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).

Jokers

Joker is a love letter to mass shooters’.

Andrew Anglin

Yesterday I said I would take a few days off but today Greg Johnson once again said the same thing about one of the latest Jokers on his list:

Finally, Balliet’s “solution” to his rage and alienation—killing innocent people—just makes the racial situation worse rather than better. We will surely learn a lot more about his ideas and affiliations in the coming months. But based on what we know now, we can say that his actions certainly resemble those of racially-motivated spree killers like Brenton Tarrant (whom he was obviously imitating), John Earnest, Robert Bowers, Dylann Roof, Anders Behring Breivik, Wade Michael Page, and Frazier Glenn Miller, all of whom are products of what I call “Old Right” thinking.

By the “Old Right,” I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one-party politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.

The fatal mistake with Johnson’s reasoning is to invent an animal that doesn’t exist, the ‘New Right’: a little movement in his head of clearly neochristian inspiration that will supposedly create the ethnostate without bloodshed.

I have already said it and it is worth iterating it: The correct point of view is not that of neochristians like Johnson, but that of the antichristian William Pierce who tried to dissuade Bob Mathews (as there are not even remotely enough soldiers to start a guerrilla war). But that doesn’t mean that, once Bob committed his premature act, Pierce condemned him (he didn’t).

William Pierce died at the beginning of the century. His legacy is so extraordinarily lucid—a true genius—that I will add my Monday entry, ‘Why the West Will Go Under’, one of his articles, as the Parting Word for the final pages of The Fair Race. Just compare Pierce’s ‘parting word’ with what Johnson writes today!

Also, I will add more pages from Pierce’s Who We Are to the section of that abbreviated book which also appears in The Fair Race. That means that the version that will be ready this month of The Fair Race, with these last two additions, has reached the top of 730 pages. (The Lulu printing press does not print more than 730 pages under a single cover, so I can’t add any more texts once more.)

What I want to convey is that the right message to deter people who want to fight is simple: Wait until the proper societal conditions arise! The real world is not like the movies in which Arthur Fleck (a poor guy destroyed by his mom) ignites a street revolution! Don’t act like Fleck believing that a legion of clowns will follow you, as you saw in Joker! Read instead the PDFs of The West’s Darkest Hour. Seek first how the kingdom’s dollar will crash and all these things will be given to you!

Simply put, the right path for would-be revolutionaries is the one Pierce showed us: Stop! But read The Turner Diaries. The path of the true Aryan is not the path of Johnson and his neochristian readers.

Published in: on October 10, 2019 at 2:41 pm  Comments (8)  

Joker, Molyneux and CC

Or:

An opportunity to present the trauma model
 

In recent years I don’t usually go to the movies. If there is something I say to my nephews when I see them it is that, in the media and the cinema, all the messages are bad. But yesterday I broke my habit after watching Stefan Molyneux’s video about the Joker movie.

I am glad that, as Molyneux confessed in one of his latest videos, eighty percent of his audience dropped last year. Is it because of his dishonesty about the JQ? Whatever caused the drop, from alt-lite to neo-Nazism, passing through white nationalism, Molyneux is the only notable personality in our underworld who has consistently talked about child abuse.

As the visitors of this blogsite know, I spent more decades investigating child abuse than the single decade I’ve dedicated to investigating the darkest hour in the West: whose report, The Fair Race, now appears as a free PDF. Since my oldest specialty is the subject of child abuse I must say that what Molyneux tells us in his one-hour video is, in general terms, correct.

The video revolves around the character Arthur Fleck / Joker, a mentally-ill man who dreams to become a stand-up comedian but so disregarded by a hellish and diverse Gotham City that decides to become a criminal. Curiously, the actor Joaquin Phoenix did not look to previous Joker actors for inspiration: he simply read some reports about political assassinations.

Hollywood movies usually lack psychological realism. For example, in the 1989 Jack Nicholson movie the Joker origin story simply falls into a vat of acid. The 2019 movie, on the other hand, gives its central character a plausible origin. So plausible that the film has been described as reminiscent of mass shootings in the US, and the incel community loved it. What’s more, some people from the establishment have expressed concern that Joker could inspire real-world violence.

