than anything else. Yes, he committed crimes. But he committed them out of love.

Granted, when Breivik awakened he fled one form of Jewish ideology for another, namely the Counter-Jihad movement. But the whole reason that such false opposition groups exist is to deceive, deflect, and delay awakened whites. Still, many whites eventually see through them. And, as Breivik’s Opening Statement indicates, since his arrest, his thinking has evolved in the direction of explicit ethnonationalism. Given time, he might even evolve toward a consistent New Right outlook.

Breivik is going to spend many years in prison. If I could whisper to the Norns, this is the wyrd I would have them spin. I hope he continues his intellectual evolution in a New Right trajectory, renouncing violence and emphasizing intellectual and cultural strategies of change (the only strategies that will be available to him, in any case). I hope that he comments on Norwegian and international affairs and develops a following. Surely events in the coming decades will only argue in his favor. More and more Norwegians—and Europeans around the world—will come to sympathize with his outlook.

He will become a pundit, a guru, a cult figure. People will rifle through his garbage for relics. Women will want to bear his children. His face will end up on t-shirts, just like Che Guevara. And when he gets out of prison, who knows, perhaps Breivik will follow the path of rehabilitated ex-terrorists like Nelson Mandela and Menachem Begin. Perhaps he will end up a Prime Minister or a Nobel Peace Prize winner. He would not be the first to have used dynamite along the way.

Published in: on May 18, 2012 at 3:22 am  Comments (8)  

Mark Steyn

Steyn at the center, wearing a Kippah with Jews at Toronto



This month at Toronto, the famed author Mark Steyn said that Western society is complicit in a resurgence of anti-Semitism that may lead to a second Holocaust, for which humankind will have no excuses. “There is something profoundly wicked in the contortions that Europeans are willing to make with respect to their own complicated history with the Jewish people,” said Steyn. “We are on the verge of the biggest, most disgusting and evil event of all, in part because of the complicity of the West” (see the Jewish Tribune article where these statement and many other similar statements by Steyn on “anti-Semitism” have been recorded).

Either Steyn is playing the fool by willfully setting aside from his consciousness the vast pool of information about the role of the Jews in the ongoing Western collapse, or he has not heard this sort of info during his long career as an intellectual who presumably defends our civilization. There’s no third possibility.

Considering that Steyn said every recorded word at Toronto assuming that any anti-Semitic sentiment must be pathological, it is impossible to discuss what he said this month without basic information about the Jewish Problem.

If the Jewish Problem (1) does indeed exist, Steyn is either playing the fool or simply someone who has not heard of the Jewish Problem throughout his life, as stated above. On the other hand, if (2) the Jewish Problem is sheer white nationalist paranoia, Steyn’s recent statements make sense from the historical and ethical viewpoint. Everything has to do with these two possibilities.

The long quotation that below comprises most of this post—9,000+ words—conveys the idea that #1 is the right approach to understand Steyn’s mind.

Rather than a quotation it’s a series of excerpts that I typed directly from an academic work by Albert Lindemann, a Jewish scholar who specializes in anti-Semitism and acknowledges the reasons why Jews have been so disliked.

No ellipsis added between unquoted excerpts:


___________________________________________


Note of February 23, 2013. I have moved the long book quotation elsewhere.