Open thread:

Is Charles Manson good for Hitler’s 88 words?

Below I’ve cut and pasted my response to Joseph Walsh in the previous thread, whom I met in London five years ago. He said:

On Charles Manson, I remember you quoting Jake F. saying Atomwaffen Division members were “unhinged, to say the least” but at the same time you are a Mexican who wants the genocide of 99% of humans including all Mexicans so society would of course see you as “unhinged, to say the least”.

I am not a Mexican. Click on my avatar and you’ll see me as a baby. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans don’t look like that as babies. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans are Christians. I am not. Mexicans of the upper class are liberals, even the Catholics. I am not a liberal. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans eat meat. I do not, nor do I like football as they do.

I come from parents who in the early 1960s were premiering orchestra pieces at Utica, New York with my father as the composer and my mother as the piano interpreter of my dad’s symphonic music. The overwhelming majority of Mexicans are not heirs of classical music, not even remotely.

As to ‘unhinged’, my philosophy is as unhinged as that declaration of Schopenhauer that it’s better that suffering mankind should be called home, or as Bertrand Russell’s statements that all of mankind should be exterminated. Unlike pessimist Russell, I am only saying that the most beautiful whites, with empathy toward the animals, must be spared from such exterminationist fantasies. That still may sound unhinged to the majority of ears, but could it be common sense from the POV of an ET mind? (cf. Arthur C. Clarke’s last words in Report on Planet Three).

I think you tend to overestimate your importance. Most of what you publish on your blog is writings from other people, you have not really said anything too original but rather summarized modern Aryan ideology. If the Aryan race does become extinct it won’t be because it didn’t read the blog of a Mexican!

True. But my really original stuff is my 1,600-page book trilogy that, after I finish my backup PDFs, I may start to translate.

Sometimes you come across as pompous and it wouldn’t surprise me if you eventually shut down comments altogether and just talk to yourself.

I only reject those comments that, as Mauricio says above, demoralise the true Aryan; those silly pro-Christian comments after they’re told repeatedly to stop their preaching; those Meds who openly resort to insult because of my Nordicism (Dr. Morales), and a troll from Florida who uses many sockpuppets and who I believe was also banned in other racialist forums.

I notice you are friendly to people when you like what they’re saying but then you cast them off as soon as they’ve outlived their usefulness.

Examples please? As Evropa Soberana does in his site, I could have not allowed a single comment since 2011. But I’ve allowed thousands of them. I now believe that Vig was right: time matters. Sometimes I even suspect that the pessimists like Devan are not ethnically Aryans and just come here to demoralize the would-be soldiers. Other times I find out that they are mudbloods that hate me because of my Nordicism.

Though you portray yourself as some inheritor to the National Socialist legacy this is nonsense as non-Aryans can have nothing to do with National Socialism.

I portray myself as an admirer of NS, not as a National Socialist. Even the real Nazis admitted some Spaniards from the Franco regime to fight in a battle, right? What’s wrong with that?

Moreover what you endorse (The Turner Diaries solution) was not something Hitler would endorse. National Socialism and C.T.’s ideology are two different things.

Of course. NS thrived before the West’s darkest hour. Now that the darkest time has already come, and that the age of treason is everywhere, it’s time for a scorched-Earth policy.

And while you talk about kooks who believe in conspiracy theories I believe you followed cults and paranormal nonsense up until your 40’s.

Until the early 1990s to be precise, when I was in my early thirties. I did not believe in parapsychology for character flaws, but because, as I’ve explained elsewhere, I was tortured at seventeen and needed a defence mechanism.

But the real point is that, in times before the internet, it was virtually impossible to obtain the right information. I mentioned above November 1989. Major CSI figures visited Mexico City in that month. Finally, I could read the sceptical books they brought here from the US.

Unlike you I awoke when I was 13 and…

How can Neo unplug himself from the Matrix if no Morpheus contacts him through the internet? Did you awake thanks to the internet? If not, even in London pro-white info used to be far more reachable than in Mexico before the age of the internet! Yours is reasoning under a false analogy.

I have been interested in the white race since I was 17. I’m now 31.

So you were born in the late 1980s. I was interested in the white race since Second Grammar School, that is 1966, when I was 8/9-years-old, as I confess in the last book of my trilogy.

That means much more time to develop my thoughts unlike you who only awoke in 2008 when you were 50.

