Reflections of an Aryan woman, 68

There seems to be in this, on the part of the young Adolf, a deliberate refusal of sexual life, not, of course, for vain ‘mortification of the flesh’ but with a view to the use of the ‘sacred flame of life’ in the conquest of the higher states of his being and, finally, in the conquest of realisation, of the experience of the unthinkable beyond the being and non-being of Dante’s ‘supreme heaven’; the One of Plotinus; the Brahman of the Sanskrit Scriptures.

The revolution he was already meditating on could only come ‘from above’, for it was a true, the only true revolution: the overthrow of anthropocentric values that are nothing but the product of the laughable vanity of fallen man. He knew this. And such, no doubt, more than one knight aspiring to ‘God’, that is to say to the knowledge of the supreme principle, resisting more easily the temptations of the senses by evoking the idealised image of his ‘Lady’ just as Dante was accompanied during two-thirds of his ascent to the successive paradises by the radiant Beatrice: whom he had only glimpsed twice on the material plane, without ever having spoken to her. So Adolf Hitler, we believe, climbed the first rungs of spiritual development beyond the stage he could have reached without her, accompanied inwardly by the blonde Stephanie. He saw in her some of the great female figures of Wagnerian drama: ‘the German woman par excellence’, the living Germany. It was only natural that she should embody for him in human form the suggestive power—the symbolic eloquence—of both the music of the Master of Bayreuth and the immemorial Swastika.

For the initiation of the future Führer into the most universal truths was to take place under the sign of Germania, to whose particular tradition he was to become increasingly attached to identify himself. For he was both the sleeping emperor, suddenly emerging from his cave at the call of his people’s despair, and Siegfried, the warrior ‘freer than the Gods’, creator of a world of overmen: the Germanic form of He-who-returns from age to age.

It is remarkable that, ‘in full possession of himself’ [1] he had, already at the time in question, the position he was to take later in Mein Kampf concerning all the social problems raised by sex. He felt the same repulsion for venal love (even if legalized), as well as for all manner of unhealthy eroticism; the same respect for the ‘sacred flame of life’—a divine force, the source of racial immortality, which should not be diverted from its purpose for the sole pleasure of the individual, but should be put to the service of the race.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: There is no point in continuing dropping names. But I’ve read a recent article in one of the most visited forums of the racial right in which the editor mocked the incels because they are incapable of ‘getting laid’. While I am repulsed by this movement of frustrated males insofar as they have no revolutionary ideology (merely a reactionary one), it doesn’t seem to enter the little heads of the apologists of feminism that we healthy males don’t want ‘getting laid’ but traditional wives.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
It is remarkable that in all that concerned the sexual field in general, as in other fields, he was already placing himself, for others, in the view of the legislator (while for himself only the knowledge and the power connected with it counted: the preparation for the extraordinary role he was to play in history). Amid the great corrupt city he surrounded himself, Kubizek tells us, ‘with a screen of unshakable principles, which allowed him to build his life…’ —I would say, his being— ‘in complete inner freedom, independent of the threatening atmosphere’.[2] One thinks, when reading these words, of the ‘magic circle’ which surrounds and protects the man who has reached a certain level of initiatory realisation, and helps him to continue his development in a true (although not apparent) isolation.

How long did this isolation and ‘severe monastic asceticism’[3] of which Kubizek speaks, last for Adolf Hitler? Probably until he had reached the supreme degree of knowledge: the state where he was finally fully aware not only that he was (like the tribune Rienzi) ‘entrusted with a mission’ to the people, but that he had chosen this task and decided to ‘take on human form’ in the visible world to carry it out, even if it were to end in total failure, because it was nevertheless inscribed in the eternal order of things. At this stage, the final, irreversible mutation which corresponds to initiation into the ‘great mysteries’, having been carried out, any asceticism became superfluous like the vessel whose exile, brought back to port at last, has no further use.

___________

[1] Kubizek, page 276.
[2] Ibid., page 286.
[3] Ibid.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 66

It is curious, to say the least, that this extraordinary episode—which, apart from its own ‘resonance’ of truth, is guaranteed by Kubizek’s ignorance of the superhuman realm—has not, to my knowledge, been commented on by any of those who have tried to link National Socialism to ‘occult’ sources. Even the authors who have—quite wrongly!—wanted to attribute to the Führer a nature of ‘medium’ have not, as far as I know, attempted to use it. Instead, they have insisted on the immense power of suggestion which he exercised not only over crowds (and women), but on all those who came, even if only occasionally, into contact with him; on men as coldly detached as a Himmler; on soldiers as realistic as an Otto Skorzeny, a Hans-Ulrich Rudel or a Degrelle.

Now, it is ignorance of the first elements of the science of para-psychic phenomena to consider as ‘medium’ one who enjoys such power. A medium is the one who receives, who undergoes suggestion; not the one who is capable of inflicting it on others, and especially many others. This power is the privilege of the hypnotist or magnetizer, and in this case of a magnetizer of a stature that borders on the superhuman; of a magnetizer capable for his benefit—or rather for the idea, of which he wants to be the promoter—to play the role of a ‘medium’ to the strongest, the stalest, the most resistant to any affecting.

