Explaining my midnight post

Today I woke up shortly after five in the morning because the topic addressed by an Unz Review columnist made me anxious and I couldn’t go back to sleep. I mean ‘Pro-BLM Demonstrations Sweep Across Europe: We’re all living in Amerikwa’ by Guillaume Durocher.

Such collective hysteria (the crucified nigger by evil whites is the New Jesus!), though secular in Europe, is clearly a spawn of Christian ethics that the spiritual children of the French Revolution inherited. Contrary to what conventional historians say, the gospel message has reached its peak in our time, not in the 13th century, even though this climax has occurred in the form of secular values.

No one has grasped the reason for my obsession with the figure of the fisher king looming in the Game of Thrones finale, about which I added something else at midnight. As I have tried to explain in the text that appears at the top in the sidebar, if the white man reclaims his story he would be cured of the neo-Christianity that is killing him axiologically. I am referring as much to the distant past that almost nobody knows (the real history of Christianity from Caligula to Charlemagne) to the Holocaust of 20th century’s gentiles that nobody talks about because the media hides it from us.

In other words: only a Bran capable of seeing real history has developed the necessary empathy to save the kingdoms of Westeros, and I don’t think that many of the racialists know their true story. From what they say in their forums, it is more than clear that the history books they have read were written by people who sleep in the matrix that controls them.

So I recommend Solzhenitsyn’s book to normies who have never read stories of the victims of the Russian Holocaust, perpetrated by Lenin and Stalin’s willing executioners. A banned commenter who describes himself as ‘a little Russian’ and a Stalin admirer, for example, wanted to post a comment today. He will continue to be banned as long as he continues to admire Stalin or maintain that it was good to ritually sacrifice children, as was done in the historical past (the psychoclass of this banned commenter is exactly the opposite of the psychoclass of Bran).

People who want to comment on this blog must develop the empathy of the fisher king. And that can only be done through actual suffering in the coming decades, and from that suffering finally seeing the tragic past of mankind. Only by looking at our tragic pasts—the actual stories I insist: not what can be read in the history books authored by normies—do we develop proper empathy to save Westeros.

But I’m going to be frank: I don’t think most of the visitors to this site will read the literature to see the past that I recommend up in the sidebar. So sometimes it makes me want to close the comments section and only have contact with the tree of the past with which I am fused.

Published in: on June 4, 2020 at 7:28 am  Comments Off on Explaining my midnight post  

Game of Thrones’ finale revisited

For the other 42 entries about the TV series that I have posted since 2013 click: here. Very few visitors have understood how I use the Bran symbol. In a nutshell, whoever sees the past knows that the lies of Christianity and World War II are a lethal cocktail for the Aryan mind (here). The fact that not even most white advocates can see it is due to psychological resistance, as Vig wisely said a year ago (here).

In May of last year Game of Thrones fans saw the grand finale. But since fans have been steeped in idiotic culture for decades, almost none understood the author’s message. By author I don’t mean the Jews who filmed the HBO interpretation of A Song of Ice and Fire but the writer George R.R. Martin: whose ideas about the grand finale, to the fury of the toxic fandom, at least the directors respected.

Originally I also failed to understand the message. But as we saw on this site a year ago when I added several posts about the finale, Martin is a sort of Plato follower in the sense that A Song of Ice and Fire tries to answer the question, ‘How can mortal men be perfect kings?’

The answer is evident in Bran Stark’s story arc, ‘Bran the Broken’. As one of the very few Martin fans guessed years before the finale, to become the philosopher-king you must not be completely human but have godly and immortal things, such as the weirwood fused into your being. This is the only type of monarchy Martin gives legitimacy: the kind where the king suffers on his journey and is almost dehumanised for the sake of his people, as in the Arthurian legend the Fisher King (French: Roi pêcheur, Welsh: Brenin Pysgotwr), also known as the Wounded King or Maimed King (Roi blessé, in Old French Roi Méhaigié, Welsh: Brenin Clwyfedig), was the last in a long line charged with keeping the Grail. Richard Wagner also played with this idea in my favourite of his operas, Parsifal.

Perceval arrives at the Grail Castle to be greeted by the Fisher King in
an illustration for a 1330 manuscript of Perceval, the Story of the Grail.

If you watch YouTube videos of reactions to the Game of Thrones finale, you will find that some fans were enthusiastic when Sam proposed democracy as the ideal form of government, but were disappointed when Sam was publicly derided by Westeros’ lords.

Democracy was not what the author had in mind, but something closer to Plato that the Neanderthal white fans who mix with blacks and muds never understood. Greg Johnson once said that IQ is dropping in America precisely because of the proliferation of inferior races and miscegenation. But the sad thing is that not even Johnson and his group understood Martin’s profound message.

Psychoclasses: a vital concept

The video that I embedded in the comments section of my previous post made me think of something.

What happens in China (e.g., a toddler on the road is not rescued by any Chinese who casually passes by, and is finally run over, etc., etc.) is not ‘the battle of morality between different cultures’ as this other vlogger says about China. If it were a moral battle, there would be a substantial proportion of Chinese with greater empathy not only towards other Chinese, but towards animals. In this video there is apparently an image of a Chinese woman boiling a turtle alive in the kitchen of the mentioned vlogger. I didn’t want to see the image again because those atrocities with animals hurt me. The Chinese, on the other hand, a race inferior to ours, have not developed due empathy.

Speaking of the sacrifice of children in the ancient world on Day of Wrath, we have called psychogenesis the historical process of the development of empathy. In that book I explained what a lower psychoclass is and used, as a paradigm, the infanticidal psychoclass of Mesoamerica (Amerindians) before the coming of the Spaniards.

Psychogenesis or development of empathy, and different psychoclasses such as Amerindian and Spanish in the 16th century, are concepts that the common man ignores. Confused by Marxism and attempts to explain everything from economics and the hard sciences, Westerners have yet to realise that there are different psychoclasses of humans on earth. Even today, the burying of living small children is still practiced in certain tribes of the Amazon: an even more primitive psychoclass than that of the Chinese.

The 2020 edition of Day of Wrath is almost identical to that of the last year, except that I added my brief entry of this month’s 18th, ‘Possessed whites’, as a kind of corollary of what I say in ‘Dies Irae’. It is not only available in hard copy (here), from now on there is a PDF (here).

Published in: on January 29, 2020 at 7:01 pm  Comments (8)  

Hitler v Siege

Face it: The Aryan race is so starved of inspiring stories like LOTR that you ought not to be surprised that GOT (visually, pure Aryan esthetics), which was written as a response to Tolkien, became the most popular series of the decade. But since the grand finale it has come to my attention that, unlike Patrick, very few commenters add something substantial about what I have been saying about Game of Thrones.

