The new idiots

‘Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets’ said Napoleon Bonaparte.

And yet this idiot emancipated the Jews, who thanks to such ‘emancipation’ not only took over four French newspapers, but most of the media throughout the West!

Presently the new idiots are the Americans. As Jake has just commented on this site, ‘Many Americans view themselves through the lens of the Old Testament. By striking down the Hebrews, Hitler cut into the heart of America. Such a deep wound explains why many otherwise racist Americans hate National Socialism’.

Which is why I no longer visit their sites…

Published in: on April 30, 2020 at 10:33 pm  Comments (2)  

La Blouse Roumaine


Left, The Romanian Blouse by Nicolae Grigorescu (1838-1907).

I understand better and better why almost no white advocate values Pierce’s book, which opened my eyes to the real history of the West. And I’m not just referring to this recent exchange with a commenter. I am also referring to what is said outside this site.

In this recent conversation between an American and a Romanian we see the causes. Both are Christians and both are clueless about the double aetiology of the dark hour of Westerners: their religion and how WW2 ended up enthroning the gospels’ suicidal message, even in the secular world.

The American and the Romanian speak of how the Jews took over the US, but they fail to clarify how it was that the Americans so easily sold their souls to the devil. For example, Hunter Wallace concedes that southerners lost power after the American Civil War, and that the Yankees in turn ceded power to Jews in the decades from the 1920s to the 1940s. But not a word did he say, nor did his interviewer, that there was a war both ideological and of blood and fire against Jewry in those decades.

Their blindness has to do with Christianity. A few years ago I wondered why Solzhenitsyn, whom I quoted in my post yesterday, ‘Weirwood tree’, did not support Nazism if he wanted so badly to liquidate the Soviet state. Some years ago an Englishman answered me, on this site, that it was due to Solzhenitsyn’s religion (the same religion of the Romanian girl).

After 1:20 the Romanian, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, said: ‘We will have a strong Christian revival’ and added: ‘Christianity is part of who we are’. Let’s compare it with what is said in Who We Are (new visitors to this blog would do well to read it).

Only later did they start talking about the aftermaths of the Chinese virus, without realising that the dollar is going to fall. But that’s another song.

Robert ‘S.’ Hartman revisited

On Sunday I wrote ‘On Robert S. Hartman’ but only to this day a German commenter informed me that Robert Schirokauer Hartman was Jewish on his father’s side.

For the couple of years that my father treated Hartman we did not learn that he was half-Jew, which explains Hartman’s attitude towards his native Germany, and why he fled Nazi Germany.

I was so shocked that Hartman’s father was Jewish, that today I started a ‘stub article’ (short article in need of expansion) on Metapedia about him. Hopefully, other editors will expand the article. On the Metapedia talk page I explained what motivated me to start that page.

Published in: on April 4, 2020 at 1:04 pm  Comments (6)  

Very important subject

I am perfectly aware that virtually all people of white nationalism, or even the alt-lite, are unaware of the psychic havoc caused by abusive parents. The exception, as I have said more than once, is Stefan Molyneux as we saw not long ago in his review of Joker.

What bothers me is that Molyneux’s mother is Jewish, and one would expect a non-Jew of the alt-lite or white nationalism to venture into a subject that I consider fundamental: the actual aetiology of mental illness (as opposed to the psychiatric lies that we hear in the universities).

If the Aryan world shakes off all Jewish influence, beginning of course with a rejection of Christianity and its secular offshoots, over time it will ‘translate’, into Aryan language, the most relevant findings of Jews on the trauma model of mental disorders. In the introduction to my work for a racialist audience I recently wrote for this site:

For now, suffice it to say that Alice Miller continued to mention Hitler under the influence of the official narrative in almost all of her texts, so I currently do not recommend any of her books. It is not that I have repudiated Miller’s findings: a Jewess who, although she suffered as a child in the Warsaw Ghetto, after changing her Jewish surname she never wanted to return to the shelter of her mother’s religion. But I must say that Miller’s psycho-biographical analysis of Hitler is based on the great lie of our times. The Swiss psychologist never considered such elemental issues as the fact that the Holocaust of millions of Ukrainians, largely perpetrated by Bolshevik Jews, caused the legitimate fear, and eventual reaction, of the German state.