One is not both a magnetiser and a medium. We are one or the other, or neither. And if we want to include some ‘para-psychic’ in the history of Adolf Hitler’s political career—as I believe we are entitled to do—then the magnetizer is him, whose power of exalting and transforming human beings, by the mere spoken word, is comparable to that which Orpheus exerted, it is said, by the enchantment of his lyre, on people and beasts. The ‘medium’ is the German people, almost all of them—and some non-Germans throughout the world, to whom the radio transmitted the bewitching Voice.

The episode mentioned above, of which I have translated Augustus Kubizek’s account, [1] could very well serve as an argument in favour of the presence of ‘medium gifts’ in the young Adolf Hitler if these so-called gifts weren’t contradicted resoundingly, precisely by the astonishing power of suggestion which he didn’t cease to exercise throughout his career on the multitudes and practically all the people. Indeed, Kubizek tells us that he had the distinct impression that ‘another I’ had spoken through his friend; that the stream of prophetic eloquence had seemed to flow from him as from a force alien to him. Now, if the adolescent speaker had nothing of the ‘medium’ about him; if he was in no way possessed by ‘an Other’—god or the devil, whatever; in any case not himself—what then was this ‘other I’ who seemed to take his place during that unforgettable hour on the summit of the Freienberg, under the stars, and to substitute him so completely that the friend would have had some difficulty in recognising him, hadn’t he continued to see him?

Understandably, Auguste Kubizek didn’t ‘dare to pass judgment’ on this. However, he speaks of an ‘ecstatic state’, of ‘complete rapture’ (völlige Entrückung) and the transposition of the visionary’s experience onto ‘another plane, tailored to him’ (auf eine andere, ihm gemässe Ebene). Moreover, this recent living experience—the impression made on him by the story of the 14th-century Roman tribune translated and interpreted by Wagner’s music—had been, the witness tells us, only the ‘external impulse’ which had led him to the vision of the personal as well as the national future; in other words, which had served as the occasion for the adolescent’s access to a new consciousness: a consciousness in which space and time, and the individual state that is linked to these limitations, are transcended.

This would mean that the ‘other plane to the measure’ of the young Adolf Hitler was nothing less than that of the ‘eternal present’ and that, far from having been ‘possessed’ by an alien entity, the future master of the multitudes had become master of the Centre of his being; that he had, under the mysterious influence of his initiator—Wagner—taken the great decisive step on the path of esoteric knowledge, undergone the first irreversible mutation—the opening of the ‘third eye’ which had made him an ‘Edenic man’.

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s Note: Are you finally beginning to understand the metaphor that I have used so many times on this site (the symbol of the three-eyed raven)?
 

______ 卐 ______

 
He had just acquired the degree of being corresponding to what is called, in initiatory language, the Little Mysteries. And the ‘other I’ which had spoken through his mouth of things that his daily conscious self was still unaware of, or perhaps only half-perceived ‘as if through a veil’, a few hours before, was his true ‘I’ and that of all the living: the Being, with whom he had just realized his identification.

It may seem strange to the vast majority of my readers—including those who still venerate him as ‘our Führer forever’—that he could, at such an astonishingly young age, have shown such an awakening to supra-sensible realities. Among the men who aspire with all their ardour to essential knowledge, how many are there, in fact, who grow old in meditation and pious exercises without yet reaching this level? But if there is one area where the most fundamental inequality and the most blatant appearance of ‘arbitrariness’ reigns, it is this.

God places his august sign on the forehead of whoever pleases him;
He has forsaken the eagle, and chosen the birdie,
Said the monk. Why did he do this? Who shall tell? Nobody![2]

There is no impossibility for an exceptional adolescent to cross the barrier opened to the mind in search of principled truth, initiation into the Little Mysteries. According to what is still told in India about his life, the great Sankaracharya was one of these. And twenty-two centuries earlier, Akhnaton, king of Egypt, was also sixteen years old when he began to preach the cult of Aten, Essence of the Sun, of which the ‘Disc’ is only the visible symbol. And everything leads us to believe that there were others, less and less rare as we go back for the cycle in which we live the last centuries.

If, on the other hand, one sees in Adolf Hitler one of the figures—and undoubtedly the penultimate one—of the One who returns when all seems lost; the most recent of the many precursors of the supreme divine incarnation or of the last messenger of the Eternal (the Mahdi of the Mahometans; the Christ returned in glory of the Christians; the Maitreya of the Buddhists; the Saoshyant of the Mazdeans; the Kalki of the Hindus) or by whatever name one wishes to call him, who is to end this cycle and usher in the Golden Age of the next, then all becomes clear.

For then, naturally, he was an adolescent and before that, already an exceptional child: a child whose sign, a word, a nothing (or what might seem ‘a nothing’ to anyone else) was enough to awaken his intellectual intuition. So, it is not impossible to think that, from the school years 1896-97, 1897-98 (and partly 1898-99), which he spent as a pupil at the Benedictine abbey of Lambach-an-Traun, in Upper Austria, the magic of the Holy Swastika—a powerful cosmic symbol, an immemorial evocator of the principal truth—seized him, penetrated him, dominated him; that he had, beyond the exhilarating solemnity of Catholic worship, identified with it forever.

For the Reverend Father Theodorich Hagen, Abbot of Lambach, had, thirty years earlier, this sacred sign engraved on the walls, on the woodwork, in every corner of the monastery, however paradoxical such an action may seem ‘without counterpart in a Christian convent’.[3] And as he sang in the choir the young Adolf, nine years old in 1898, ten years old in 1899, had ‘right in front of him’ on ‘the high back of the abbot’s chair’, in the very centre of Father Hagen’s heraldic shield, the ancient Symbol now destined to remain forever attached to his name.