I think that is due to a terrible way of understanding education. Except for Vig, few commenters have an artistic background. Unlike Hitler, who liked classical music, painting and the old architecture of Italy so much, the common white advocate lives under the mistaken impression that the West can be recovered using only the left hemisphere of his brain (say, the dry academic articles published by MacDonald in his webzine).

That could not be farther from the truth! Remember that it is the stories that galvanise the white population, like all those stories of the epics that inspired J.R.R. Tolkien and George R.R. Martin for their novels. Only this explains the tremendous success of LOTR and GOT in the Aryan community. Hitler also understood this by wanting to popularise the Germanic myths that Richard Wagner rescued for his people. What we see in the revolutionary wing of the white cause is exactly the opposite of Hitler’s spirit, and Siege’s case symbolizes it.

Before I distanced myself from James Mason because of his ignorance, I tried to Europeanise Siege a bit using, for my Daybreak Press, a cover with a painting by Spanish painter Francisco Goya.

But I was wrong: the stark illustration of the original (reproduced below) is the one that actually reflects the content of the book. Two days ago Krist Krusher said in the comments section of this site:

“Siege-tard” is a term I myself created to describe those who you would call crazed dogs howling at the moon [Note of the Ed.: see The Fair Race, pages 647-51]. In the past I read Siege around the same time I read Ironmarch and was not very impressed. I investigated James Mason and became thoroughly unimpressed after I noticed his sudden change of personal faith: he went from being an atheist to being a sucker for the Jebus myth after the Larsson interview! Why?

Sometimes I still try to read what former Ironmarchers write these days and the current “successor” website is a shell. Ironmarch had problems but it was a decent communication center for real fascists. The present “continuation” [like James Mason, they admire Charles Manson too – Ed.] is an abomination.

“Fascist Forge” is about as fascist as Deviantart; garish web design that even the Italian futurists would reject, hideous psychedelic imagery masquerading as art on one thread, degenerate stories with themes of homosex and vore on another, caricatures of real NS—men photoshopped to have glowing red eyes and inverted xtian symbols for user avatars—, it stands as a proud bastion of what Siege readers become as a group. They even call historical fascists like Jose Antonio Primo de Riveria and Mosley “archaeo-fascists” and think everything on the line of “those guys like Hitler are dead. We live therefore we decide everything”!

Even on /pol/ Siege is seen as a joke. To read or write anything on Siege—even regarding the merits of what it has to offer revolutionaries—is to be seen as the dumbest of subhumans.

But it is useless to ask these people to abandon their ways and begin to make some contact with the old culture.

I would like to confess something that happened in my mind in 1996, when I got in my car and drove to the border with the United States in order to emigrate. Already on the other side (I passed legally), the first thought that came to me was that what I saw was ‘the country of absolute Neandertalism’ in the sense that, compared to the old European architecture (and remember that that was Hitler’s inspiration for his New Europe), the US was an empty shell. That happened to me while I was already driving on the roads of Texas on my route to Houston.

The souls of the Siege-tards are as desolate as the landscape I saw from my Shadow Chrysler more than twenty years ago. And that is an endemic problem even among non-revolutionaries, who also don’t make deep contact with European art.

Before the accident that forced me to become the Three-Eyed Raven (I don’t mean Bran, but the old man entangled in the tree) I had wanted to be a film director. Had I reached the peak and filmed Game of Thrones, my adaptation of Martin’s novels would not have been plagued by the feminism we saw in the HBO series. But the art that can potentially captivate the white race is all there, in those epic stories adapted to visual stories for the contemporary palate. Something like a Wagner of the 21st century: television series that the Nazis would surely be filming if Hitler had won the war.

What I want to communicate is the great going astray that represents everything related to American psycho Charles Manson. I would paraphrase Jordan Peterson in the sense that the recovery of the West must be initiated by cleaning our bedroom, yes: but emphasising that the bedroom—our soul—must be arranged based on the best art created by the fair race.

A grim vision like the one on the book-cover that appears within Krusher’s quote will never captivate the race. It’s time to leave Siege in the bookshelf and order a copy of Hitler’s Table Talk. After all, ‘The sign of the times is degeneracy. This term—degeneracy—sums up all that is happening to the West’. This includes Manson fans and SIEGE-tards.

What ‘The Turner Diaries’ is all about

by William Pierce

It is important for us to understand that one person is not a Methodist and another a Catholic and a third a Marxist as the result of any rational process—at least, not in the vast majority of cases, although there are individual exceptions.

That is, one is not a Methodist because one sat down and studied the Methodist doctrine, compared it with other doctrines, and decided that Methodism was what made the most sense. One is a Methodist, generally, because one’s parents and neighbors were—that is, out of an entirely unreasoning desire to conform, to believe what one perceives that one is expected to believe. John Wesley undoubtedly was an exception to this rule, but very few other Methodists have been.

There has been strong resistance to accepting the implications of this important facet of human behavior. People seem to want to believe that we are all quite rational, when most of us aren’t. For our purposes, the implication of the fact that most people are governed far more by herd instinct than by reason is this: Insofar as the general public is concerned, truth cannot fight its own battles. As long as Norman Lear, the Jewish television producer, has more kilowatts for reaching the public than we do, it will be his view of history and, more important, his view of what is moral rather than ours which will be generally accepted and which will govern the political process.

This means that we can realistically expect our educational efforts to be effective with only a rather small minority of our fellow citizens. We cannot expect to make a partisan for our cause out of the average man or woman who perceives, even unconsciously, that our cause is not popular, no matter how many books or leaflets we may coax that person into reading. We win only two types of people: One is the person who is already alienated to a certain extent from Mr. Lear’s world and does not fully feel himself a part of the herd to which Mr. Lear is preaching with his cleverly designed television sermons. Unfortunately, in many cases people are alienated for reasons which are entirely or partly wrong from our point of view. That is why protest movements and revolutionary movements always pick up lots of defective people. On the other hand, alienation is certain to remain a growth industry, as they say, and one can hope to see many more essentially healthy people becoming alienated from the mainstream in the years ahead.

The second type of person we are able to win with an educational effort at this time is the person who is one of those rare exceptions to the general rule, a person who is strongly motivated by ideas as well as by instinct, and who has already been groping in our direction. Our effect with such a person is primarily to help him clarify his ideas and to lead him more rapidly to their logical conclusions.

This contrast between idealistic motivation and herd instinct tell us only part of the story as to why people behave the way they do. The rest of the story takes us into the realm of values. Consider your average man or woman, your ordinary White American: what, other than herd instinct, determines his behavior—in particular, the way he votes?