But that is a separate matter. The issue that concerns us in Whispering Leaves is very different: the Dantesque hell that some parents put their children in: something that Miller got right.

The issue of abusive parents is not only taboo in all societies, as almost no one connects the dots between mental disorders and poor childrearing. Like the racial issue or the WWII theme, as to mental health the values have been completely reversed.

For example, two years ago, in March 2018, a commenter told me: ‘I have since forgiven my father and every other person of note in my life needing forgiveness’. But forgiveness is a Christian doctrine, although many secular psychotherapists also subscribe such unhealthy way of treating their patients. I answered: ‘I cannot speak for you because I ignore the full story. Generally, for an adult child to forgive a parent who never recognised his fault is psychological suicide. Alice Miller said that a child can excuse his parents, if they in their turn are prepared to recognise and admit to their failures. But the demand for forgiveness that we often encounter can pose a danger for healing. These are some quotable quotes from her’:

• It is the resentment of the past, we are told, that is making us ill. In those by now familiar groups in which addicts and their relations go into therapy together, the following belief is invariably expressed. Only when you have forgiven your parents for everything they did to you can you get well. Even if both your parents were alcoholic, even if they mistreated, confused, exploited, beat, and totally overloaded you, you must forgive.

• The majority of therapists work under the influence of destructive interpretations culled from both Western and Oriental religions, which preach forgiveness to the once-mistreated child. Thereby, they create a new vicious circle for people who, from their earliest years, have been caught in the vicious circle of pedagogy. For forgiveness does not resolve latent hatred and self-hatred but rather covers them up in a very dangerous way.

• In my own therapy it was my experience that it was precisely the opposite of forgiveness —namely, rebellion against mistreatment suffered, the recognition and condemnation of my parents’ destructive opinions and actions, and the articulation of my own needs— that ultimately freed me from the past.

• By refusing to forgive, I give up all illusions. Why should I forgive, when no one is asking me to? I mean, my parents refuse to understand and to know what they did to me. So why should I go on trying to understand and forgive my parents and whatever happened in their childhood, with things like psychoanalysis and transactional analysis? What’s the use? Whom does it help? It doesn’t help my parents to see the truth. But it does prevent me from experiencing my feelings, the feelings that would give me access to the truth. But under the bell-jar of forgiveness, feelings cannot and may not blossom freely.

• I cannot conceive of a society in which children are not mistreated, but respected and lovingly cared for, that would develop an ideology of forgiveness for incomprehensible cruelties. This ideology is indivisible with the command “Thou shalt not be aware” [of the cruelty your parents inflicted to you] and with the repetition of that cruelty on the next generation.

I’ve added italics in the above quotations.

Again, I am not asking my audience to read Miller. But my writings translate, and expand considerably, her findings for an Aryan audience. It is a very important subject for the simple reason that mental health matters, and racialists who have had mental issues are generally clueless about what caused them.

Poisonous 1917

The Hollywood movie 1917, which I saw today, directed, co-written and produced by Sam Mendes, whose mother is Jewish, is poison to the Aryan race.

Of the most notable contemporary racialists, Richard Spencer’s voice is the least bad. I’m not saying it’s a good voice: it’s just the least bad. Let us listen, then, what together with Hollywood buff Mark, who never shows his face, Spencer said yesterday about Mendes’ movie.

The problem with Spencer is that he is very lukewarm. A truly fanatic priest of the 14 words would be furious not only against this new film, but against the entire film industry (with the exceptions of the 1995 and 2005 movies based on Jane Austen’s novels, of which I spoke this week.)