It is natural, then, that he should have been aware very early on, in parallel with his opening up to the world of Essences, of what had to be done in this visible and tangible world, at the eleventh hour, a ‘recovery’; or even only to suggest one—to sound the last, supreme warning of the Gods, in case the universal decadence was irredeemable (as indeed it seems to be). And, as Kubizek reports, there is every reason to believe that this was the case, since even at the time of his extraordinary awakening the future Führer spoke of the ‘mission’ (Auftrag) he was to receive one day, to lead the people ‘from bondage to the heights of freedom’.[4]

__________

[1] There is a French edition of Auguste Kubizek’s book Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfreund, published by Gallimard. Unfortunately, the original text has been shortened. The most interesting passages of this story are not included in the translation.

[2] Leconte de Lisle in the poem entitled ‘Hieronymus’, in Poèmes tragiques.

[3] Brissaud : Hitler et l’Ordre Noir, page 23.

[4] Kubizek: Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfreund, page 140.

Published in: on January 7, 2022 at 1:12 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 66  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 62

But it is above all the constructive aspect of Hitlerism which makes it the elite’s fighting philosophy against levelling—against ‘mass reduction’ (Vermassung)—and the instrument of an in extremis recovery of Aryan humanity and, through it, of all earthly life, against the current of Time.

I have said it over and over again in these talks: there was nothing ‘new’ about the Führer’s ‘New Order’, the one he wanted and which, unfortunately, the pressure of the Dark Forces of the whole world had to crush before his installation. It was the oldest possible order: the ‘original’ order of things, firmly based on the eternal truths which dominate and condition that particular manifestation of Being which is life.

But its resurgence in our late stage of the age of untruths par excellence (and even later) could and never can happen except through combat. This is why the idea of relentless combat, of ‘perpetual revolution’, [1] is inseparable from Hitlerism. It underlies both the most positive creations in all fields and the most implacable defensive measures against the corruption of the race or the regime’s saboteurs.

Hitler’s intolerance is, even in its aggressiveness, only a defensive intolerance—a reaction, as I have tried to show, against the millennial intolerance of Judaism and its ‘jealous God’, and against that of the no less ‘jealous’ entities (‘universalism’, ‘democracy’, etc.) in which an increasingly Judaized world believes. Hitlerism itself is, even in its conquering momentum, nothing but a movement for the defence, protection and resurrection of the fundamental values of Life, denied in the West for centuries. It is the defence of the ideal Order, more or less apparent in the most venerable ancient societies, against all miscegenation, all levelling, all backward selections, all unnatural reversals; against the disintegrating pressure of what is commonly called ‘progress’ and which is, at the bottom, nothing but the ever more insistent affirmation of anthropocentrism. It is, I repeat, unthinkable outside the Dark Ages.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: I would go a little further. Savitri speaks above about ‘the pressure of the Dark Forces’. It is the Christian idea of the human soul that is screwing the Aryan race. As Jack Frost tried unsuccessfully to communicate to Christian commenters in a thread from a Kevin MacDonald article of September 19, 2015:

Christians believe that the soul is eternal and always exists… Now, the soul is raceless and according to them the only important thing about a man; the body is dross, merely a shell. Why should someone who believes he is raceless and never going to die, and who is focused intently on things not of this world but an anticipated next, worry himself about trivial matters such as the survival of Western civilization or of this or that biological race? Clearly, to do so would be a heresy.

______ 卐 ______

 
When I speak of its ‘constructive aspect’ I don’t especially have in mind the spectacular material, social or even cultural achievements of the German Third Reich: not the restoration of the national economy (almost overnight), not the various initiatives or institutions that might be called ‘philanthropic’, the aid to mothers and children, the distributions of coal to the elderly during the winter, the cruises to the Balearic Islands or the Canary Islands organised for factory workers on paid leave, or the royal four-lane autobahns which ran as far as the eye could see into the splendour of the restored forests. All this was just one of a series of obvious signs of the victorious revolution, a series that was only just beginning.

Other signs, less obvious, more subtle than the first, were already appearing in all areas of life. Newborn babies were increasingly given beautiful Germanic names, evocative of a legendary past. Furniture, at least in some privileged homes, such as those of SS members, was decorated with symbolic motifs whose occult influence was felt even by those who couldn’t explain it. But however important they may have been, they were, again, only signs. This was not the revolution.

The real, positive, creative revolution—unique among the political upheavals of all centuries since antiquity—was the return to the sources, under the command of a qualified Chief and Master: both initiate and strategist, and supreme holder of political authority; prophet of the ‘new’ (or rather eternal) Doctrine and founder of the corresponding visible order; invested, as I said above, with the ‘power of the Two Keys’, elected by those Forces of Life which militate with more and more impersonal fervour, against the fatal tendencies of the Cycle near its end. The real revolution was the effort to restore a traditional society, hierarchically ordered according to the intangible values of all time; resting firmly on the earth while it carried its elite of race, character and knowledge beyond the human, as the plant with long serpentine stems holds its mystic lotuses, hatched in the light, on the surface of the pond, far above the nourishing mud.