Well, he generally likes to be warm, dry, and comfortable. He likes to eat. He likes sex. He likes to feel secure. He likes to be entertained. He likes to own shiny things, such as automobiles, boats, houses, new golf clubs, and jewelry. And that’s about it. If these desires of his are gratified, then he is satisfied. If he thinks a politician will satisfy him, he’ll vote for the man.

Now, if this average citizen hears that Blacks are rioting and killing Whites somewhere 1,000 miles away he will be annoyed—if Norman Lear hasn’t already affected his mind too much and he still has healthy instincts. When he hears that hundreds of thousands of non-White aliens are pouring into the country, again he’ll be annoyed. All these things are, to a greater or lesser extent, perceived as threats at the instinctual level. They trigger his normal territorial or xenophobic reflexes. But unless the threat becomes very direct and very personal—unless the riot is in his neighborhood, unless a member of his immediate family marries a non-White, or unless he receives a special tax bill in the mail to provide welfare payment for more immigrants—the annoyance remains minor. It does not override his desire to be satisfied.

When it comes time to vote, if one candidate is in favor of forced busing or more boat people and a second candidate is against these things—and if all other factors are equal—then he’ll vote for the second man. But all the other factors are never equal. And if the pro-busing man has a nice smile and a warm personality that makes the voter feel more secure, while the anti-busing man wants to raise the charge for fishing licenses, say, and the voter likes to fish, then he’ll vote for the pro-busing candidate nine times out of ten.

That is why a state like Minnesota, which has one of the racially healthiest populations in the country, could keep sending a piece of filth like the late Hubert Humphrey back to the U.S. Senate term after term. Old Hubert could stand up in the Senate and support forced busing, forced housing, forced hiring, and everything else that most Minnesotans didn’t favor—except, of course, those Minnesotans already convinced by Norman Lear that they should favor those things—and then Hubert could make up for it all by going for bigger farm price supports than his opponent and by being, as they say in New York, a mensch. And the good folks of Minnesota would re-elect him.

Many people don’t like the view of human behavior I am presenting to you, because it is mechanistic; it reduces man to no more than another animal. And I’ll admit that it is an oversimplified view. But it is nevertheless a fact that man is an animal, and that fact accounts for 99 per cent of his behavior. In particular, it accounts for the way he votes. That’s why democracy is such a catastrophe.

I said the fact that man is an animal explains 99 per cent of his behavior, and anyone who wants to change the world in any way must take that fact into account. But it is the other one per cent of human motivation that I’m more interested in and that the Alliance is more interested in. It’s the other one per cent that explains why Earl Turner, the hero of The Turner Diaries, did the things he did.

Earl Turner was a man whose priorities were different from those of your average American voter. Earl Turner liked to be warm and dry and to have a full belly, just like everyone else. He enjoyed sex. And, presumably, he liked to own shiny things. But when Blacks killed Whites 1,000 miles away, it wasn’t just a minor annoyance to him. He had a larger view of the world and of his race and of his relationship to them. He could abstract what was a minor, personal threat to your average voter, and he could relate that abstraction to his view of the world.

When Earl Turner saw a racially mixed couple on the street, the sight did more than arouse a twinge of xenophobia or offend his sense of beauty. Unlike your average voter, he saw all the implications of that mixed couple. He saw mongrel children and mongrel grandchildren; he saw a race defiled. He saw a threat not just to himself, but to the whole upward course of life; a threat not just to his race, but to what his race could become.

And it was this that was important to Earl Turner: it was this that counted more than being satisfied, more than owning shiny things. And that’s why he didn’t behave like your average voter. His priorities were different.

Actually, there are two concepts here. First, Earl Turner had the capacity for abstraction, for taking an idea out of a specific set of circumstances and putting it into a more general context: for converting an idea into an ideal. That is a capacity which distinguishes our race from Blacks, in general, but it is still a capacity which relatively few Whites have to any significant degree.

And, second, there are values, the choice of which things count most. For most people the things that come first, even if they have the capacity for abstraction, are entirely personal. It is only for a minority within a minority that the long-range things are the ones that count. Only the very few can feel that it is more important that strength and beauty and wisdom prevail and become stronger and more beautiful and wiser with each succeeding generation than it is that any individual—or a million individuals—have full bellies.

In The Turner Diaries the real struggle was not so much one of a revolutionary band against the government as it was of one set of values against another set. Earl Turner and his Organization were the champions of a life-centered set of values, a set of values in which the central reality is not the individual, but all of Life: the Cosmos, in its entire temporal extension. Opposed to them were not only the values of the government and the media and the plutocrats, but also the individual-centered set of values of mass man, of the average voter. And in The Turner Diaries the life-centered values won, and those values then ruled. And the whole world was changed: its government, its racial composition, its art and industry, it life-styles, and all its priorities.

Human nature didn’t change—that is, the mentality and the values of the average White person didn’t change, because those are things which can only be changed over the course of generations, through the evolutionary process. But a different set of values, the values of an elite minority, gained precedence over the values of man. That’s what The Turner Diaries is all about.

And as I said earlier, it’s not a plan or a blueprint. The details—the bombings and assassinations, the nuclear war and its aftermath—are all fiction. But the struggle for dominance between the two sets of values portrayed in the book is not fiction. That’s real. And it is in this regard that Earl Turner’s Organization is the model for the National Alliance.

We are concerned, then, not only with education, with helping people clarify their thoughts and reach the proper conclusions, but also with embodying and institutionalizing a set of fundamental values and a view of the world. We are convinced that, unless our values prevail and rule, unless it is our world view which determines the shape of the future by setting men’s priorities and guiding them in their decisions, then there will be no future—that is, no future worth mentioning, because it will be a retrograde future, and our race will not be a part of it. And, in fact, the only valid reason why our race should survive is that it is the bearer of the values that we are determined shall prevail. For life loses its intrinsic value when its only motive is to increase its quantity, when its only goal is satiety.

The value of every form of life—of every race—of every individual—is not that it is an end in itself but that it is a means to a higher end. The value of a man’s life is not to be found in the degree to which he enjoys himself or in the amount of wealth or power he accumulates—and it especially is not to be found in the so-called good he does by making life more comfortable for others. It is to be found only in the extent to which he helps prepare the way for a higher, a more fully conscious life than his own.

Earl Turner understood that and acted accordingly and we must do the same.

____________

The above material has been excerpted from a portion of Pierce’s address at the Estonian House in New York City. The original title was ‘Whose Values Shall Rule?’ which appeared in the National Alliance Bulletin of June, 1980.

Published in: on October 18, 2019 at 6:15 am  Comments (20)  

Response to Molyneux

In my recent article ‘Joker, Molyneux and CC’ I explained my agreements with Stefan Molyneux regarding the issue of child and adolescent abuse by their parents. Now I would like to explain my differences.