In a moment of the first minutes of his video, Molyneux confesses that he has received horrific verbal abuse just for mentioning the naked facts of his own childhood, and that hostility toward those who were abused as children or teenagers is not uncommon if the adult victim dares to open his mouth.

At this point I would like to distinguish between dysfunctional parents and schizogenic parents, that is, parents who literally murder their children’s souls. While almost everyone I know comes from family dysfunction in one way or another, the category of schizogenic parents simply does not exist in our society. Since the 1950s the Big Pharma has ensured that civil society does not find out that there is a trauma model to understand the mental disorder that competes with its profitable medical model.

But what does all this have to do with the recent film Joker? As can be deduced from Molyneux’s video, and regardless of the sinister motivation of its Jewish creators, the film could be used, by us, to present the trauma model to the public. I was the one who started this Wikipedia article on the trauma model, an academic text that appeals to the left hemisphere of our brains. He who wants to delve deeper into this research line, and in a more literary way, can read my book Day of Wrath. On the other hand, he who prefers a personal testimony that presents the trauma model appealing to our right hemisphere could read John Modrow’s touching autobiography, How to Become a Schizophrenic.

Furthermore, he who is unwilling even to read any the above literature, but willing to educate himself on the subject having some fun, could see the films Shine (1996), Monster (2003), The Piano Teacher (2001) and even Artificial Intelligence by Spielberg, which can be used to grasp what proponents of the trauma model call ‘the problem of attachment to the perpetrator’.

Although it may seem incredible, sometimes fairy tales portray the destructive interaction of parents with their children. In almost all fairy tales, including modern fairy tales like Kubrick/Spielberg’s A.I. or Harry Potter, the parental figure is substituted so as not to touch it directly. In the case of the Potter series the abusers are Harry’s uncle and aunt. As to David, the child robot in A.I., obviously he had no biological parents but Monica functions like a substitute mother. But sometimes the storyteller sneaks parents directly into the story as the villains who abandon their children (for example in Tom Thumb).

But there are more serious forms of abuse than abandoning your child in the woods, what also happened to David. What Molyneux says about not forgiving schizogenic parents is true. I would go as far as to claim that to forgive such parents is the most toxic thing for the mental health of the victim. Mine is an opposed claim to what the establishment wants us to believe.

Why is the forgiveness that religionists and therapists preach so toxic? Because it is the abusive parents and society the ones who are currently murdering young souls. As the Armenian lawyer said in Spotlight, which won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2015: ‘This city, these people [Boston people] are making the rest of us feel like we don’t belong. But they’re no better than us. Look at how they treat their children. Mark my words, Mr. Rezendes [another Armenian]: If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one’ (emphasis added).

For the victim, unilaterally forgiving the perpetrator or a society that never accepts its soul-murdering sins is simply a betrayal of oneself and the other adult victims, now suffering from mental stress and even disorders.

In addition to the first minutes of Molyneux’s video, using as a paradigm the Joker’s abusive interaction with his mother Penny in Gotham City, Molyneux advances ideas analogous to what I have known for a long time. Watch also the segments after minute 35 of his video: how female evil is still taboo in the film industry.

It is curious to note the chasm between those who, like Molyneux and I, have investigated child abuse due to our past, and those who did not have such destructive parenting.

Greg Johnson for example is a Batfan. In his recent review of Joker, which he writes under the penname of Trevor Lynch, Johnson prefers Heath Ledger’s Joker in the 2008 The Dark Knight than the Joker of the movie released this month. Johnson expresses very derogatory of this latest Joker: ‘You’d want to squash him like a bug’. ‘Ledger’s Joker launched a million memes, both because of his character and his lines. Phoenix’s Joker will have no such influence. He’s a pathetic nobody with nothing to say’. ‘Arthur [the Joker] is entirely absorbed in self-pity’. ‘Joker is a boring movie about a disgusting loser’.