The European, if not pan-Aryan society that the Führer wanted was to be no other than this. Politically centred around the Great Reich, that is to say, Germany, supplemented by the conquered areas in the West and especially in the East, would have been dominated by the Germanic elite of the SS, to which would have been increasingly incorporated Aryans of non-German origin, judged worthy of forming, together with their blood brothers, the warrior aristocracy of the new world. And at least part of this young aristocracy would have been—was, in fact, already—a spiritual elite, an initiatory group, linked, through the intermediary of a very ancient tradition, of Germanic expression, to the primordial Tradition.

Governed from 1933 onwards by the Incarnation of the divine Liberator, who returns unceasingly and, in the following years, by that of his paladins whom he would have designated, the Reich was to become once again what had been, centuries before Christianity and before Rome, the soil of the old Germanic tribes: a ‘Holy Land’ in the esoteric sense of the word; the cradle of a civilisation nourished by the radiance of a powerful centre of initiatory achievement.

And it is well known that this new Aryan civilisation, with its Germanic elite, was inspired this time by the same principles as the old society of Vedic and post-Vedic India, at a time when the caste system, also based on ‘race and personality’, still corresponded effectively to the natural hierarchy of men. In both cases, at the root of the whole social structure—and, with some exceptions, at the basis of the relations between conquerors and conquered—is the same notion of irreducible congenital inequality between human races, or even between the more or less clear subdivisions of the same fundamental race: an inequality which no religious or philosophical anthropocentrism can attenuate, and which it is the duty of the wise legislator to reinforce, if possible, but never to fight.

The abyss which, in the mind of the Führer, separates the Aryan worthy of the name from the ‘sub-humans’, is reminiscent in more than one respect of the abyss which, in the Sanskrit Scriptures, separates and opposes the Arya, ‘twice born’, from the Dasyu. According to Rauschning, the Führer goes so far as to speak of a ‘new variety of man’, the result of a real ‘mutation’, in the scientific and natural sense of the word[2] which would ‘far surpass present-day man’ and would move further and further away from ‘the man of the herd’, who has already entered, according to him, ‘the stage of decay and survival’.[3]

It seems that he saw this ‘mutation’—which, like the initiation of the ‘twice-born’ of ancient India, or that of the freemen of pagan Greece into the ‘mysteries’, concerned only the race of the masters—as the culmination of a hard series of tests. He felt that it was too late to impose such asceticism on the mature generation. It was the youth, the ‘splendid youth’ that Adolf Hitler loved so much, the youth whose destiny he was still to try to guide ‘in the centuries to come’ by writing his Political Testament under the thunder of the Russian guns, who had to undergo it, and emerge transformed, hardened, embellished, elevated to a higher level of being: a level that an elite within the elite had yet to exceed.

It was in the ‘fortresses’ (Burgs) of the warlike and mystical Order of the SS—those veritable nurseries of Western Kshatriyas—that the masters-at-arms and spiritual masters of the new aristocracy were to educate the young candidates for superhumanity. ‘My pedagogy is hard’, declared the inspired Lawgiver of the new Aryan world. ‘I work with a hammer and loosen everything that is dumb or worm-eaten. In my Burgs of Order we shall grow a youth before whom the world will tremble; a violent, imperious, fearless youth’… a youth who ‘will know how to bear pain. I want nothing weak or tender in them. I want it to have the strength and beauty of the young beasts… the innocence and nobility of Nature’.[4] And further on, still in the same conversation with Rauschning: ‘The only science I shall require of these young people is self-control. They will learn to tame fear. This is the first stage of my Order: the stage of heroic youth. From this will come the second degree: that of the ‘free man’, of the man ‘at the centre of the world’, of the ‘god-man’.[5]

What was this ‘God-man’, this ‘man at the centre of the world’?, the nature of which seems to have completely escaped Rauschning, as no doubt many of the Führer’s other interlocutors. What was it—what could it be—if not what the sages, in the traditional sense of the word, call ‘primordial man’ or ‘Edenic man’: he who has succeeded, precisely through his ‘self-mastery’, in identifying himself with the centre of his being (which is, like that of every being, human or not, the very centre of the manifested world) and who has thereby rediscovered his original innocence, because ‘while acting, he is no longer acts’?[6]

But there was a ‘future stage of manly maturity’, other, higher degrees of initiation of which Adolf Hitler was ‘not allowed to speak’. There were revelations, which were to come ‘later’, ‘long, perhaps, after his death’. He knew that this death—as well as the death, at least apparently, of the whole universe of truth which he was recreating by iron and fire—would be indispensable to the ultimate accomplishment of his mission.

He had had, at the age of sixteen, the extraordinary intuition, I should say: the vision. He seems never to have expressed to anyone the depth of his thinking, nor the magnitude (and horror) of what, from the angle of the ‘eternal Present’, his inner eye could discover of the immediate future of Germany and the world; nor the profound—more than human—reasons which made his fight necessary despite the old certainty and the increasingly obvious prospect of inevitable collapse.

He never expressed any of this because metaphysical knowledge, which alone justified everything he could have said, is, like all such knowledge, incommunicable. Among his most devoted collaborators only those who, like Rudolf Hess, were not aspects of the One Who Comes from the Past, but were nevertheless initiates, could follow him without a leap of faith. These needed no verbal or written transmission to grasp all that in the Führer’s secret thought, though impenetrable to discursive intelligence, was not beyond their level.