One of the problems with films like 1917 is that they are made with great craft and even art we could say. But that turns the film into an even more rhetorical poison, and therefore more dangerous, than a poorly directed film.

For me the seventh art, as a subject, is crystal-clear. As long as there are non-whites on Earth, every film must be propaganda: audio-visual spectacles that must have the imprimatur of a totalitarian Fourth Reich, as Yockey said in one of the quotations of The Fair Race: ‘L’art pour l’art values must be transvalued to Art practiced in conformity with the cultural task’. Of course, that was collectivist Germany, not libertarian, Mammon worshiper and Judeo-Christian America.

Compare the above way of seeing art—a priest’s POV—with the words of Spencer and the faceless Mark. Spencer said that 1917 ‘is valorizing WWI, and I think that is something that is extremely problematic’ (after minute 6:30, and he repeated these words after minute 34). Note the word ‘problematic’ and realise why, compared to me, I label Spencer as lukewarm. I’d simply say it’s Jewish poison for the Aryan mind. Mark added about the hero of the movie: ‘he defeated the villain, he defeated the foe… from the British side’.

Spencer also spoke of World War II but did not say a word about the Holocaust that the Allies committed on the Germans. I wonder if Spencer has read Hellstorm? This astronomic omission reminds me that Hunter Wallace wrote about Justinian I today in glowing terms about ‘reconquering the Western Empire’. These are words as deceiving as Sam Mendes’ visual art about the Great War. Does Wallace know about the Holocaust perpetrated on two Germanic peoples by Justinian I, the emperor of the capital of miscegenation, Constantinople? (see the final pages of the book I recently translated, Christianity’s Criminal History).

Just as in official history the Germanics that invaded the already miscegenated Roman Empire are presented as barbarians, in 1917 a ‘German is depicted as an insane maniac’, said Spencer around minute 36 and he added that the scene was ‘insulting to Germans’. Mark then said that in the film the German point of view is never represented, that it is taboo in Hollywood. I would add that, unlike one of Clint Eastwood’s films about WW2 where the Japanese POV is presented, the German POV continues to be taboo. Incidentally, both Spencer and Mark use the word ‘gay’ without realising that it is Newspeak to avoid.

Only until a few seconds before the 57th minute Mark said ‘I knew that the guy was a Jewish filmmaker’, something he should have said from the first minute. Then we hear, after 1:06, that the film is pro-Zionist and glorifies the two world wars that only favoured the Zionist Christians: wars that transvalued values in the US to a philo-Semitism based on the Schofield Bible. Spencer & Mark’s review aside, it is time to say a few more words about the American racialist movement.

George Lincoln Rockwell was the only one who understood racial reality. If he had not been murdered the journal National Socialist World, in which William Pierce and others collaborated, would have continued.

The wisest thing I heard in England the last time I visited the island was what Arthur Kemp told me: that William Pierce’s mistake had been not to form a political party. I recently talked about Pierce’s blunder, but degenerate music was only a tactical blunder. The fact is that Pierce committed something much more serious: a strategic blunder, not having followed in the footsteps of Commander Rockwell.

Only Rockwell tried to follow in Hitler’s footsteps. After Rockwell everyone else has been talkative, despite Pierce’s enormous intelligence (whom I cite so much in The Fair Race).

After the assassination of Rockwell, everything we have had in this continent have been impossible compromises with Christian ethics and the American way of life. The tremendous inertia of American Judeo-Christianity is such that, as a commenter said on this site today, the purported anti-Semite Andrew Anglin no longer speaks about Hitler. He now speaks about Yahweh and his son Yeshu, as the gods that the valiant visitors of The Daily Stormer must follow.

If white nationalism were a legit movement, everyone would be talking about Christianity’s Criminal History and the forthcoming revolution, although theoretically and patiently, waiting for the dollar to collapse so that the masses transit from happy mode to angry mode. But they are stagnated in the American way.