Well, it didn’t look boring to me… But the commenters on Counter-Currents who opined about Johnson’s review said very similar things: ‘People like him deserve to get left behind by society, and the true tragedy of this movie is that successful, well-adjusted men like Thomas Wayne insist on trying to love the Arthur Flecks of the world and take care of them’. Really? The conservative commenter also said: ‘The defects like Arthur would be put in mental asylums and [eugenically] sterilized’. [1]

Such commenters remind me that, in the movie, Thomas Wayne, the billionaire father of the future Batman, labels those Gotham residents envious of the wealthy as ‘clowns’, not only the Joker. I don’t know how many viewers enjoyed the moment when, by the end of the movie, a rioter corners the Wayne family in an alley and murders Thomas and his wife sparing the child Bruce. Another commenter said: ‘One of the great things about Heath Ledger’s Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight is that he does not have an origin story’.

I dare not judge the Marvel universe as I feel deeply revolted by it. But in the real world, isn’t it good to know, say, the psychopathological motivations of those women in the Charles Manson family? But the commenters’ lack of elemental compassion is even noticeable about the previous Joker represented by Heath Ledger, an actor that incidentally has already passed away. In one of the dialogues the now dead Joker explains his scars. He said that his father ‘comes at me with a knife. “Why so serious?” He sticks a blade in my mouth. “Let’s put a smile on that face”.’

This father strikes me as ‘soul murderer’. Note this other phrase from the CC commenter: ‘Arthur [the Joker who’s alive] is far too damaged for any regular person to identify with him’.

How will a normie commenter identify with him if only one percent (or less) of Westerners have endured schizogenic parents?

Incidentally, last night, as I watched the psychological thriller, there were times when I laughed (as the character does in the film) when the audience was serious and nobody laughed. That happened to me, yesterday, in the climax of the film when the Joker kills the establishment character that Robert de Niro represented.

As I said, I usually don’t go to the movies now. But decades ago the same phenomenon occurred to me with some films by Luis Buñuel, whom I met personally, in which nobody laughed. It also happened to me when I watched Dr. Strangelove by Kubrick on the big screen. I laughed at the black humour in which the nuclear extermination of humanity was at stake while the hundreds of people watching the movie with me were quiet in the theatre. Only when I read a Kubrick biography by Vincent Lobrutto did I find out that Kubrick had a very black sense of humour. Then did I understand me and the non-laugher spectators of Dr. Strangelove!

Joker ends when Arthur laughs and tells a psychiatrist that she would not understand the joke…

_____________

[1] In the comments section on Joker in Counter-Currents Johnson shows how ignorant he is about psychiatry: a supposed branch of medicine with as little scientific basis as parapsychology or the study of UFOs, as shown in my writings (for example: here). Johnson wrote ‘If Arthur is adopted then his mental illness cannot be inherited from this mother’. This is a credulity stance regarding the psychiatric allegations that mental illness is genetic. Apparently, Johnson forgot what I said in one of my articles in which he himself corrected my syntax (see this piece which appears in my Hojas Susurrantes).

Hitler in your living room

Pages 528-532 of the forthcoming edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour:

When I read Hitler’s Table Talk, what impressed me most was to discover that uncle Adolf was a very cultured man who talked about ancient history (including Julian the Apostate), architecture, painting, music and even criticised Christianity more than Jewry. He also predicted that the future of the Reich would be vegetarian. Alas, in the pro-white forums neo-Nazi Christians cannot believe that Hitler’s after-dinner conversations are genuine. For this reason, I would like to quote a commenter who used to sign under the pseudonym of Jack Frost in the webzine of Kevin MacDonald. This is what Frost said in a discussion thread of The Occidental Observer on August 4, 2015:

David Irving has considerable expertise in this matter, and he says they’re genuine. Likewise Albert Speer, who was present at some of these dinner talks, attests to them in his memoirs. But also, perhaps even more convincing, the talks are the blindingly original insights of a true master.