By ‘awakening at fifty’ I meant that before that year I did not even know that white nationalism existed or any website defending the West. I started to awake by the end of 2008, as soon as I discovered that info on the internet. Before I started to use the internet, the germane info I used to get in Mexico was almost zilch compared to the info an average American gets in the US. The main pro-white figures are not mentioned, ever, in the Mexican media. Conversely, the Phil Donahue Show at least interviewed Jared Taylor in the 1990s; 60 Minutes also interviewed William Pierce long ago, etc.

And you can put down the Charles Manson… but the future belongs to the white youth and those whites being born at present, not old Mexican boomers.

I’ve never claimed that any Mexican (a real Mexican I mean) should or will inherit the Earth. Rather, my point is that none of the Charles Manson fans—not one of them—has ever provided in this site, or in the book Siege, any rational argument as to why Manson is good for the 14 words. The only thing I hear from them is a blind admiration with no rationale for such admiration.

Perhaps I should add a new post with the title: ‘Open thread: Why is Manson good for Hitler’s 88 words?’ I bet none will advance a single compelling argument, even if I add no further post tomorrow to give critics a chance to focus on the hatnote question above…

Courage vs. groupthink

As I have said recently in the series ‘Veritas odium parit’, the mestizos and the Mediterraneans are easy to understand. They are simply self-conscious before the Aryans and they deceive themselves because they are incapable of dealing with their inferiority complex.

The Jews are somewhat more difficult to understand, but after reading the trilogy of Kevin MacDonald, especially the first of his books, their group surviving strategy is understandable.

It is the whites, especially their suicidal passion today, who represent a challenge for me; and the only thing I can say here is that Christianity modified whites as no religion has modified other races.

But Christianity is not the only factor we must consider in white decline. For more than a year I have been thinking about the tragedy that the groupthink has represented for the white race, and we can illustrate it with a passage of the biographer Stefan Zweig about Stendhal. In short, we are influenced by the environment as much as the air gets into our lungs:

The natural reflection of the individual is not his own opinion, but his adaptation to the opinion of the time. It requires special energies every time, a foolproof value—and how few possess it!—in order to oppose a spiritual pressure of millions of atmospheres, which signify great energies. An individual must meet very rare and very tested forces so that he can subsist in his uniqueness. He must possess an exact knowledge of the world, a sovereign contempt for all herd, an arrogant and enormous disregard toward them and above all courage, three times courage, courage so firmly grounded that it seconds his own conviction.

Much of what happens to contemporary whites is encompassed in the quote above, as it is very rare that an ordinary man is not psychically crushed by the millions of atmospheres of politically-correct propaganda that for more than seventy years has been over us.

As I said recently on this site, I rarely have contact with pure Aryans or Jews. But I know the soul of Mediterranean people and mestizos very well. Yesterday I watched some videos of the most intelligent Mexican intellectual of the 20th century. In this old video for example, Octavio Paz, of whom I have already spoken, appears with other Spanish-speaking intellectuals: Mario Vargas Llosa, Manuel Vázquez Montalbán, Juan Goytisolo, Jorge Semprún and Fernando Savater.

Something that has bothered me about all the Spanish-speaking intellectuals is that since the 19th century they have been crushed by those millions of atmospheres that Zweig talked about. There are simply no paradigm dissenters among them as yours truly, who really has a sovereign contempt for all herd and an arrogant and huge disregard for their worldviews!

All these intellectuals mentioned above, which include two Nobel prizes in literature, subscribed in the most abject way the secular, liberal, egalitarian, universalist and deranged altruist groupthink that kills whites today. Personally it mystifies me that, despite the high intelligence of Octavio Paz, he never questioned the dogmas of his time.

Since, like Zweig, I am very interested in the biographies of notable men, yesterday I watched some videos about the biography of Paz, who as I have said died very close to where I used to live.

I didn’t need many videos to realise that Paz was always an extraordinarily gregarious man; that he had many friends among the Spanish refugees of the Franco regime, and that he himself travelled to Spain as a young man in times of the Spanish Civil War. Later Paz would criticise the most rancid Left in Latin America. That caused him many hatreds in a Mexico dominated by troglodytes in the cultural sphere, who had Fidel Castro as their patron saint. But in the videos that I have been seeing about his biography, it seemed to me extraordinarily clear that an individual who is so tuned with the milieu will be unable to completely break with the Zeitgeist, per Zweig’s quote.

Only isolated individuals can break with the groupthink. The problem is that solitude at such level can involve personal annihilation: what happened to poor Nietzsche. It is, therefore, very understandable that less courageous minds subscribe the current paradigm in order to avoid being expelled to an emotional Siberia by their pals.