In his video today, Molyneux clarifies some doubts that were raised in the comments section of his previous video about Joker. The core of his most recent video is in the last minutes. Molyneux says something we agree on: that once the adult Arthur Fleck (the future Joker) becomes aware of what his mother did to him as a kid, he has two options: a positive spin to the revelation or a negative one. But Arthur Fleck’s story is fictitious and I prefer to illustrate Molyneux’s ideas with real-life cases.

In the discussion thread of my article on Joker I linked to another Molyneux video: an extensive video when Charles Manson died. I agree with what Molyneux said in that video, in which he educates us about the ordeal that Charlie suffered as a child with a mother who even sold him when he was very young. An uncle rescued him, but a few years later the mother got rid of Charlie again because her alcoholic lover did not tolerate his presence. In children’s hospices where Charlie lived he only suffered further physical abuse and even rapes.

Molyneux is right that the adult Manson chose evil. If I was treated like this as a child, Molyneux interprets the mind of the Joker (or Manson) now I return the favour, evil by evil. But Molyneux errs in his video today, that humanity in general is good. This is a universal mistake that even white nationalists share, who have only seen the evil of the Jews as if the rest of humanity were innocent.

Let’s go back to the movie Joker. There are some shots in which Gotham City (image above) is seen from afar with hundreds of heartless buildings around it. And in the shots already at the centre of the great metropolis, which in real life were taken in New Jersey, you can see what William Pierce said about ‘economic man’ (Mammon worship) in my Monday post.

An Homo economicus that tolerates dozens of Gotham cities around the world is not good humanity. They are, as I call them in my autobiographical writings, exterminable Neanderthals. Neanderthals in the sense of simia dei, the ape of God: a primitive version of Homo sapiens that should be replaced by a more evolved version. I am referring to a version of humans that, instead of the world of Saruman that destroyed entire forests to create Gotham cities, will return us to the Shire, so to speak. In addition to Homo economicus whose visible manifestation are the Gotham cities, that today’s man is a depraved creature is easy to prove by simply visiting the slaughterhouses where cows are killed.

All this is explained in my book Day of Wrath, which is in fact a chapter selection of my books in Spanish where I delve into the subject from the point of view of an Arthur Fleck, so to speak. In the aseptic selection that is Day of Wrath, the autobiographical confessions of this ‘Fleck’ are missing, confessions that do appear in the untranslated books. (I have been falling behind in the promised translation because I must work to put some bread on my table.)

Molyneux is able to hold a less obscure vision of the human race than mine because of the simple fact that the interaction with his Jewish mother was not as destructive as those children who were assaulted at home by both parents, to the point of an internal psychic breakdown. The key to the whole thing is not only that some parents in particular behave so cruelly with one of their children, but that society turns a deaf ear towards his screams…

In my previous post I cited the words of an Armenian from the Spotlight movie, in which he told a reporter that all of Boston— not just the paedophile priests—were involved in the destruction of a child, as the police, the lawyers, the faithful of the church and the family itself covered up the perpetrators. This is the key to understanding my difference with Molyneux. There are certain types of abuse that are infinitely more serious than what paedophile priests do to children. In my previous post I quoted a few words of The Dark Knight’s Joker who confessed that his father had slit his cheeks with a knife, and that is why he had a permanent smile. That Joker’s origin is fiction, of course. But if any of my visitors reads Day of Wrath, he would find out that there have been literally millions of parents who did similar things with their children throughout history and prehistory!

I am not asking you to buy my book, as it can be read for free on this site. (Although it is somewhat uncomfortable as the book is divided into 22 entries and the final chapters appear on this site first.)

Incidentally, I will take a couple of days off before resuming my activities here, although I’ll try to answer the comments of the recently posted articles.

Published in: on October 9, 2019 at 9:30 pm  Comments (6)  

Great personalities defend eugenics, 1

by Evropa Soberana

‘The worst form of inequality
is to try to make unequal things equal’.

—Aristotle

‘Equality is a slogan based on envy’.

—Alexis de Tocqueville

Editor’s note: In the preface below the author says: ‘…before the Earth and Nature react violently to the uncontrolled proliferation of a lower, sick and bloated human kind, which has become a malignant tumour for the planet’.

These words are key to understanding what I have been calling ‘the extermination of the Neanderthals’, and I hope that the abridged translation of this long essay, published six years ago in Spanish and that I will be translating this month, sheds light on the subject.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

What we have here, which extends the previous Introduction to eugenics, is a compilation of great characters defending the eugenic mentality. Therefore, I should not be held responsible for what others said: I only present the quotes and I offer my comments to give an idea of the variety of opinions among the pro-eugenicists.

Some of the concepts by the people mentioned in this essay are certainly outdated, and it is clear that I do not approve of everything that is said here. For example, great advances have been made through genetic engineering: wonders over the most primitive methods advocated here by some authors. But they are worth, in any case, as a curiosities, especially in these times, when the biggest problem on the planet—overpopulation—threatens to unleash tremendous natural and artificial catastrophes that will result in unnecessary deaths of innocent beings.

What is eugenics? It comes from the ancient Greek eu (good) and ygenes (birth): ‘well born’ or ‘the birth of the good’. Wikipedia defines eugenics as ‘applied science or biosocial movement that advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic makeup of a population’.

Eugenics means biological socialism, biopolitics, a new social engineering based on logic, biology, genetics, compliance with the natural laws of life, and the will to grow in harmony with both: the planet and the creatures that populate it. Eugenics is the will of a gardener who tries that the species does not become a field where weeds grow in disorder, but a garden where, thanks to the intervention of a higher intelligence, weeds are ripped and beautiful and fruitful plants cultivated: sharing harmony between them, being kind to the holy ground on which they germinate and grow, and to which they owe their very existence. It is the will to improve man or, preferably, to overcome it, since it is already known that man is an imperfect being whose creation is incomplete.

Eugenics, in short, is the instinct to carry forward the evolution of the species and create the Overman.

There’s nothing new under the Sun. From the Neolithic, man found ways to domesticate animals that were biologically useful for him by providing good milk, meat, eggs, wool, etc., and dedicated himself to raising them with care to improve the quality of their herds generation after generation. The same happened with plant varieties, especially with cereals. In each generation, the old farmer prevented the non-useful varieties of his flock or crop from reproducing, and instead he tried to ensure that the best specimens had a prolific offspring. Thus, their crops and their herds were improving little by little.

If, by such methods, larger bulls, more nutritious wheat or more fertile hens could be obtained, why would they not be able to obtain more intelligent, brave and stronger human beings? Is the body of man not subject to the same laws as those governing wild animals?