These views [critical] of Christianity are not derivative of anyone else’s opinions, certainly not Schopenhauer’s, and while at odds with certain of his public statements, are quite consistent with other things known about Hitler, particularly his anti-Semitism. Surely a forger wouldn’t have gone this route. In the first place, he would have had to do original thinking that is quite uncharacteristic of forgers, and in the second place an ordinary forger would have been careful not to make any statements that were inconsistent with other things known to have been said or written by Hitler. Their very originality speaks to their veracity. Of course, this can be turned around. People who want to believe Hitler was actually a Christian disingenuously ask why, if this was his real opinion, didn’t he put it in Mein Kampf or mention it in any of his public speeches?

But the answer is obvious. Hitler was a politician, and had to be all things to all people. No politician with such views could have been open about them in a Christian nation. Accordingly, to Christians of his day, he appeared to be a Christian. Such hypocrisy was more or less built into the task he had set for himself.

David Irving, with whom I came to exchange some correspondence, has been the foremost historian about Hitler and the Third Reich. Unlike the PC historians about WW2, Irving can see the ‘historical Hitler’ in contrast to the fictional ‘Hitler of dogma’ that the System advertises. Below I quote his opinion on the book in question. It appeared in David Irving’s website, posted on January 1, 2004:

Hitler’s Table Talk is the product of his lunch- and supper-time conversations in his private circle from 1941 to 1944. The transcripts are genuine. (Ignore the 1945 “transcripts” published by Trevor-Roper in the 1950s as Hitler’s Last Testament—they are fake.)

The table talk notes were originally taken by Heinrich Heim, the adjutant of Martin Bormann, who attended these meals at an adjacent table and took notes. (Later Henry Picker took over the job.) Afterwards Heim immediately typed up these records, which Bormann signed as accurate.

François Genoud purchased the files of transcripts from Bormann’s widow just after the war, along with the handwritten letters which she and the Reichsleiter had exchanged.

For forty thousand pounds—paid half to Genoud and half to Hitler’s sister Paula—George Weidenfeld, an Austrian Jewish publisher who had emigrated to London, bought the rights and issued an English translation in about 1949.

For forty years or more no German original was published, as Genoud told me that he feared losing the copyright control that he exercised on them. I have seen the original pages, and they are signed by Bormann.

They were expertly, and literately, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, though with a few (a very few) odd interpolations of short sentences which don’t exist in the original—the translator evidently felt justified in such insertions, to make the context plain… Weidenfeld’s translator also took liberties with translating words like Schrecken, which he translated as “rumour” in the sense of “scare-story”.

The Table Talks’ content is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.

Hitler’s Table Talk is better than Mein Kamp as, according to Irving, with the consent of Hitler some editors added to Mein Kamp several chapters that the Führer never wrote. While Mein Kamp was a bestseller for the German people, the unadulterated Hitler will not be discovered in it.

George Lincoln Rockwell was a man of a generation infinitely less sick than ours. When he was killed I had just turned nine. Three decades later, when a new term, ‘white nationalism’ began to be heard on the internet, the typical American racist had already deviated from the path of Commander Rockwell to a more politically correct one.

Remember, the history of the white man carries enormous inertia. In addition to the MacDonald webzine, there is another that is considered one of the pillars of alt-right publishing, Greg Johnson’s Counter-Currents. Although Johnson promotes the creation of an ethnostate his webzine exemplifies what we say about the historical inertia that, once Rockwell and William Pierce died, reversed back white conscience to neo-Christian paths. Johnson, who in 2010 still taught homilies in a church in San Francisco, rejects Nordicism and has come to say: ‘I am interested in European preservationism, and “white” to me just means “European,” which includes a whole range of skin tones, from the whitest white to brown’ (posted as a comment in his webzine on the thread about ‘Racial Purity, Ethnic Genetic Interests, and the Cobb Case’ on November 18, 2013 at 4:14 pm). As we shall see in the next section, this is exactly the sort of flawed worldview that moves me to say that white nationalists are committing ethnosuicide. The following is what Guillaume Durocher, one of the writers who contribute to Counter-Currents, wrote in ‘Understanding Hitler and the Third Reich’ published on April 20, 2016:

Hitler’s Table Talk. This big book, as far as I am concerned, is the ultimate Hitler book. Of course, we have the usual caveats: We have no guarantee that these recordings of Hitler’s private conversations, primarily taken between the invasion of Russia and the end of 1942, are completely accurate. The translation edited by Hugh-Trevor Roper is uncertain: David Irving claims it is good, mainstream historians have said it is actually artlessly translated from a previous French translation (!), which is actually an impression I distinctly had reading the book. Nonetheless, themes of these private conversations recur enough that the gist is clear and accepted by both mainstream and revisionist historians.