_________

[1] Rauschning: Hitler m’a dit, op. cit., page 59.

[2] Ibid., page 272.

[3] Ibid., pages 272-273.

[4] Ibid., page 278.

[5] Ibid., page 279.

[6] The Bhagawad-Gîta, IV, Verse 20.

Published in: on December 14, 2021 at 2:41 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 62  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 52

It is certain that the decision of the young corporal Hitler, of the 16th Bavarian infantry regiment, to ‘become a politician’ [1] —a decision taken at the announcement of the capitulation of November 1918 in the tragic circumstances of which everyone knows[2]—isn’t enough to explain the extraordinary career of the man who was one day to become the master of Germany, if not of Europe.

Moreover ‘politics’, paradoxical as it may seem, had never been for the Führer the main issue. In a talk on the night of 25 to 26 January 1942, he confessed that he had devoted himself to it ‘against his will’ and saw it as ‘only a means to an end’.[3] This ‘end’ was the mission to which I referred above. Adolf Hitler spoke of it in Mein Kampf and in many speeches, such as the one he gave on 12 March 1938 in Linz where he said, among other things: ‘If Providence once called me out of this city to lead the Reich, it was because it had a mission for me in which I believed, and for which I lived and fought’.

His confidence to act, driven by an impersonal Will, both transcendent and immanent, of which his individual will was only the expression, was pointed out by all those who approached him from near or from afar. Robert Brasillach mentioned the ‘divine mission’ with which the Führer felt invested. And Hermann Rauschning said that he ‘saw himself as a prophet whose role exceeded that of a statesman by a hundred cubits’. ‘No doubt’, he adds, ‘he takes himself quite seriously as the herald of a new humanity’.[4] This is in line with the statement of Adolf Hitler himself, also reported by Rauschning: ‘He who understands National Socialism only as a political movement knows little about it. National Socialism is more than a religion: it is the will to create the overman’.

Moreover, despite his political alliance with Mussolini’s Italy, the Führer was perfectly aware of the abyss separating his biologically based Weltanschauung from Fascism, which remained alien to the ‘stakes of the colossal struggle’ that was about to begin, that is, the meaning of his mission. ‘It is only we National Socialists and we alone’, he said, ‘who have penetrated the secret of the gigantic revolutions that are coming’.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: This is so true that it reminds me of yesterday’s post on this site, in which we saw how a scholar well versed in NS fails to cross the axiological river. The greatness of the NS men is noticeable in that in the last century Himmler’s select group had already crossed it. And the main shortcoming of white nationalism on the other side of the Atlantic, eighty years later, is that they continue to resist crossing it because of Christian ethics.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

‘And that is why we are the only people, chosen by Providence, to make our mark on the coming century’.[5] In fact, few German National Socialists had penetrated this secret. But it was enough that he, Adolf Hitler, the leader and soul of Germany, had penetrated it to justify the ‘choice’ of the forces of life, for a people is in solidarity with its leader, at least when he is racially one of its sons. In other words, Germany’s priority was, in this case, a consequence of the lucidity of its Leader, of the ‘magic vision’—of the consciousness of the initiate living in the eternal Present—which, alone of all the politicians and generals of his time, he possessed.

It is in this vision that we must seek the source of the Führer’s hostility towards the modern world—both capitalist and Marxist—and its institutions. There is no need to return to the process of the superstition of equality, parliamentarianism, democracy, etc., which is nothing more than the superstition of ‘man’ applied to politics: a trial which the founder of the Third Reich made again and again, in Mein Kampf as in all his speeches, before the multitudes, as well as before the few. Adolf Hitler also attacks features of our time which, while not at the root of this superstition (which is infinitely older) nevertheless reinforces its tragic character. These are, in particular, the rapid disappearance of the sense of the sacred, the resurgence of the ‘technical spirit’, and above all perhaps the disordered proliferation of man in inverse proportion to his quality.

While knowing that they could only be, in the name of Christian anthropocentrism, his worst adversaries, Adolf Hitler was careful not to attack the churches openly, let alone ‘persecute’ them. He did so out of political skill, and also out of fear of depriving the people of an existing faith before another had penetrated deeply enough into their souls to replace it advantageously.

This didn’t prevent him from observing that the time of living Christianity was over; that the Churches represented nothing more than a ‘hollow, fragile and deceptive religious apparatus’[6] which was not even worth demolishing from the outside, since from the inside it was already crumbling of its own accord, and cracking on all sides. He didn’t believe in a resurrection of the Christian faith. In the German countryside it had always been a ‘veneer’, a ‘shell’ which had kept intact the old piety under it. And it was now a question of reviving and directing it. In the urban masses he saw nothing that revealed any awareness of the sacred. He realised that ‘where everything is dead, nothing can be relighted’.[7]

In any case, Christianity was, in his eyes as in ours, nothing but a foreign religion imposed on the Germanic peoples, and fundamentally opposed to their genius. Adolf Hitler despised those responsible men who had been able for so long to content themselves with such childishness as those that the Churches taught the masses. And he was never short of sarcasm when, before those few to whom he knew he could confess the least popular aspect of his thinking, he spoke of Christianity as ‘an invention of sick brains’.[8]

___________

[1] ‘Ich aber beschloss, Politiker zu werden’, Mein Kampf, ed. 1935, p. 225.