The Internet provides a means by which a radical break is possible and not suffer maddening loneliness like that suffered by Nietzsche. At least in the racist forums we can share our views with isolated dissidents: akin souls that may be posting even in other continents.

Groupthink is killing whites, victims of mass propaganda after the Second World War. That is why I will not cease in my courage, three times courage, courage so firmly grounded that it will second my own conviction.

Published in: on July 17, 2019 at 1:24 pm  Comments (2)  

Veritas odium parit, 1

‘In these days friends are won through flattery, the truth gives birth to hate’ —Terence.

Ten years ago I did not start a career as a blogger, but as a vlogger. I did it in Spanish, showing my face about the subject that I master the most: the tragedy that occurred in my family. Given that in the study of family abuse I touched on the incredible abuse of parents to children in the pre-Hispanic world, I received great insults from Mexicans with an inferiority complex. Nowadays my YouTube channel is private and I blog in English.

In the city where I live, I barely have contact with pure whites. Nor do I have dealings with Jews. My place is in an area at the extreme south of Mexico City, very close to central Tlalpan, which four decades ago my father chose for the huge colonial mansions near that centre. Originally he wanted to buy one of those mansions but finally settled for a house closer to the Golf Club. (Today I did only ten minutes walking from central Tlalpan to the house that my sister and I inherited from him.)

Thus, without whites or kikes in my immediate circle, what I know best is the tremendous inferiority complex of the Meds in general and mestizos in particular. A few years ago, for example, an Italian who posted very intelligent comments on this site got upset when I told him that an Arab player of the Italian football team was not white. This smart American-Italian stopped commenting here. The same happened to me with a son of Spaniards living at the opposite pole of this big city: he showed zero tolerance to the texts of Evropa Soberana and Arthur Kemp due to their Nordicism. We are no longer on speaking terms.

Such is the experience—experience of decades—that I have had with mestizos and Meds that I dare to conjecture that the vast majority of those who have insulted me in racist forums are not pure Aryans. I even believe that those commenters who recently tore their garments on Counter-Currents are mudbloods.

The editor of Counter-Currents is anything but a Nordicist. But recently he accepted an article that vindicates, to some extent, what I’ve been collecting on this site from several authors, including William Pierce, about why white civilisations fall: miscegenation. I refer to ‘The Saxon Savior: Converting Northern Europe’ by Ash Donaldson.

There is no doubt that telling the truth breeds hatred!

Such is the anti-Nordic hysteria of several of the Counter-Currents commenters—and elsewhere!—that I feel moved to reproduce the long article of Donaldson in seven entries, beginning with the introduction:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

“There were many whose hearts told them that they should begin to tell the secret runes.” Thus begins an ancient manuscript written in Old Saxon. It may surprise the reader to learn that these are, in fact, the opening lines of the Christian Gospel in the version known as the Heliand, produced for the Saxons in the early ninth century, after their conquest by Charlemagne.

More than a mere translation, it is a reimagining of the Christ narrative on so fundamental a plane as to constitute a message utterly distinct from the Mediterranean cultus that became the official religion of the Roman Empire. It took a thousand years for even an official conversion of Northern Europe, from the fourth-century mission of Ulfilas among the Goths to Grand Duke Jogaila’s formal adoption of Christianity for Lithuania. Why conversion took so long there, and by what methods, hinges on the relationship between the individual and the community.

Published in: on July 13, 2019 at 11:12 pm  Comments (4)  

Octavio Paz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My article on the ‘Observer’

Yesterday, The Occidental Observer published a piece authored by me, ‘Enrique Krauze, Mexico’s most prominent public intellectual, hates Trump (and white, Protestant America)’.

This was my comment at the comments section of the Observer:

The transcription in Spanish of Krauze’s words can be read: here. Let me tell a couple of personal vignettes.

I met Krauze personally many years ago during a presentation by his publishing house of the latest book by a Cuban dissident [Guillermo Cabrera Infante].

There was even a time when we were almost neighbors. I lived in Coyoacán, in Mexico City, and ate at a vegetarian restaurant. Walking through the street where, at that time, were the offices of Vuelta (Nobel laureate Octavio Paz’s magazine), more than once I got to see Krauze on his desk as the window of his office was at street level.

And here’s where Octavio Paz (then Krauze’s boss) lived, also in Coyoacán, not far from the magazine’s offices.

Not too bad house for a Mexican poet!