I cannot summarize such a book here, but suffice to say that Hitler had an awesome scientific and elitist vision, a truly epic conception of history and politics in which he was a leading character, and a grandiose and terrible project against decadence and for excellence (as he saw it). All this merits real engagement rather than crude caricature. Hitler’s ruthless utilitarianism (his relations with other peoples can be summed up as following: Either fighting-comrades or expendable subjects) and his absurd exclusion of Slavdom from “Europe” in effect make him politically untouchable, above and beyond Allied or Hollywoodian propaganda.

With this book, everyone can reach in to find the Hitler behind the myth. For added effect, imagine Hitler speaking as he does in our only known recording of his private conversations, with Marshal of Finland Carl Gustav Mannerheim. And now you’ve Hitler in your living room…

This quote by Durocher portrays not only the importance of the book of shorthand transcripts of Hitler’s monologues: it also portrays the typical intellectual of white nationalism. They are de facto conservatives with racialised tones: fellows that bear no resemblance to the man we saw in Sparta, Republican Rome, the Berserkers or the Third Reich. Like MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer, Counter-Currents exemplifies the feminisation of racialism since the times when Rockwell tried to apply the National Socialist model in America.

Hitler’s ‘absurd exclusion of Slavdom from Europe’? As we saw in the history of the white race of Pierce, originally, Celt, German, Balt, and Slav were indistinguishably Nordic. But the Slavs became mongrelised after the genocidal Asian invasions: one of the darkest hours for the fair race. We must also remember what the SS pamphlet pointed out regarding the differences between a Russian village in fertile Ukraine compared to a German farm on land wrested from the sea. Neither Durocher nor his editor or the alt-right folks would ever make such distinctions! A fanatic form of egalitarianism reigns among them as to Caucasian peoples. Nor would they say that a country that succumbs to Jewish Bolshevism deserves to be conquered by a nation, in every sense of the word, more Aryan: a nation where the archetype of the eternal masculine was still active!

The following quotes from Hitler’s first two after-dinner conversations in Hitler’s Table Talk are an invitation for the reader to acquire a copy of the book to know the real Hitler. The book is also an invitation to see how Aryan men who resurrect the archetype of the eternal masculine in our age should think.

Advice to would-be revolutionaries

In his last article against white nationalist terrorism, Greg Johnson said: ‘Yes, Crusius did something evil…’ Despite claims to the contrary, self-styled secular Johnson, who used to deliver Christian homilies in a San Francisco church, has never given up Christian ethics:

By the “Old Right,” I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one party-politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide.

This was the way forward for every triumphant movement, including the conquests of Rome, Christianity, Islam, the Iberian conquests in the Americas and communism. What is Johnson suggesting here? That conquest is possible through purely pacifist means?

Today’s Old Right scene is rife with fantasies of race war, lone-wolf attacks on non-whites, and heroic last stands that end in a hail of police bullets. Intelligent and honorable people have emerged from this milieu. But there have been more than a few spree-killers as well. This kind of violence is worse than a crime. It is a mistake. It does nothing to advance our cause and much to set us back.

Inspiring books like the novels of Pierce and Covington are important. But just as Pierce tried to dissuade Bob Mathews, I would try to dissuade would-be revolutionaries of doing something premature. Mathews could have done much more harm to the System if he stayed alive.

(1) We must be alert to the signs of mental instability and inclinations toward violence and rigorously screen out such people, (2) we need to draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches, and (3) if anyone makes concrete threats of committing such acts in our circles, we need to be the ones to call the police.