Unfortunately, this mentality, which was applied to livestock and crops, was not applied to man, and the conquest of better living conditions, as well as the adoption of unnatural habits and diets, relaxed natural selection triggering the degeneration of civilised man.

Eugenics speaks of the need to prevent (negative eugenics) the multiplication of undesirable mutations in the human genome (as blindness, deformity, varied congenital diseases, mental retardation, the progress of crossbreeding, Down syndrome, etc.) by prohibiting their reproduction before it is too late for the species and before the Earth and Nature react violently to the uncontrolled proliferation of a lower, sick and bloated human kind, which has become a malignant tumour for the planet.

On the other hand, it is necessary to favour (positive eugenics) the propagation of the best-equipped human specimens, to give them the evolutionary advantage. This especially refers to birth, sports training, food, outdoor life, the cultivation of mental and will faculties, general culture and health.

In the eyes of the species, any method is legitimate to achieve such goal, from in-vitro fertilization, pre-natal diagnosis or embryo selection, to advanced engineering, surgery and genetic therapy techniques that are just around the corner. If this is not done, it is precisely because Western Civilisation is governed by people who do not care at all about the destiny of race, civilisation and humanity. What moves them is the immediate economic benefit and short-term success.

The West is dying and what is paramount for us is an authoritarian and socialist System in which the regeneration of race and biological quality will regain strength to balance the planetary unbalance that, currently, is inclined towards the proliferation of a human type of zero quality.
 

Introduction

We might think that Galileo was not the first man of the European post-classical era to rediscover that the Earth revolves around the Sun. There was access before to the classical works, and I sincerely believe that in the Middle Ages many sages knew the truth. But none had the courage to publish it for fear of the Church and the word ‘heretic’, all capable of ruining his career and even ending his life in a bonfire, to the sound of the applause of the common peoples. A clique of Pharisees, representative of an obscurantist idea, exercised control over a ‘God-fearing’ flock, keeping them forever in darkness, stripping them of their old traditions to replace them with the Bible and reign as one-eyed kings in a world of the blind. Galileo, like others, was forced to recant under penalty of being burned as a heretic.

Well, today we have:

• A new Church: the pro-globalist system.

• New unquestionable dogmas: the ‘politically correct’, ‘equality’ at all costs, feminism, globalisation, multiculturalism, rebellion against anything that is well constituted, hatred of the superior, individualism and the desire not to offend bloodsucking and whining parasites.

• A new Inquisition: the media, NGOs and globalist lobbies, Jews, homosexuals, feminists, pro-third-worlders and democrats, among others.

• We have new heretics: revisionists, ‘ultra-rightists’ and dissenting scientists.

• New untouchable taboos: genetic engineering, the ‘holocaust’, racism, Nazism, fascism, anti-Semitism, male chauvinism, homophobia… and eugenics.

• New witch hunts: scandals and trials against notable dissidents or any suspect of ‘racism’ or patriotism.

• New repentant pioneers in the style of Galileo, such as the scientist and gifted Englishman James Watson, who retracted his ‘racist’ phrase in 2007, under penalty of being burned at the stake in the media. As in the case of Galileo, time will demonstrate the truthfulness of his words, and posterity will honour as true those words he muttered under his breath: And yet it moves.

• We have new bonfires: ostracism, defamation, conviction, imprisonment, boycott and even direct physical aggression.

• We have the usual Pharisees: great magnates of finance and the media, progressives and ambitious politicians who would sell their brother for money and notoriety.

• And a new Satan, Antichrist or Lucifer: Hitler.

So we can affirm, without any fear of exaggeration, that exactly the same thing is happening today as in the Middle Ages with the Church. If history teaches us anything, it is that history repeats itself and that, in times of taboos, science just cannot advance. Modern society, in full biological regression, and poisoned by junk genes, criticises the taboos of the remote past: but it seems to forget that these taboos have been replaced by new taboos. The only objective of this sinister levelling, anti-evolutionary and egalitarian front remains the same for millennia: to frustrate man on his way to reach deity.

Even stripping the issue of passion and idealism, eugenics seems an issue from the logical and objective point of view—so logical that we can only wonder what kind of person could oppose it. Why, then, is there so much opposition to an issue as extremely urgent and necessary as eugenics? We can attribute it to two reasons:

1.- Two millennia of cultural Judeo-Christianity and its derivatives.

2.- The ignorance and the very low physical, mental and moral quality of a good part of the modern population thanks to the annulment, for centuries, of natural selection, the persecution of freethinkers, the depletion of the best blood in wars, the mania to help the worst rather than the best and, thanks to a deliberate praise of vulgarity and mediocrity in the media—which is nothing more than a new form of Christianity—, the glorification of the miserable, the mediocre and the downtrodden.

In contrast to this anti-evolution, no one can deny that the vast majority of men who today are considered to be great personalities supported eugenics. The intention of this essay is to ‘cheer up’ a bit those who would defend pro-eugenic measures and to see that millennia of history support them. Also, that people are more aware of the world of science, because progress and interesting debates are taking place which show that there are very prepared people who realise what is happening.

Unfortunately, modern science is heavily intervened by the official System. Funds are granted to investigate only matters that can result in a direct economic benefit in the short term, which clearly cuts off hopes of research paths, perhaps more arduous, but that in the long term produce more important benefits. Humanity has to get tired of being ruled by greedy clowns, simple and vulgar desert merchants who only think of seeking new twisted financial deals and new markets to sell useless goodies.

But there will come a day when scientists will stop investigating various creams and silicones to patch the disgusting worn-out bodies of old paranoid women, and will direct their efforts to improve the genetic inheritance of the human being so that in the future he will never need ‘amending’ it again. The day will come when doctors will stop striving in the search for medicines and prolonging, through aberrant methods, the lives of terminal patients with a broken body, instead dedicating their energies to the creation of a human type who doesn’t need any medicine.

The so-called ‘scientific community’—made up of scientists who are servile to the official system, crying lackeys of the ‘politically correct’, possessed by dubious ambitions and eager to climb the ladder—attacks those who speak out dissident ideas about the mainstream dogma even if that someone is their best ‘colleague’.

But the truth, Pharisees, is not changed because the truth is forever. Like the Phoenix, that great truth that is the law of human inequality and the need to cultivate the best and place reproductive limits on the worst will emerge again. In fact, it is an open secret in the minds of many doctors and scientists of what in the future will be the most important science of all: the science of man and of life. A day will come when these heralds of truth will come to light proclaiming their teaching and warning:

Civilisation has made human beings degenerate, and it is necessary to undertake radical emergency measures to reverse this sinister process, or we will become a weak, involved, inferior, pathetic, vulnerable, sickly, effeminate and, above all, harmful to the planet and unable to overcome adversities. We will be a filthy and gelatinous species that will crawl between machines. And that is when Nature will go for us. On the other hand, ‘race’ is much more than ethnic-anthropological features. It is the biological quality of the lineage. It must be strong and bright to withstand the tension to which life subjects it.