[2] Adolf Hitler, gas-gnawed, threatened with blindness, learned the news at Pasewalk Military Hospital where he had been evacuated.

[3] In the presence of Himmler, Lammers, Zeitzler—Libres Propos, (op. cit.) p. 244.

[4] Hermann Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit, 13th French edition, 1939.

[5] Ibid., p. 147.

[6] Ibid., p. 69.

[7] Ibid. p. 71.

[8] Free Remarks on War and Peace (op. cit.), p. 141.

Nobody wanted to listen, 2

‘Normal people’

Not all my close friends are as primitive as a pastry chef who, like a balm, tries to spread whipped cream to his existential pain. In my adolescence there was a time when Hector Covarrubias and my father commented on the wonders of 2001: A Space Odyssey at the house in Palenque. As I said in the narrative section, the film culminates with the return to Earth of a man turned into an overman to eradicate Neanderthalism. Arthur Clarke himself suggests this at the end of the novel, which Hector had read. Of my relatives, Hector was considered the most intelligent in the family and as a teenager I visited him, being impressed by his clear and transparent rationalism. The lectures on physics he gave me individually in 1977 had moments as lucid as I would later hear on Carl Sagan’s shows. But Hector was blinded about the conflict with my parents. He didn’t see the dysfunction in our family even when, because of the seventh circle of hell at home, he saw me completely broken. His house was an Enlightenment room as long as we touched on the topics of science, rationalism, and the criticism of magical thinking. The problems of the soul were forbidden. Instead of seeing my family problem, he repressed the whole thing and looked me down. He disowned the nephew who most admired him…

Hector was already a married man with daughters when I stopped visiting him in the early 1980s. But I have also been offended by relatives younger than myself. When my first cousin Octavio read my Epistle to the mother in 1990 he commented to me: ‘My view of your parents is changing!’ I remember those words very well while, sitting and reading it absorbed, he had the manuscript on the desk. However, some months later he spread the gossip with my father that I could publish it. Octavio had been the closest of my intelligent cousins, but like years later with Pablo, I felt very hurt by his behaviour and I distanced myself permanently from him. Something not so grotesque happened with my cousin Carmina when I visited her at her house, next to Hector, our uncle. When I made a sheepishly critical comment on parental abuse, my cousin jumped, ‘You think your parents are demons’. I don’t know why she reacted like this. I suppose that from other relatives she was familiar with my ideas. It was the last time I visited her. Hector, Octavio and Carmina are sophisticated people. But their reactions were typical cases of extreme dissociation before the most elemental psychological reality.

Gerardo Tort filmed De la Calle, a film about homeless children in Mexico City. He is one of the two cousins Korina referred to in her letter of advice and scolding. Surely my cousin Gerardo could hear me, I thought. I had read an approximation of the script for his film before the script reached its final elaboration, and I gave him my opinion. What would be my surprise when Gerardo didn’t comment on a draft of my first two books, nor would he do so in subsequent years. And he didn’t tell me anything even though, on one occasion when I ran into him on the street, I brought up the subject of the manuscript I had given him. Not even a filmmaker my age, with whom I had talked about so many things against the established order in the past, could hear my story. Gerardo can bring his guts to the camera into the sewers where street children live. But he doesn’t have them to listen to his cousin about what happened in one of the Tort families. My sister would say that those who act like this ‘are normal people who run away from problems; they are not interested and cannot do anything about it’. I’d say they are Neanderthals—exterminable Neanderthals indeed, as I will argue elsewhere.

Empathy

Only the overman will be able to develop empathy at the level of what in my books I call the priest, or rather ruler, of the four words. But without going so far, the philosophical problem of who should govern arose from the times of Plato.

In popular culture that has reached the masses, only fiction writer George R.R. Martin apparently has dealt with the problem of this philosopher-king. The viewership for the finale of Game of Thrones, ‘The Iron Throne’, included 13.6 million people who watched the episode on HBO at 9 p.m. Sunday about a year ago, making it the most-watched telecast in the network’s history. But of all these millions of normies only one understood Martin’s philosophy: the vlogger who correctly predicted who would be crowned in the finale.

Below is a transcript of Yezen’s ‘Why Bran Stark will be King’ video, which was uploaded twenty days before the finale. Compared to Yezen, all the fans of the famous series who keep commenting on YouTube seem Neanderthals to me. Not only did they fail to predict who would be the king: they were angered by the finale because they don’t understand why only someone with sovereign empathy must rule.

For those who have already seen the above-linked video and are interested in a transcript, let me say that the emphasis of the red words is mine. Yezen said:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

First off, I want to say how much I appreciate all of the support this channel has been getting in the past couple weeks, so today I’m gonna try to drive everyone away by giving one of my more controversial predictions. In the end of Game of Thrones, the person who will sit in the Iron Throne and rule Westeros is… Bran Stark.

Yup. King Bran the Broken. The Bird Kid, First of our POV’s, Lord of the Awkward Stare, and Producer of the Memes, because ‘Chaos is a ladder’. And Bran is the best at climbing. Also, he’s the best at sitting… [LOL!]

Okay, but really, without getting into Children of the Forest conspiracies, or a convoluted lecture on the line of succession for Harrenhal, let me explain why it’ll be Bran. And before I get a million comments reminding me that he’s not Bran anymore—I get it, he’s not totally Bran. But it’s also not that simple. The actor Isaac Hempstead Wright has confirmed that there is some Bran ‘left over’ in the Three-eyed Raven, so it’s a complicated entity.