About Nick Fuentes (and more)

‘We are not the Alt Right—AR was a racialist, atheist, post-American, revolutionary, and transnational movement. America First is a traditionalist, Christian, conservative, reformist, American Nationalist movement’.

Nick Fuentes

What I translated in the other post today about the extreme puritanical behaviour among the ancient Vandals reaffirms what was said in my previous entries of the ignorance in the secular Alt-Right about some elemental history of the Aryan race.

Sexual debauchery in Greece and Rome only happened when those great civilisations were interbreeding with their racial inferiors. Before miscegenation, both Greco-Romans and ancient Germanic tribes, such as the Vandals and those mentioned by Tacitus, were extremely puritanical (sex with inferior races also doomed Ancient Egypt; see below). This is why I feel far more at home with Christians like Nick Fuentes than with those secular racialists whose sexual mores strike me as degenerate. Yesterday, for example, self-styled nihilist Jean-François Gariépy counter-signalled Fuentes about open homosexuality. JFG, of course, is tragically wrong. Aryan civilisation can only be built upon the solid rock of norms that regulate Eros, as the Nazis also understood.

But I am not a Christian. Below I quote a recent Robert Morgan comment on Unz Review about how Christianity could end; the last paragraphs of Evropa Soberana’s article on Egypt, and I offer my opinion about a Stormfront post about Wikipedia and Nick Fuentes’ Christianity. Morgan wrote:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

My view is similar to yours, that the empty pews are a sign that the West is turning away from Christianity. Unfortunately for the white race though, while belief in Christ and miracles is fading, the Christian moral vision of universal racial equality is stronger than ever. It has sunk into the culture, and is believed without questioning even by atheists.

In order to save the white race, that belief too would have to be completely extirpated, torn out by the roots. [But] Christianity and the culture it spawned is so useful to the success of empire that it’s hard to envision conditions under which that could happen.

It would be such a radical change in worldview that it would probably take (or even cause?) the collapse of civilization itself, similar to the way it happened when Rome fell. The Christian takeover resulted in the loss of about 99% percent of Latin literature, and 90% of Greek. Temples to pagan gods, some architectural wonders of the ancient world, were looted and pulled down. Priceless statuary and art was vandalized or smashed. Philosophers were tortured and executed, their writings banned and consigned to the flames.

Now imagine something similar happening to all the Christian churches; the Pope dragged out of his lair, tortured and executed; the Vatican a heap of smouldering ruins, its wealth confiscated, any art it contained smashed to pieces; banning and burning all copies of the Bible, and any Christian writings based on or referring to it; killing all the priests.

That’s what it would take to really get rid of Christianity. Then, and only then, could we say that Jesus is as dead as Zeus. Yet so long as the myth of racial equality was useful, I suspect empire would merely adopt another belief system to justify it.

[Editor’s note: ‘The myth of racial equality was useful’. So true. I also have wondered what was the primary cause of white malaise: Jewish subversion in the form of the gospel message or simply Constantine using the most effective weapon of the empire, Judeo-Christianity, to control whites? Remember how he moved the capital from white Rome to an increasing mud place, Byzantium—just what our elites are trying to do today!]

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The image below belongs to an unknown man of the V Dynasty. This racial type, neither Semitic nor Negroid, with dark hair and European features and identical to that found in Etruscan or Iberian art, was probably the predominant in the middle classes of ancient Egyptian society.

What happened to Egypt? Why did it fall after millennia of splendour? As with all the decline and falls of civilisations the answer lies in biology in general and genetics in particular.

In 1296 BCE the Egyptians conquered Nubia (Southern Negro inhabitants), building a series of forts to protect borders and control insurrections. At one point it was forbidden for any Nubian to cross the border and enter Egypt. Over time, as it is obvious in Egyptian art, black slaves were imported. As always, a low birth rate among the Egyptian nobility, a high birth rate among black slaves and Semites, and the miscegenation produced by the relaxation of the warrior, aristocratic and dominant mentality, cursed Egypt. Finally, in 200 years Egypt went from being a great civilisation to disappearing from the map of civilised nations, at the mercy of stronger foreign powers.