Published in: on December 9, 2018 at 8:55 am  Comments (8)  

An example of groupthink

I would like to illustrate what I say in ‘The bondage of groupthink’ with the Mexican case. If there is anything of this country that irritates me exceedingly, it is that even for the pure Creoles—those Iberian whites who have no drop of Amerindian blood in their veins—, the Amerind blood weighs more than the European blood!

Why? Precisely because of what William James says: that the deepest principle in human nature is the craving to be appreciated by others. And if the vast majority of the Others are brown, it is far more practical to be loyal to the brown mestizos than to the few whites left in Mexico.

The very word ‘Mexico’ explains everything. If these Iberian whites, or descendants of Iberians, were loyal to their ethnic group they would dislike a word referring to the Aztec city that the Spaniards destroyed: Mexico-Tenochtitlan. The Creoles would use the old name of New Spain and they would understand themselves not as ‘Mexicans’, but as ‘New Spaniards’. But the dementia of groupthink and of James’s principle is such that in this country not only the Creoles call themselves ‘Mexicans’, but even some pure Germans who have emigrated here!

I speak of this surrealism in ¿Me Ayudarás?, finally available from Lulu at a lower price than the prohibitive price that it was in Amazon. Yesterday a commenter suggested that if I am reproducing anti-psychiatric articles for this site, it should be a projection that I was unjustly committed in a psychiatric ward.

But I’ve never been committed. At this point, no one who has commented here has read any of my two autobiographical volumes (presumably because they were written in the language of Cervantes).

Voters have elected a new president

Andrés Manuel López Obrador has won the presidential election in Mexico.

Yesterday evening, the day before the election, my mother talked to him over the phone for about five minutes. She tried to call his wife and, surprise surprise, López Obrador himself answered the telephone!

Published in: on July 1, 2018 at 11:10 pm  Comments (6)  

Day of Wrath, 16

The Boasian regression

Human beings tend to idealize their parents and carry the burden of the sins of the world: Passover lambs for the unrecognized ills of the parent. This self-reproach for supposed wrongdoing is due to the perennial problem, still unresolved in our species, of the attachment to the perpetrator. The mantras the cultural relativist uses arguing with the psychohistorian is that it is unfair to judge an ancient culture with contemporary standards, or that in those times not even the sacrifice of infants was considered wicked. As Ark pointed out above, this standpoint rationalizes the perpetrator’s behavior at the expense of the victim. It is a no-brainer that it must have been as infernal for a historic boy that his father delivered him to the priests to be incinerated alive, as a parent who burns his child’s face to the point of completely disfiguring him, as we read in the most alarming paper news. In other words, psychohistory is based upon the empathy to the children of all times. The unconscious motivation of many anthropologists, on the other hand, has been to exonerate both the parents of former ages and the non-western cultures of today.

Anthropologists defend the validity of any culture and negate an absolute evaluation unless it is done within the standards of that culture. It was not always so. In the nineteenth century the opposite school dominated British anthropology. Anthropologists argued, in a similar vein to contemporary psychohistorians, that all societies passed through the same evolutionary process, and that non-Europeans were living fossils that could be studied to understand Europe’s past, categorizing the diverse cultures in a progressive set of values from savage, barbarian to civilized. Universal progress was postulated: a sort of unilineal set of values where religion and paleologic thought gave up ground to Aristotelian logic and rational thought, with the subsequent development of social institutions. The difference of this model with psychohistory is that these first anthropologists did not use childrearing as a parameter, but technology from the Stone Age to the modern age, passing through the Iron and Bronze Ages.

The Jewish-German immigrant Franz Boas, the “father” of American anthropology, managed to shift the paradigm. Boasian anthropology considered erroneous the premise that religion had to be defined, historically, more primitive than reason (the opposite to what Arieti says about his schizophrenic patients: that paleologic thought should be considered inferior to the Aristotelian). Boasian relativism resists universal judgments of any kind. All of the work by Boas and his disciples began as a direct opposition to the evolutionary perspective, and with time it became an orthodoxy. Although in the United States there was an attempt to revive the evolutionist ideas in the 1950s and 60s, eventually anthropologists subscribed the ideology of cultural relativism: a school that in the academy became, more than an orthodoxy, axiomatic; and its proponents, staunch supporters of non-western cultures. This relativism, with its vehement phobia to “western ethnocentrism” did not only become the most influential anthropology school originated in the United States, but the dogmatic principle of this international discipline.