Anyways, hang in there. Here it goes.

Tommen: ‘It means I’ll become King’.

Tywin: ‘Yes, you will become King. What kind of King do you think you’ll be?’

Tommen: ‘A good King?’

Tywin: ‘Huh. I think so as well. You’ve got the right temperament for it. But what makes a good king, hmm? What is a good King’s single most important quality?’

In many ways, Game of Thrones was intended as a response to The Lord of the Rings. Bran is Frodo. Aegon is Aragorn. Arya is Aeowyn. The Night King is Sauron. Sam is Sam, and Sean Bean dies.

And George R.R. Martin’s equivalent for the titular Ring of Power has always been the Iron Throne. Like the One Ring, the Iron Throne is the central object of absolute power, around which the narrative revolves. Though not inherently evil like the Ring, the Iron Throne is isolating; it brings men to war, and tends to destroy those who hold or pursue it. And, at the end of The Lord of the Rings, the ring is cast into the fire that forged it, and destroyed forever, ridding the world of its corruption, and restoring moral order.

So why can’t we expect the same from Game of Thrones? Why can’t the Iron Throne simply be destroyed in the dragon-fire that forged it, thereby ending the evil of war?

Tommen: ‘Holiness?’

Tywin: ‘Hmm’.

Well, the answer lies in the differences between how Tolkien and Martin depict good and evil in relation to power.

In Tolkien’s world, good and evil are distinct, and the Ring represents power in a strictly evil sense. All power that is just or lawful is considered to be separate from the corruption of the Ring.

Yet, in Martin’s world, morality is ambiguous, and exists in shades of gray. The Iron Throne has no inherent moral alignment, and represents the power for both good and evil. Though there is certainly symbolism to destroying it; whether there’s a spiky metal chair or not, people will still seek power. And the Seven Kingdoms can still be conquered, and will still be ruled. Melting the Iron Throne isn’t a real solution. Power must pass to someone.

Of course, the obvious candidate would be King Aegon—Jon Snow Targaryen. After all, he is modelled after Aragorn, who is the King that returns. And in the season 8 opener, we already see Davos suggesting the possibility of Jon and Daenerys getting married, binding their alliance and forming a dream-team power couple to rule Westeros better and fairer than ever before.

Davos: ‘What if the Seven Kingdoms, for once in their whole shit history, were ruled by a just woman and an honourable man?’

Yet, as is typical of this story, the fact that someone has predicted this outcome in dialogue, implies that it’s unlikely to come to pass. The Northerners seem outright opposed to Targaryen rule, and whether or not Daenerys can accept joint rule with Jon, the story will not give us an ending exactly as Davos suggested.

And, to be totally frank, there is no way Martin created the feminist icon that is Daenerys Targaryen just to force her to give up her life ambition to her husband, whether it’s by bending the knee or by dying.

While the Lord of the Rings ends with Aragorn ruling, Aragorn is never charged with the Ring. Rather, just as Tolkien begins his story with the Ring passing to Frodo, Martin’s will end when the Throne passes to Bran.

Tommen: ‘Justice?’

Tywin: ‘Hmm. A good King must be just’.

After the catastrophe of the ending, House Targaryen as well as most of the other Great Houses, will be brought to ruin. And in the wake of that ruin, the Seven Kingdoms will need to restructure its leadership. And so, the Wolves [the Starks] will have their time.

Bran ‘I’m-not-Bran’ Stark, will be the enigmatic, apathetic Fisher King.

Sansa ‘I-learned-a-great-deal-from-her’ Stark, will leave Winterfell and govern the Seven Kingdoms through Bran, just as Cersei once governed on behalf of Tommen.

And Lady Arya ‘don’t-call-me-that’ Stark, will inherit the North and rule as the Warrior-Lady of Winterfell.

Essentially, Bran, Sansa and Arya, will be the Stark version of Aegon, Rhaenys and Visenya. Just without the dragons or the incest.

In the books, this is set up pretty early on by Ned Stark, who after Robert’s rebellion, inherits the life and position meant for his elder brother, who had died during the rebellion. This is also set up pretty well by Littlefinger, whose life goal is: ‘…a picture of me, on the Iron Throne, and you [Sansa] by my side’.

In the end, this vision will sort of come true. It just won’t be Littlefinger on the throne. But that’s all the time I’ll spend on evidence, because whether I’m right or wrong, there’s only about a month until we see this play out.

Tommen: ‘What about strength?’

Tywin: ‘Hmm, strength…’

On a fundamental level, Game of Thrones is an exploration of power, and different characters coming to power convey different messages about what it takes to rise up in the world.

The rise of Daenerys emphasises strength and justice and ambition.

Jon champions honour and righteousness.

Someone like Littlefinger, deception and opportunism.

While Cersei emphasizes ruthlessness and vanity.

Meanwhile, King Brandon would convey a more mysterious meaning that, although strength, lineage, deception and ruthlessness each play a part, all of them are bound up by FATE.

Not in a divine sense, but in the sense that, regardless of our flaws or virtues, the universe is chaotic and beyond our control. What may be in one place in time a virtue, is in another a flaw. And whoever rises to power is, to some extent, a consequence of being in the right place at the right time. Just as the Targaryens, Baratheons and Lannisters had their time, the Starks will have theirs, and so the throne will pass to Bran.