Until 1050 BCE, all the pharaohs had been predominantly white. With the advent of the XXV Dynasty and the ‘black pharaohs’, who had a brief and decadent reign of 75 years, during which they built stunted 20 meter high pyramids (the great pyramid of Cheops, coming from the good times of the true pharaohs, measured 146 meters), the original genetic and biological substrate that had created the civilisation was drowned forever in the dense thicket of dark blood.

In 343 BCE the last native king was deposed by the Persians. From then on, the confused and uprooted ‘Egyptian’ mass passed at the hands of Persians, then to the Greco-Macedonians (here they experienced a new boom, expressed in the emergence of Hellenic blood, the city of Alexandria and the time of Cleopatra, a Macedonian), then Roman, Arab, Turkish, English and, finally, American guardianship under Mubarak, until he was deposed by the rebellions of January 2011. Under the Islamist shadow the future of the country is more uncertain than ever.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

I capitalised the words originally written in lowercase on Stormfront:

Wikipedia is owned by a Jewish atheist called Jimmy Wales. He also owns a porn website and that is how he earned his millions yet he downplays this and the majority of public doesn’t know about it. He is a con man.

The whole of Wikipedia is liberal and owned by a liberal crew of elite editors who deny race exists. Just look at any race article to see that. Wiki bans any white nationalist, etc., and they consider any racial view as “fringe” and they heavily edit and suppress any info like that coming into Wikipedia. If you want to see an example of this, then see the white nationalism, race realism article or something like the multiregional hypothesis article where they troll any new edits and are not neutral on the subject.

This explains a lot, but not everything.

As before discovering white nationalism I edited Wikipedia a few years, I eventually realised that the real trick lies in its policy of what they call ‘reliable sources’. In plain English, ‘reliable sources’ are nothing other than what throughout Christendom was called Imprimatur and Nihil obstat: it was only possible to publish with the approval of the Catholic Church.

Exactly the same happens on Wikipedia today, with the difference that now Christianity no longer holds the monopoly of the media but Judaism. For example, you can only reference wiki-articles with publications that come from official journals and publishing houses of the System.

But what’s exactly the problem with that? See my rephrasing of Tom Sunic in my Wikipedia user page: ‘Regarding this encyclopaedia’s policy of “reliable sources”, it has become a customary procedure for the System to relegate free thinkers and would-be heretics and their literary or scientific achievements to marginal outlets, such as self-publishing, that are very similar to those used by dissidents in the ex-Soviet Union’.

Since the controlled media is at the hands of Jewry, the ‘reliable sources’ policy means that every wiki-article dealing with social issues must be, de facto, Kosher approved. That’s why no unbiased article that touches white identity can be fixed on Wikipedia.
 

Against Fuentes’ religion

Let’s go back to Nick Fuentes. The chasm that separates me from American racialists is so great that the only way to get past it would be, for at least one of them, to read the autobiographical books that I will soon begin to translate.

In short, it is a ‘psychogenic’ chasm. If we compare the life of a racialist like Fuentes with a typical Hollywood comedy, my film would be as heavily existential as what we can see in a Russian film, Andrei Rublev, located when Russia was still in the Middle Ages. If a time machine were possible so that Rublev, who existed in real life, could talk to an American today, it would be seen that my analogy of the two films is spot-on: a psychogenic chasm separates the two minds in an impassable way.

Compared to ‘Rublev’, Fuentes, who has reproduced rap music in his shows, is frivolous as he likes the movies that Hollywood has produced in recent times. He not only ignores European and Russian cinema, but even the old American cinema that I saw as a child. What’s worse, Fuentes has said that the United States ‘is a Christian nation’. In a recent interview with a black Youtuber, another Christian, who asked him if he hated Jews, Fuentes replied that he hated no one but loved everyone, including the Jews.