Just as the paradigm revolution from geocentric to heliocentric worldview, in future times the truths defended by the dissidents will be considered obvious certainties, and those who once stupidly tried to rebut them will be ashamed for having done it: as the Church is ashamed for having denied that the Earth revolves around the Sun. And in the same way that Christian obscurantism was finally overwhelmed by a Renaissance that the Church was unable to contain, we too, even in this most decadent age, are headed towards the definitive Renaissance of the ancient Indo-European spirit.

Thus, the old Nazi approach of 1933 has not been refuted or satisfactorily answered by the System, which has limited itself to pouring demagogic defamations on National Socialism but never trying to refute its arguments.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: To the list above in bold-type I would add:

A new God or Divine Trinity: the ideology of the equality of Race, Gender and Sexual orientation.

The new god of whites reminds me of a film located in the 5th century in Britannia, in which the island’s natives spoke of ‘the new god of the Romans’, referring to the Christian trinity.

Promethean fire

‘The Stars are not for man’
—a quote from Karellen
Childhood’s End (novel).

The following is a response to a comment in another thread about Robert Morgan.

My take on technology is different. I believe that the human race, whites included, are not ready for the Promethean fire—technology. It’s like empowering the Neanderthals with such fire: they would only destroy the world with it. Google how tons of nuclear waste are stored throughout the world and you get a Chernobyl-like picture for the future of planet Earth!

As a mortal enemy of Christian ethics, unlike ‘universal love’ I propose the opposite: ‘the extermination of the Neanderthals’. I would summarise it by paraphrasing Jesus: ‘Many genes will be called but few will be chosen’ in the day of wrath.

Morgan has failed to answer properly what would have happened in a world where Hitler had won the war. I very much doubt that that world would be as racially destructive as our world, in which Sauron won the war. Morgan assumes that, sooner or later, a triumphant Third Reich would misuse technology as much as the triumphant Allies (Sauron).

It would be fun if you discussed with Morgan at Unz Review. He is completely anti-tech. This is how the Anti-tech article on Wikipedia starts: ‘Neo-Luddism or new Luddism is a philosophy opposing many forms of modern technology. The word Luddite is generally used as a derogatory term applied to people showing technophobic leanings. The name is based on the historical legacy of the English Luddites, who were active between 1811 and 1816’. Morgan goes further. He endorses Ted Kaczynski, a.k.a., the Unabomber, and even Charles Manson for reasons still unclear to me.

Differences aside, Morgan has a point. As Kenneth Clark observed in his 1969 television series, ‘The only people who saw through industrialism in those early days were the poets. Blake, as everybody knows, thought that mills were the work of Satan. “Oh Satan, my youngest born… thy work is Eternal death with Mills and Ovens and Cauldrons”.’

Tolkien also saw it. His Lord of the Rings was a metaphor against how industrialisation in England murdered the beloved Shire of his childhood. As a protector of the forests, I’m as outraged as Ents at the widespread felling of trees by Saruman’s Orcs.

Evropa Soberana has also complained about how technological civilisation degrades the white man and Nature itself.

And, as I have stated many times on this site, ‘The Course of Empire is a five-part series of paintings created by Thomas Cole in 1833-1836. It reflected popular American sentiments of the times when many saw pastoralism as the ideal phase of human civilisation, fearing that empire would lead to gluttony and inevitable decay’ (see the five paintings by Cole: here).

Morgan seems to be saying that only after the fifth painting the surviving whites may regain their sanity again, always provided they never, ever try to surpass the pastoralist stage. Like Overlord Karellen, an extraterrestrial visitor of planet Earth, Morgan has made it very clear that humans will never be ready for the Promethean fire.

In my second book of the trilogy I propose something different: a mutated Aryan in an Earth populated exclusively by whites could finally be allowed to reach the stars. But from the psychogenic point of view, certainly He would be an altogether different White Man compared to those we see now. I refer to the development of the soul and, particularly, empathy: including empathy towards the animals, our Führer’s dream.

Unlike the Overman, present-day humans still have the soul of a Neanderthal (‘You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm’—Thus Spake Zarathustra).

In a blog entry it is difficult to convey the idea of what do I mean by surpassing the psychoclass that most humans belong to. But you can read the first novella by Arthur Clarke to get a rough idea: Against the Fall of Night and pay special attention to the city of Lys.

Introduction to eugenics

by Evropa Soberana

‘All people can be Gods people now through the New Covenant… all peoples have a right to exist and continue to exist, but no race is superior in the sight of God. Each people has been given specific attributes and responsibilities but to God every soul is valuable’ —Matt Heimbach.

Editor’s Note: Is race a social construct? This is what liberals believe—and apparently Christian white nationalists like Heimbach believe that, for God, race is a mere human construct. (No wonder why people say that liberalism is the bastard son of Christianity…)

Below, my abbreviated translation of ‘Intro a la eugenesia’, published six years ago by the Spaniard blogger Evropa Soberana:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

It is undeniable that in the species and in any human group there are diversity of qualities.

Some individuals are intelligent and others are stupid; even there are morons. Some individuals have health of steel and others are sickly. Some individuals are tall, others are short. Some individuals are strong, others are weak. Some individuals are brave, others are cowards. Some individuals are disciplined and hardworking, others are lazy and slothful. Some individuals are honest, noble, righteous and loyal, others have a clear inclination towards lying, falsehood, disloyalty and betrayal.

It is also undeniable that almost all these qualities are hereditary and depend on genetics to a greater or lesser extent (usually more greater than lesser).

The question that arises is: what qualities, from those listed above, seem more desirable to us and which ones would we like they end up prevailing in the future world if we want the Earth to be a better place?

If you are a logical person I address the following question: in the path that, as a species, we have been going through the last millennia, what qualities, of those listed above, tend to be selected?

The current mentality, produced by a civilisation isolated in its technological bubble, ignores a hundred percent the laws of Nature, of blood, of selection and of the inequality of men; laws that, necessarily, place the best ones above and the worst ones below. The modern world is, then, the perfect example of a diabolical selection in reverse, or dysgenics. Many people of inferior genetics have been perpetuated, and many people of superior genetics have not done so (for example, in medieval times because of fratricidal wars, witch hunts and celibacy of very large social sectors at the hands of the Church). That hurts the race. When the number of biological waste increases and that of bodily monuments to the gods decreases, we can be sure without any doubt that we are moving towards a future of biological trash.