Pierce tried to dissuade Matthews but he didn’t call the police. Obviously, the moral standards of Pierce and Johnson are different.

But Johnson has a point. In fact, I would like to add something about my recent post challenging Charles Manson fans to tell me in what way Manson’s actions are good for the 14 words.

The only major commenter who has recently tried to rationalise Manson’s behaviour is Robert Morgan on Unz Review. A visitor to this site, Adunai, has recently tried to discuss with Morgan on that site. Morgan seems to believe that Manson’s motivations were to try to create a racial war in the United States. According to two sources in the Wikipedia article about Manson, this allegation has been questioned. Since Wikipedia is anti-white, if Manson had really been an inveterate racist his racism would have been fully supported by good sources in that article.

Here is my hypothesis as to why intelligent racists like Morgan and others are attracted to such failed figures as Manson: Many of them—as Manson himself—have suffered hell like the one I suffered as a teenager. But precisely because I have written 1,600 pages in three books trying to understand what the hell happened in my life, a painful literary adventure started in 1988 that ended this year, I’m not hanging on spurious heroes. Rather, I try to help white nationalism in a very different way.

I refer to a profound diagnosis of the darkest hour in the West. The monocausal diagnosis accepted in white nationalism is, in my opinion, myopic: the Jews are responsible. I do not deny the JQ. I simply expand it into the CQ: the Judeo-Christian question. That is to say: I still believe that the theoretical basis of, say, a MacDonald on the group survival strategy of Jewry is correct. What I add to MacDonald’s myopic perspective is the meta-perspective that whites are infected with Judeo-Christian axiology. A perfect example of such axiological infection is Johnson’s use of the word ‘evil’ above (MacDonald himself has said that white nationalism is not about conquering, for instance, Mexico).

So, while I agree with Johnson that it is not time to jump into the revolution, I disagree with the Christian and Neochristian mindset that prevails in white nationalism and the alt-right.

My contribution to the movement is basically axiological. As long as they do not revalue their values, the Judeo-Christian system will continue to beat them. Johnson is right that it is not yet time for politics but for metapolitics. What he and the others fail to understand is that they have to throw away all residue of love for the Other if they want to recover the West.

This is my advice to the desperate man who wants to do revolutionary politics today instead of patient metapolitics: read The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour that appears on the sidebar. If you don’t want to buy it, read the articles on this site where all the content of that book appears. As the last line in the Hamlet play says, ‘The rest is silence’.

White nationalists discuss GoT

Or: Why the subtitle of this site is
‘Under the Heart Tree of Bran the Broken’

I had written a supposedly ‘last word’ on Game of Thrones this Monday but Fróði Midjord, Greg Johnson, John Morgan, and Ramz Paul discussed the grand finale (YouTube video: here). See also the comments on Counter-Currents about the video (here). Under the penname of Trevor Lynch, Johnson expanded his critique on Unz Review:

Brandon, we are told, has the best story, and that qualifies him to rule. Except he doesn’t have the best story, but nobody objects to that. And why is having the best story a qualification to rule anyway? But nobody objects to that either. Beyond that, Brandon, is possessed by a figure known as the Three-Eyed Raven, who seems to know everything, especially about the past. But knowledge is not wisdom, and even wisdom is not leadership. So while Bran might be useful to keep around for information, he is not qualified to be king. But nobody thinks of this, and nobody objects.

First of all, Johnson ignores after minute 23 of the ‘round table’ video that the idea of crowning Bran came from George R.R. Martin himself, as revealed very recently by insiders:

Well, it looks like the finale twist did come from George R.R. Martin. This was confirmed by the actor, Issac Hempstead Wright, who portrays Bran Stark on Game of Thrones. During an interview, Issac says, D&D told him two big details about his character that came directly from the author himself. Unless he changes his mind, it does look like Bran Stark will become the king in the A Song of Ice and Fire series as well.