Like every Christian and neochristian, Fuentes ignores that love is murdering the white race. Moreover, like almost every American racialist Fuentes is ignorant about the history of Christianity: a history of genocidal hatred. Next week I will publish a translation about the complete extermination of two Aryan peoples, the Vandals and the Ostrogoths, perpetrated by a non-Aryan emperor, Justinian, in the 6th century. To my knowledge, neither Fuentes nor any racially conscious Christian knows that black page of the history of their Church. Almost nobody in the movement seems to be concerned with the historical facts, how the Aryan man betrayed their white Gods to worship the god of those who wanted to exterminate them.

Even those who ignore the history of their religion could see that there is a sort of schizophrenia on being Jew-wise and obeying, at the same time, the god of the Jews. Alas, no Christian in the movement wants to heal from such doublethink. In the livestream of the Groypers in Florida, for example, he who surreptitiously recorded that recent event rebelled against the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ expressed by Charlie Kirk. Something as absolutely obvious as that all holy New Testament characters are Jewish doesn’t seem to cause any internal conflict among them.

I don’t think people like Fuentes and company are going to heal themselves from their divided Judeo-Christian minds. Even the author of Siege, so acclaimed by would-be revolutionaries, suffers an acute stage of the disease. This Wednesday, in an interview with Invictus, James Mason’s last words were: ‘…and wait until the return of the Lord. It is very, very near’.

It doesn’t matter that Mason, who has become a Christian identist (see his latest book When We Were All Jews), was brilliant in other parts of the interview. It has to happen what Revilo Oliver said: only a catastrophe that causes suffering for many decades could move the surviving whites to really question their ethno-suicidal paradigm.

For example, despite having defended Richard Spencer last week, even he, a secular racialist, goes on to say that when whites have their empire again, the coloured should be helped outside the ethnostate! I heard that in another interview with Invictus. The interview was recorded after the Spencer scandal I mentioned last Friday. Spencer’s comments on this out-group altruism, which I label neochristian insofar as pre-Christian whites didn’t suffer it, can be listened almost at the end of the interview. Incidentally, ‘Feast’, part IV of Andrei Rublev, depicts beautifully a large group of pre-Christians conducting a lit-torch ritual for midsummer in a magical night: visual art that the likes of Fuentes will never appreciate.

Rublev comforts Boriska, breaking his vow of silence.

Let there be no doubt: American racialists need decades of continuous suffering à la Rublev to give up their little paradigm, as Robert Morgan imagined above. If out-group love is murdering the white race let us transvalue Christian values. Only out-group hatred will save us: paradoxically, the core of ‘the 4 words’ in my final books.

Hopefully, the crash of the dollar and energy devolution will do the Oliver trick…

Notification

I will be posting only one entry a week, preferably on Friday mornings. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat has a message for you.

Published in: on November 5, 2019 at 6:19 pm  Comments (8)  

The two Richards

In my previous posts I said that I have been counter-signalling white nationalists because they maintain Judeo-Christian tails, and at the same time I have been citing Richard Carrier’s work on the nonexistence of Jesus. But Carrier is a typical liberal, as can be seen from the debate I heard yesterday between him and Richard Weikart on YouTube:

Hitler is often claimed to have been an atheist or a Christian by believers and skeptics eager to put the dictator in the other’s camp. Christian historian Richard Weikart argues he was neither in his new book Hitler’s Religion: The twisted beliefs that drove the Third Reich. Richard Carrier is an atheist historian who has researched Hitler’s purported anti-Christian statements often quoted by apologists in his book Hitler, Homer, Bible, Christ. He says that Hitler was anti-Catholic but thought of himself as a “positivist” Christian. In contrast Weikart argues Hitler was a pantheist who personally despised Christianity and only used it in public to aid his rise to power.

Everything sharp and forceful that Carrier had in debating (and refuting) the historicists of Jesus collapses when he speaks of Hitler. He is suddenly transmuted into a completely dishonest fellow. In that 2017 debate, you can tell that Carrier overstates his case when he wants to force his view that a Christianity similar to Christian Identity (‘Positive Xtianity’) was always behind Hitler. What would Carolyn Yeager say about such claim?