In its most extreme version it even considers legitimate, say, the cutting of the clitoris in Africa. A principle that, for the popular mind, apparently originated as a tolerant attitude is being used to find excuses for intolerance. In fact, since the declarations of the anthropologist Melville Jean Herskovits by the end of the 1940s, his colleagues left the political debates of human rights. The anthropologist has great difficulties to fight for the rights of, say, the black women in South Africa. The 1996 team-work Growing Up: A Cross-cultural Encyclopedia, where dozens of anthropologists offered their studies about eighty-seven cultures, is symptomatic. Although they admit that sexual contacts between adults and children are common, including those of the incestuous mothers, they declare that it “would not constitute ‘abuse’ if in that society the behavior was not proscribed.” However, as the academic who sympathized with Ark said, not all anthropologists agree with Boas. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban confessed that, after twenty-five years of having conducted ethnological research in Sudan, she betrayed her profession by siding those who fight against female genital cutting. She mentioned the case of a Nigerian woman who was granted asylum in the United States since her daughter would have been subjected to involuntary cutting if returning home. The compulsion to recreate on the next generation the wounds received in infancy is such that in our times genital mutilation continues. Despite their theoretical statements to the public, in practice many ethnologists, anthropologists and indigenistas still cling to the Boasian paradigm.

A single example will illustrate it. Keep in mind “A reliable source” published some pages ago. In September of 2007 the Museo del Templo Mayor, a subsidiary of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, organized a seminary in Mexico under the name “New Perspectives on Human Sacrifice Among the Mexicas.” Twenty-eight specialists were invited. According to the national press the Mexican archeologist Leonardo López Luján, who would coordinate the proceedings book of the papers (reviewed in the 2017 “A reliable source”), stated that it was advisable to distance ourselves “from the Hispanists who consider bloody and savage” the sacrificial practice. López Luján presented the paper “Huitzilopochtli and the Sacrifice of Children in Tenochtitlan’s Templo Mayor” (the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan). Among the professionals from abroad who participated were institutions such as Cambridge and the French National Center for Scientific Research. The Mexican Juan Alberto Román presented the conference, “The Role of Infants in the Mexica Sacrificial Practices,” and in a pseudo-eugenicist discourse López Luján stated: “Undernourished children [my emphasis] were sacrificed to eliminate the population that was a burden for the society.” (Cf. what Ark responded to the historian about administering pap to the child: a slow form of infanticide that suggest they were not undernourished accidentally.) Marie-Areti Hers, from the National Autonomous University of Mexico— a campus that the UNESCO declared a World Heritage Site the very week that the symposium was celebrated—, stated that human sacrifice was everything except “an exotic curiosity of backward peoples.”

I contacted Julieta Riveroll, the reporter who covered the event for Reforma and author of the article “Human Sacrifice Prejudices—Demolished.” I asked her if among the speakers of the conferences she attended someone condemned the deadly ritual. Emphatically she responded “No,” that they were “objective experts.” I mention the anecdote because that word, “objective” is the most abused word in academic circles, as we already saw in one of the answers of the academics to Ark. Let us imagine that, among the reporters of the Gulag, to keep objectivity they must refrain from condemning genocide. This does not happen: Stalin’s regime is broadly condemned. But the double standard of allowing condemnation of the white man and virtually forbidding condemning non-whites, is brazen. The month that followed the symposium, in the same Mexico City where the symposium was celebrated the police caught the serial killer José Luis Calva, the “cannibal poet” that horrified the Mexican citizenry. In one of his poems Calva wrote to one of his victims a poem worthy of the ancient Mexicans:

You handed over your parts to me
Your breath, your nails and your longings.
You dressed me of you and I was your bird,
Sing your song that never quiets.

Naturally, unlike the Mexicas who did exactly the same, this man was condemned by the elites.

On the other side of the Atlantic the Europeans deform reality too. In 2008 I visited the museum and archaeological park Cueva Pintada in the town Gáldar of Gran Canaria. The screened documental in the museum denoted the purest Manichaeism. Despite recognizing the widespread infanticide of girls among the tribes, the conquerors appear as the bad guys and the inhabitants of the troglodyte settlement as the noble savages victimized by the sixteenth-century Europeans. Similarly, in another museum, El Museo Canario, the following year I looked up through an academic text the subject of infanticide of these pre-Hispanic white people (curiously, they were blonder than the Spanish but they were barely leaving behind the Neolithic stage). Just as the mentioned María Alba Pastor who saw in the Mexican sacrifices “a reaction to the Conquest,” three Spanish academics postulated that the Canary sacrifice could have been the consequence “of the ongoing military, religious and cultural aggression” inflicted by the conquerors.[1] This interpretation ignores the fact that the practice predated the arrival of the Spaniards.