Today, the individual is sacred and untouchable, while concepts such as ‘race’ and ‘homeland’ are considered abstractions, when the only abstraction is the individual who is born and dies fleetingly and while only human groups are solid and lasting realities.

In harder and more authentic times, the birth rate was vigorous, but the harshness of environmental conditions cut off the lives of the weakest. Thus, in a family of ten children, it was possible that they reached reproductive age only five. Each of these five would have, in turn, ten children, of which five would survive, the fittest. The result was that, in several generations, the defectives were virtually eradicated and the only ones left standing were the fittest. Thus, fighting against the elements, in wars, epidemics and catastrophes, the population of the planet remained stable but, nevertheless, as a species, we tended to improve generation after generation. Each ‘litter’ tended to be better than the previous one.

Humanity was not spiritually prepared for the advent of the modern industrial revolution, technology and health services. Obviously, the technology turned out to be in many ways salvation for Man, but he forgot to foresee that the immense population growth that would inevitably take place would have to be compensated in other ways. Instead of foreseeing measures that would continue to maintain a selection of the best ones to regulate the population, the uncontrolled proliferation of human beings was allowed, at the expense of Nature and of the biological quality of the population.

Ever since health services, technology, social services and Judeo-Christian morality have spread freely, a whole legion of sick, decrepit, retarded and handicapped people invade the horizon of the species that in a world dominated by Nature would never have seen the light, or they would have lasted a short time. We, who have the technique and the means to quickly and painlessly do what Nature usually does slowly and painfully, are propagating and perpetuating the inferior seeds.

It is argued that technology in itself is not good or bad, but depends on the use that is given. Today, it is being used diabolically, oriented to make us sick, to weaken us and to get away from the Earth and our own nature. In the future, when the imbecility of this civilisation has been overcome, the application of technology must take a 180-degree turn.
 

But then there would be a selection: we would choose the types to prevail, we would discriminate, and that is unfair (for me, of course: because I want to perpetuate my genes, and with them, the associated declines)!

It will be unfair to you, but it is fair to the race, which is more important than you. On the other hand, it is unfair for the species that your hereditary rubbish spread like the plague, no matter how much that offends you.

And yes: it sounds to me like selection. It’s like in the exams. He who gets more than a 5, approves, and he who gets 5 or less stays out… a ‘selection’ in full rule. How monstrously unfair! What ominous discrimination towards those who did not pass! How politically incorrect!

Just like those places where they do not let you pass if you do not wear shoes, or if you wear piggy pints, or if you don’t go with female company, or if you dislike the Romanian gatekeeper.

Or those expensive restaurants where you cannot go if you’re not with tie and well dressed. Or those clubs where they only accept Latin bitches. Or those 5-star hotels where if you lack dosh to pay for a suite they don’t accommodate you. Or those bars where they would crush you if you say, ‘Long Live Spain!’

This is discrimination and pure and hard selection, which surrounds us 24 hours a day, and always in much more unjust and unnatural ways than genetic discrimination.
 

But then a caste system would be formed and the equality would be destroyed!

Yes, but don’t we have a ‘caste system’ today? Is not that capitalist caste system based on money? Doesn’t that destroy the sacrosanct ‘equality’? Is such an economic criterion of social stratification not infinitely lower, unnatural, unjust and petty than the genetic one? Don’t it tend to enthrone mediocre, vile and malicious individuals?

Nowadays, one can be clown, brat, son of a bitch, depraved, pervert, false, traitor, snake, unfriendly, repellent, drug addict and stupid: but they will open the doors wherever he goes and will bow if he is rotten with money and makes ostentation of it visible.

Likewise, one can be an intelligent, good, healthy, brave, strong and friendly chap that the System will overlook if he is poor.

Today, a chick is ‘good’ if she has a neckline, thong, miniskirt and shows off her body, even if mediocre, while a beautiful gal is not stunning if she goes in tracksuit and shirt. Is not that tremendously unfair?

So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of wiping out all that and selecting the best individuals or genes for higher breeding?
 

But then we would operate modifications on the individual and force changes in the whole society!

So good! You have a son. Don’t you teach him to behave so that he is more presentable? Don’t you wash him and comb him so he looks better? Won’t you give him a better education to make him wiser? Isn’t that ‘operating modifications’?

Don’t we have a ridiculous and pathetic educational system, as well as a monstrous subliminal propaganda apparatus that ‘forces change’ throughout society, even in public opinion? Are not those changes, by the way, worse?

So what are you afraid of when you suggest the possibility of operating modifications for the better?
 

But then we would all end up being tall, handsome, blond, strong, gifted, indestructible, immortal, perfect and blue-eyed!

And what’s wrong with that?

Let’s see… taking the genetic range of yours and your partner, they give you to choose how you want your future child to be. How would you ‘ask’ him?

Short, maybe? Dummy? Black, no doubt? Something ugly, perhaps…?

Wouldn’t you ‘ask’ for the best range within your gene pool and that of your partner?
 

Oh, I don’t care how he looks like, and I’ll love him anyway.

I’m proud of you. Look, I’m going to shed a little tear with so much solidarity, so much progressivism, so much equality, so much tolerance and so many rainbows. But tell me: If the look doesn’t matter, then why the hell do you dye your hair or blow it?

Why do you brush or shave? Being a man, wouldn’t you ignore an ugly gal, fat and with a goatee? Why do you buy clothes designed to enhance your virtues and hide your shortcomings? Why do you make up? Why do you wear heels? Silicone? Implants? Operation of breast augmentation? Rhinoplasty? Lifting? Skin creams? Several liposuctions? Insulin for diabetes? Extirpation of the appendix? Gadgets for asthma? Barbiturates? Sleeping pills? Glasses or contact lenses? Anabolics?

Why, in short, do you try to pretend? Isn’t it because you are aware that this is a treasure? And isn’t all that a thousand times more unnatural than being born with privileged genes?

The problem is that people work on the phenotype, disguising their defects with money, paints, patches, amendments, accessories and harmful chemicals (and expensive, which is a lucrative and convenient business for the System). Perhaps, O hypocrites, wouldn’t you kill for good genetics, for health of steel, for beauty of birth and for not needing all those ridiculous complements to disguise your superficial miseries?

Don’t you spend (you and the State) bunch of monies in such patches and globs to hide your defects and your diseases, cash that could be saved if such defects were eradicated by tuning up certain genes harmlessly? Doesn’t all the waste of keeping the retarded, terminally ill, be cut off in a single generation with a little common sense, for God’s sake?
 