Weikart repeatedly replied that Hitler used the word ‘Christianity’ in his criticisms, that Hitler was not only referring to Catholicism or the Church. But Carrier, with that alchemy that he refutes in the fundamentalists, transmutes everything that Hitler said about Christianity as if he supposedly referred only to Catholicism. A case of self-delusion, and big time!

The nadir of the debate occurred in the final segment, where Carrier became as dense as those NPCs that Black Pigeon Speaks was making fun of a month ago. I mean: Carrier criticised Trump claiming that what Trump was doing was ‘demonizing Muslims and Hispanics’. Really? Why did Carrier see nothing about Muslim terrorism, and that Trump only wanted to restrict the migration of the seven countries that produce the most terrorists?

This demonstrates once again that intelligence can be accompanied by very serious character flaws that remind me of my favourite Hamlet quote (cited below). Intelligence is of no use if people voluntarily surrender themselves to self-deception. And Carrier does it. For example, in his discussion with Weikart he sugars the pill about Charles Darwin, claiming that his Darwinism was human and sensitive to other races! Does Carrier ignore that according to Darwin niggers were to be exterminated?

Both Carrier and Weikart regurgitate the widespread myth that Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews ‘because they were an inferior race’. At this point, Weikart surprises me more than Carrier, as the latter is not a Hitler scholar, only a Jesus scholar. Is it possible that none have read Esau’s Tears, a 1997 book with an academic imprimatur and good reviews among normies, authored by a Jew who showed the depredations of the Jewish quarter in the 19th century (which caused the German reaction in the 20th century)?

White nationalism has a point. What could we possibly do with these two Richards, a typical Christian and a typical liberal, without the incredibly detailed analysis of the JQ in WN?

You must understand the POV of this site: if I criticise white nationalists, it is because they maintain a tail of Judaism in the sense of Judeo-Christian axiology, so toxic to the Aryan cause. But I don’t criticise white nationalism for its general vision of the JQ. And if there is something in which the two Richards are absolute ignorant it is the JQ. I wonder if any of them know the work of Kevin MacDonald, if they have even looked at The Occidental Observer?

The debate linked above only corroborates something that my female friend told me: that men—including myself—tend to worship the intellect at the expense of character, in the sense that there may be very intelligent people whose moral flaws eclipse their virtues, the Hamlet quote:

So oft it chances in particular men
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
By the o’ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
Or by some habit grown too much; that these men–
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Their virtues else — be they as pure as grace,
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault.

Joker: a destructive review

If the media and Hollywood are in the hands of the Jewish quarter, it is only justified to watch television programs or movies to indicate where the bad messages are, which was what I did with Game of Thrones, in addition to using the TV series to change the subject and talk about matters that interest me.

Exactly the same can be said of Joker, a film I used in the previous week to talk about my subjects, such as a model of the trauma of mental disorders. Regarding a film review per se, there is not much to talk about Joker except to point out the bad messages.

The most conspicuous is that the white Arthur Fleck apparently fancies a mulatto woman: the worst possible bad message for a white audience. In fact, it is not even necessary to try to find another bad message in Joker since miscegenation is the greatest conceivable self-betrayal.

Moreover, Joker’s final scene is a sort of disclaimer, as Richard Spencer was told in this video. This means the movie is not even valiant, as they have been saying on social media. Remember what a commenter recently said here, that almost all movies after 1969 must be destroyed in the ethnostate.

I would include Joker among them.

Published in: on October 16, 2019 at 11:37 pm  Comments (4)  

Super-super quotable quote!

‘In per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close. And yet, by the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last one hundred years have somehow been transmuted into being seen as the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left gasping in awe’.

—Ron Unz (Jewish)

Published in: on October 14, 2019 at 4:16 pm  Comments (1)