Tywin: ‘So, we have a man who starves himself to death, a man who lets his own brother murder him, and a man who thinks that winning and ruling are the same thing. What do they all lack?’

This ending would serve as a strange marriage of idealism and cynicism. In many ways, Bran begins the story as the most powerless character, lacking even basic bodily autonomy. And as fate would have it, Bran ends up the most powerful. Yet that power comes at the cost of isolating Bran from his own humanity, and never gives him the thing that he really wanted.

Arya: ‘He wants to be Knight of the King’s Guard. He can’t be one now, can he?’

Ned: ‘No’.

The story which built itself on the tragedy of the Starks will end in their triumph. But despite that triumph, the Starks never really get back the home or the innocence they once had. Yes, there’s the physical place [of a home], but never the feeling of having a complete family. Never the trust, innocence, or joy of childhood. In the deepest sense, what is lost in war, is never truly reclaimed in war.

And look, I know you probably still don’t buy it, or you still think it’s gonna be Jon, and you really might be right about that, but hear me out just a little longer, because there is a glimmer of idealism to this ending.

Though many will die, and the wheel might not break, Bran just might make a good king after all. Despite having lost so much of himself to the Three-eyed Raven, Bran, perhaps more than any other character, has grasped one of the most essential lessons of the story, which is the importance of EMPATHY.

Tommen: ‘Wisdom?’

Tywin: ‘Yes!’

Tommen: ‘Wisdom is what makes a good king’.

Tywin: ‘Yes, but what is wisdom, hmm?’

Despite their history, Bran is able to look at Jaime Lannister, the man who once shattered his life, and to see good in him, to see Jaime as a man who was protecting the people he loved. And to not only forgive him, but to protect him. This simple act of understanding demonstrates what the war-torn kingdoms of Westeros have been so lacking: not strength, or cunning, or even honour, but real wisdom.

For a world that’s been so damaged by people’s inability to see from one another’s perspective, maybe a broken boy is the right ruler to heal a broken kingdom.

Maybe not the one you want, certainly not the one we’d expect, but the one the ending needs. After years of war and hatred, I think maybe the Kingdoms of Westeros will get the little bit of understanding that they deserve. And that is an encouraging thought. [Music]

Bran: ‘Theon’,

Theon: ‘…’

Bran: ‘You’re a good man. Thank you’.

But okay, despite what I said earlier, don’t leave, stick around. If I’m wrong, which I probably am, you can come back later and leave a comment to tell me.

So you better subscribe just so you don’t forget. In the meantime, there is more to come. So, until next time. Peace.

Published in: on June 4, 2020 at 12:01 am  Comments (1)  
Tags:

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.

Nordicism and National Socialism, 17

by Evropa Soberana

We can finish this list of quotes with a phrase of a SS general who never came to deny Nazism, Leon Degrelle (1906-1994), founder of the Rexist Party, the fascist movement of French-speaking and Catholic Belgium: ‘Every time you look for civilisation anywhere in Europe, you see the blood of the North’ (‘Europe Will Live’).
 
Conclusion

The Nazis had in mind that, in the future, the selection of the leaders and the best ‘Aryan’ spiritual talents should be carried out over the entire body of the ‘white race’, while the selection of the racial elements to predominate gradually in posterity should be done on the basis of the best specimens of ‘Nordic’ blood. For them, the value of the individual to the community was not necessarily the same as their genetic reproductive value.

In the same German National Socialism, we see a great variety of characters. Thus, Adolf Hitler and Hess; Göring, Heydrich, Darré, Schirach, Todt, etc., were predominantly ‘Nordic’. Goebbels, Streicher, Himmler or Frank were not.

(Adolf Hitler, in colour.)

The ‘Nordic’ ideal was what National Socialism was trying to promote for the future of Europe, since it was what it took as the mould of the Overman, divinity in power and the germ of a superior humanity. Thus, in National Socialist art and propaganda, Nordicism is extremely clear. Even in the National Socialist documentaries (such as The Triumph of the Will, Tag der Freiheit, Olympia, The March Towards the Führer, The Eternal Jew, etc.), whenever you see German crowds, the camera tries to draw close-ups of more or less perfect Nordic specimens with the aim of inculcating in the mind of the spectator the ideal of racial selection promoted by the NSDAP.

This ideal of Nordic beauty as representative of the most treasured heritage of a people is common to all eras and all Indo-European civilisations. Both the Indo-Iranians and the Iranians, the Hellenes, the Romans, the Germans, the Celts, the Slavs, feudal or Renaissance Europe, the colonial empires, etc., considered the Nordic aspect as ideal, ‘authentic’, aristocratic, pure and uncontaminated; depositing in it the hopes for the future.

In our days, normally without realising it, the birth of a blond boy with blue eyes is seen as a good omen of prosperity and happiness for what it symbolises by our instincts and by the hereditary cultural load that, unconsciously, takes root in our brain since ancient times.

Solitude

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


1

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

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

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

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

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

2

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

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

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

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

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

That was my metaphor.

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

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

3

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

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

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

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

Behold, I teach you the Overman!

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

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

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

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

4

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

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

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

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

5

In Ecce Homo Nietzsche wrote:

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

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

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

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

9

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

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

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

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

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

Hitler was the creative one. Read his table talks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This describes me…
 

10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rosa_s_pak