In the round table, Johnson called the Bran symbol ‘The dumbest story’ and Midjord, the host of the show, added mockingly: ‘The most boring story’. Obviously, these guys have not watched an insightful video that predicted why Bran would be king before the finale was premiered:

I have also called the attention to the same vlogger’s video, ‘The Power of Stories: How Bran the Broken was always the ending’, recorded after the finale. I don’t want to transcribe what the vlogger says to the written word. But the fact that the present subtitle of this site refers to Bran moves me to respond to those white nationalists who completely missed Martin’s point.

 
Subtitle explanation

Sam: Why? What does he [the Night King] want?

Bran: An endless night. He wants to erase this world. And I am its memory.

Sam: That’s what Death is, isn’t it? Forgetting. Being forgotten. If we forget what we have been or what we’ve done, we are not men anymore; just animals. Your memories don’t come from books. Your stories aren’t just stories. If I wanted to erase the world of men I would start with you.

Those who haven’t understood the ending have probably missed the above dialogue in the second episode of the last season. Bran’s stories are no mere adventures, but stories that mark the destinies of the white peoples.

See my recent articles on foundational myths to understand what I mean, including the story of Romulus stolen by Mark the Evangelist to axiologically invert the Roman foundation myth (in my post yesterday).

Greg Johnson’s plan

by Robert Morgan

Greg Johnson evidently wants to undo and reverse the trend toward globalization, since mixing and trans-locating populations is part of that. Like flying to the moon by flapping your arms, it’s deceptively simple in concept, yet equally impossible. All we need to do, he says, is provide each people with a homeland and then get them to voluntarily move there.

But the devil is in the details. What do you do if they refuse to go? Violence is off the table, according to Greg. So now what? Even if some agree, who pays for relocating them? What about foreign ownership of another nation’s real estate or corporations? The foreigners and racial aliens may not want to sell. Shall we then “make them an offer they can’t refuse”? That would be a good way to start a war, but Johnson says all of this must happen peacefully. How?

And what about white ownership of vital, scarce resources in foreign countries that are crucial to our own self interest? Shall we permit that only to ourselves? Somehow I doubt other countries or races would think that is fair. This list of questions could be extended indefinitely, because a global economy truly is a Gordian knot, with everything intricately tied together in such a way as to be impossible to unravel.

It would take, in essence, a cultural and financial revolution; something that would change human nature as it has been since civilization began. People would have to value preserving race over their own individual success and pleasure. Not just pay it lip service, but actually suffer a great deal to achieve it. Further, they’d have to admit that they’ve been fools all along to think that races could actually get along together.

Psychologically, it would be impossible. For whites, the Christian religion as it currently is interpreted by more than 99.9% of Christians would have to be tossed out along with its cultural residue, for Christianity has triumphed in the West to such an extent that even most atheists nowadays subscribe to Christian moral tenets such as the so-called brotherhood of man. Besides, if race is now the highest value, how could the worship of the racial Other proceed?

Call me a pessimist, but I don’t see any of this happening. It would be easier to crash technological civilization completely than to attempt to revise it along these lines. Johnson’s plan of peaceful separation just won’t work.

Published in: on May 1, 2019 at 11:48 am  Comments (9)  

WN is a Club for Women

Or:

Michael O’Meara vs. Greg Johnson

I was waiting at VNN Forum for another commenter to say something about Greg Johnson’s article, ‘Against White Nationalist Terrorism’, but nowadays there is not much discussion in Linder’s forum. It’s a shame because Johnson exercises moderation on Counter-Currents, so a real opposition to his pacifism will not be found in the comments section of his webzine.

The way to respond to Johnson is actually the simplest.

We live in the darkest hour for the white race since prehistory.

This means that almost one hundred percent of whites are degenerate, including those who should be the protectors of white women and children, Aryan men.

As David Lane said in his open letter to a dead race, if there are not 30,000 warriors hiding for some reason, the white race is lost. That means that our attitude must be Revolutionary, not reactionary. White nationalism and the Alt-Right are reactionary. It is a movement basically of women, not of men, in the sense of feminized western males, and therefore inefficient. If all WN forums we see today were actually run by women for women’s readership, I would not complain, but only males can actually defend them and their children.