Oh, I wouldn’t choose the looks of my son, I’d just let him be born without messing with his genes.

Once again I’m shedding a tear. Sniff.

But when you see that all your little friends go through life begetting beautiful super-babes, healthy, responsible, intelligent, strong, loving, I have the vague feeling that you don’t want to stay behind, be the less coolest mother and condemn you to have to listen to your asthmatic, diabetic or simply mediocre child, without asking yourself how you were such a scumbag as not to give him a better birth having the means to do so.
 

But then babies born through genetic engineering will be unnatural beings!

Those babies wouldn’t be any more unnatural than a bourgeois obese with toad face; drinker, sedentary, dressed up to the neck and spending five hours a day on TV, or taking his BMW even to go shit.

Nor would it be more unnatural than a 50-year-old fat woman, unlookable, ramshackled, wrinkled, materialistic, smoker, varicosed, sterile, without children—but yes: a progressive, activist, sponsor of children of alien races in foreign countries, with her hair dyed blond, with lots of make up, with a purse, talking on her cell phone and stuffed with gelatinous muffin tops and flabs that none wants to see.

And, of course, they won’t be more unnatural than the troop of the sick, deviant, criminals, whores, parasites, inverted and degenerates who parade through our civilisation and to whom, on the other hand, no one deprived of their right to be born.

You yourself, don’t you take the bus or go by car? Don’t you get into noisy bars to get drunk and distract your will? Don’t you have sex with a condom or with an anti-baby device? Don’t you watch TV? Isn’t all that also ‘unnatural’? So what are you telling me, fucking piece of plastic with legs? I will accept the word ‘unnatural’ as valid only and exclusively if they come from the mouth of someone like Tarzan or Mowgli.

Why, then, almost perfect children, born out of the cross-breeding of the best of the species, should be unnatural and abominable beings? Couldn’t they be ordinary people, and have the same privileges as, for example, a homosexual mestizo, obese, diabetic, squatter and carrier of various venereal diseases?
 

Well, that seems discrimination to me. Who decides who is perfect? Isn’t that playing to be God?

Maybe it is playing God, but since no one is going to come down from heaven to give us instructions, and since we are not going to sit and watch the species degenerate until we become sickly Tinkiwinkies fused with TV, the bag and the car at the same time, someone with judgment has to fill that void.

Bearing in mind, moreover, that the species is on the verge of catastrophe we must favour an exacerbately high birth rate among the best specimens, and prevent the worst from multiplying. Modern Western civilisation is the only civilisation in the history of humanity that does not conceive of sex, marriage, family and birth-rate as biological weapons destined to propitiate ‘the victory of the cradles’—without which ‘the victory of the soldier’ is incomplete.

It will be necessary to cross-breed keeping in mind the selection of qualities such as Nordic blood, good constitution, intelligence, strength, stature, courage, leadership ability, health, resistance, discipline and a very long etcetera, which are the qualities selected by Nature itself when the suicidal and insane Judeo-Christian morality does not interpose between Her and man. It would not be necessary to ‘force’ things in this sense (‘you two are good specimens, let’s mate’), but to encourage their desire to emerge naturally and spontaneously.

If this type of policy was supported by the techniques and means that exist today, we would have, in a matter of generations, an almost perfect race, and all the defects—together with the expenses and miseries they cause—eradicated forever.

‘Good’ is everything that improves the race; ‘bad’ is everything that makes the race worse.

From this point of view, it could be necessary to resort to artificial methods (genetic engineering, state intervention, selective crossings) to correct the indescribable nonsense caused by 2000 years of artificial dementia.

Your urban brothel lifestyle, contaminated, uprooted, unhealthy, asphalted, greasy, degenerated, drunk and immoral harm the species and that is unnatural.

Your compassion and diligence towards junkies, the defective, retarded, homosexual, dirty, delinquent, sickly, parasites and judicially sentenced is something that harms the species and that is unnatural.

Your social-economic selection is something that harms the species, that makes it worse and tends to form a type of inferior man, in addition to being a thousand times more immoral than natural-genetic selection.

Your castration of the instinct of aggressiveness is something that worsens the species and leaves us unarmed before more brutal humanities.

Genetic selection, good birth and the selective matching of the best individuals are things that benefit the race and tend to form a type of superior man. Therefore they are good and desirable in themselves.

Conclusion: as long as an intervention in human reproduction is not a reality, mate only with individuals of similar genetic and racial quality of you. Guide yourself through the traits of the body, the soul, health and the tone of skin, eyes and hair.

On Richard Carrier

A depiction of Ecce Homo, as Pontius Pilate
delivers Jesus to the crowd (Antonio Ciseri, 1862).

Before reading Carrier, I imagined that there was a historical Jesus crucified by Pilate if we only eliminated all the legendary tales, miracles and resurrection stories that appear in the Gospels. As I have already said, it was not until the end of last year that I changed my mind.

Discovering the mythicists reminded me strongly of what happened to me in the 1990s with CSI literature, and especially when I read a book by Robert Sheaffer that made me doubt, for the first time, of the existence of ‘psi’. The fact is that the exegetes of the New Testament, starting with Albert Schweitzer, have been in bondage of the introjects of their parents. They could never encapsulate the viruses and malwares as I have done in my mentality.

All the liberal and even secular exegetes of the New Testament that I read since the 1980s were in bondage of parental introjects. The simplest hypothesis should have been, from the beginning, the theory of a mythical Christ because no single contemporary witness outside the Bible ever bothered to write about Jesus.

None. Zilch. Zero. Plenty of people, long after Jesus supposedly died, claimed he was real but outside the Bible, sorry: it is a tall tale. It is the same as happens with parapsychologists: they cannot conceive the inexistence of psi. By force of deep parental introjects the historicist exegetes (those who believe in a historical Jesus) cannot conceive the nonexistence of Jesus (which includes those who believe in the historicity of an ordinary, non-miraculous Jesus).

The implications of my finding of the last days of last year are tremendous. Now I see the tragedy of the West (and the demographic bubble that Christianity caused) in another way as I saw it before my December discovery. The nonexistence of Jesus crushes all Christianity and neo-Christianity in a most forceful way. Or rather, I can use Carrier et al for the thesis I’ve been advancing in this blog.

The Christian bug is incredibly stupider—stupid indeed was believing in the Gospels in the first place—than I previously thought. If what Carrier et al say is true, the result would be that the white race is even more ‘Neanderthal’ than I imagined before my December 28 discovery.

Richard Carrier may be a blue-pilled liberal as foolish as those at Columbia University where he studied. But just as we cannot dispatch the findings in physics or medicine of those who graduated there, neither can we reject what Carrier says in his book that, perhaps, I’ll start to review on Mondays.