Unlike these documentaries and academic papers that blame westerners for the sins of non-westerners, I will quote one of the first letters written about the practice of infanticide in the seven Canary Islands. The following description comes from Diego Gómez de Cintra, a Portuguese navigator that wrote what he saw in La Palma:

The father and the mother grab the child and put the head on a rock and take another rock and hit the child on the head shattering the skull, and thus they kill the child, his eyes and brains scattered on the soil, which is a great cruelty of the parents.

Conversely, on page 166 of the mentioned article contemporary academics side the parents by claiming, “The adoption of such an extreme measure is fully justified.”

As Terry Deary put it, “History can be horrible, but historians can sometimes be horribler.” Once the new generations break away from this immoral anthropology, the slaughtering of children will be seen, again, with due compassion as felt by the first chroniclers.

In the case of Mestizo America (and this is important to understand the organizers of the 2007 symposium), the “Latin” American anthropologists were the first ones to embrace the cause of cultural relativism. In fact, the anthropologists have influenced more the society in “Latin” America than in other societies. This is partly explained by the ethnological tradition of Bernardino de Sahagún and Bartolomé de Las Casas. In the twentieth century the study and the glorification of the Indian cultures, called indigenismo, has been the predominant framework of anthropological studies in so-called Latin America. In the particular case of Mexico, since 1917 the government was the first one to recognize the utility of anthropology. Subsequently, and working for the government, anthropologists have tried to implement their policies on the Indian population.

No doubt, deMause and Ark are right about the intellectual charlatanry that represents social anthropology.

NOTE:

[1] Julio Cuenca Sanabria, Antonio Betancor Rodríguez & Guillermo Rivero López: “La práctica del infanticidio femenino como método de control natal entre los aborígenes canarios: las evidencias arqueológicas en Cendro, Telde, Gran Canaria,” El Museo Canario, LI, 1996, p. 124. Fifty pages later the authors repeat this interpretation. In spite of the fact that the long title takes for granted that the etiology of the practice was “birth control,” the same article publishes sentences from some authors who cast doubts about the validity of that explanation.
 

______ 卐 ______

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

Pierce nails Mexico

Editor’s note: ‘These days the mestizos are feeling their oats and flexing their muscles more than in the past’ wrote William Pierce twenty years ago in ‘The Mexican Menace’, Free Speech magazine, May 1998, Volume IV Number 5. Nowadays they are far more emboldened, as can be seen in the political programs of the Mexican TV. Below, some excerpts from Pierce article:
 

The population of Mexico today is about 30 per cent more or less pure-blooded Indians; about 60 per cent mestizos, or European-Indian mongrels; and less than 10 per cent Whites, most of Spanish origin. Social caste in Mexico is based largely on the percentage of White—that is, Spanish—blood a person has, with Indians at the bottom of the social hierarchy, Whites at the top, and mestizos distributed in between roughly on the basis of their degree of Whiteness. At least, that’s the way it used to be. These days the mestizos are feeling their oats and flexing their muscles more than in the past.

The red-bearded Spanish conquistador, Hernán Cortes, taught the Indians of Mexico to respect the White man. With 500 Spanish soldiers and 16 horses he landed in 1519 at what later became Veracruz, burned his ships behind him to discourage desertions, and during the next two years conquered all of Mexico, which at that time had a population of more than two million Indians, and utterly destroyed the empire of the Aztecs, who were renowned as fierce and bloodthirsty warriors. All of that, however, was nearly 500 years ago, and things have gone downhill since.

In contrast to the English settlers to the north, who came seeking land and brought their own women with them from England, the Spanish came seeking gold and brought no women. Instead they mated with the Indian women—a practice encouraged by the priests accompanying them, who were eager to convert the Indians to Christianity. Thus began the growth of the mestizo element in Central America.

This process of racial mixture did not bring about the peaceful amalgamation of the races that the priests claimed it would. Instead, the history of Mexico has been a series of bloody revolutions and racial warfare, mostly of mestizos and Indians against Whites, but also of Indians against mestizos, as in the case of the recent civil war in Mexico’s southernmost province of Chiapas.

Since the Second World War there has been a very noticeable growth in Mexican nationalist sentiment among the mestizo element in the southwestern United States, and a similar sentiment is found throughout Mexico. It expresses itself in a smoldering hatred of gringos: a hatred which often bursts into open flame.

Published in: on April 9, 2018 at 11:59 pm  Comments (4)  

Blue-pill continent

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________

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