That does not mean that, as men we are, we have to throw ourselves recklessly for the Revolution.

It just means that we should think like Revolutionaries.

If there were those 30,000 of whom Lane spoke, The Turner Diaries would have already replaced the Bible for these 30,000 men (similar to the 300 Spartans in real history).

But since the 30,000 are missing, the 3 warriors that want to take The Turner Diaries to the real world have to do some metapolitics to convince the other 29,997 to join the Revolution. And the best way to do that is to attack the Alt-Right as I’ve been doing in my latest articles, ‘Fuck white nationalism!’ and ‘On picketing WN meetings’.

Didn’t Norman Spear say that a Revolution needs only 3 percent of Aryan males convinced of the cause? So the job is to convince them by making fun of the Club for Women.

Johnson’s mistake is the mistake of all the degenerate bourgeois of the Alt-Right who believe that it is possible to save the race without endangering their lives.

But the trick is to tell the potential Revolutionaries that it is not yet time for fighting in the real world, as Revolutionaries are far from reaching 3 percent of Aryans.

The work of these cultured thugs that still can’t get out of the trenches is to channel our hatred for the ethnocidal System in unmasking these feminized bourgeois so that the young may join ranks with the Revolutionary cause, far from the forums for women.

It may seem unlikely what I am going to say, but if I had a way to contact these would-be Revolutionaries, I would say the same thing that William Pierce told Bob Mathews: that his plans for immediate action are premature.

We have to wait for the dollar to tank. These experts recognise that we live in an economic bubble that will soon ‘pop’, as can be heard from their lips at the end of the video.

Even after the American dollar tanks we have to wait a while until we reach 3% of Aryan males who are willing to fight.

Meanwhile, as I said, the task is to convince young people that white nationalism is a Club for Women, as it is impossible to seize power without a fight in a West that doesn’t even allow us to speak in public. Only the United States has the First Amendment, but even that country has an extralegal system of penalties to silence the dissident, as seen in Silicon Valley, ADL, SPLC and let’s not talk about what happened on my birthday in Charlottesville.

Yes, ‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable’ (John F. Kennedy) but today’s warriors must hold their fire because of what happened to Mathews. But the spirit of Mathews, not Johnson’s, is the one that will eventually save the race.

It is curious that the best author of original texts that Johnson has published, Michael O’Meara, finishes his book—the first book that Counter-Currents has published—with a call to arms.

Although O’Meara has not rushed like Mathews, in a discussion forum before retiring from white nationalism he said he would prepare for Revolutionary action.

That is the correct attitude.

It is time to troll the Club for Women called white nationalism in order to recruit the real men from its ranks.

Remember: the goal is three percent among the Aryan males of a nation. Some would say that one percent is enough, insofar the other two percent are blind followers of hardcore leaders.

Greg Johnson’s pacifism

I just flipped through yesterday’s article ‘Against White Nationalist Terrorism’ because Johnson repeats his arguments in Sweden, that Linder and others already rebutted (see my excerpts: here).

Yes, we are against right-wing terrorism, because the enemy who is literally exterminating our people from Earth through genocide is going to be defeated with movie/tv reviews, intelligent essays about Heidegger and memes!

In the post I erroneously attributed this quote to Linder. It was actually penned by Joseph Curwen.

Published in: on April 18, 2019 at 9:52 am  Comments (3)  

Doves

It is interesting that, after the 20th minute of this Q & A session in Stockholm a year ago, Greg Johnson answered a question about the repatriation of non-whites in a diametrically opposite way to The Turner Diaries, and that in the final minute of the video Jared Taylor said he’s located at the ultra-left in racialist circles regarding hatred: a feeling he disapproves.

Interestingly, it was this same Taylor, who says he doesn’t even hate the invaders from the south of the Rio Grande, whom the European Union banned a few days ago from entering the same conference in Stockholm that was held this year…

What kind of man has the best chance of regaining their lands: hawks like Pierce and Linder or doves like Johnson and Taylor?

Published in: on April 4, 2019 at 11:20 pm  Comments (5)