Vig’s epistle

Hi Cesar,

I wanted to write a comment relating to your post of “MacDonald the lapsed Catholic”, but as usual the text became too long so I decided like last time to mail it to you first. You have my permission to use it for WDH under the name Vig if you want.

Yes, as I said before your site is as far as I know the only site where the core question as to what causes the decline and the looming extinction of the white race or Aryans if you want, is being discussed in a consequent way. Again, this is beyond praise because there is no other way to initiate awareness about it.

Personally I have reached a saturation with the format of blogging and want to move to more practical ways to live up to my insights. What I see as a disadvantage of blogging is that one does not see the face of contributors and that most of them have a short breath as far as tackling the depth of a presented issue. Posting a comment as I saw on other blogs soon descends into a tit for tat of arguments that is more like a mental combat to show tactical superiority instead of slowly carving ones way to the depth of an issue.

Anyway reminding commentators not to digress, is very important.

Inspired by all the posts that I read on WDH the last year I have spiralled my way into an understanding of things that I want to share here. It relates especially to the MacDonald posts and might be interesting for commentators.

I saw two long interviews that Kyle Hunt had with Dr. MacDonald and I have to say that I was not impressed. I am sure that the answer for us will not come through the academic approaches of Dr. MacDonald because he has not wholeheartedly delved into the roots of Christianity.

I demand from every text in this situation that it must be obvious that it comes from a genuine life experience which includes experiences of suffering and does not purely arise out of a speculative philosophising.

My study on the core question has led me to see the connection between a few things.

Inspired by Nietzsche’s remarkable analysis of Socrates I concluded that the fall from grace for the European culture started already around 400 B.C. with the verbal firework of Socrates and Plato, and that these thinkers themselves are just the symptoms of a degeneration of instinctive health of the Greeks of that time. Their culture fell apart and lost its vital centre.

In a psychological sense the dominance that the spoken word had acquired by the values that Socrates and Plato had created, was not compensated by a cultural mechanism that could have kept the balance of the right and the left brain halves, which, as I understand it, is absolutely needed for real creativity to happen.

It is a historical fact that Greek society shortly after this development started to become instable and that its brilliant culture stifled up into Hellenism which was characterized by mannerism and the lack of true innovation.

What the influence of Socrates and Plato indicated was the need for an analytical and rational use of the mind of which the tactical use of speech and the ability of calculation was just an extension. The whole culture of debate in the Greek agora (a public place for “mental duelling”), as was sophistry, was rooted in this.

My insight is that it was not like Socrates and Plato inventing this and the Greeks following them. Especially Plato was just expressing the collective Greek mind because that collective mind needed that aggressive faculty of speech to be able to organise their growing technology, which they needed to win the war against the Persians. Think of the technology you need to build warships and weapons fortifications and temples in a relatively short time. This is really underestimated by all historians because they are academicians who never worked with their hands. This is shown by the fundamental changes these days in the understanding of the pyramid builders. Historians have usually not the slightest understanding of technology and its requirements and therefore a great deal of history has to be rewritten.

The essence of my view is that the very quick development of this faculty (on the level of the collective mind) threw the Greeks off balance and so they lost their creative power.

In the time of Socrates started already the weakening of the instinctive intelligence in favour of an aggressive and philosophising intellect.

Actually it was a neurological instead of a cultural issue. In this process of lateralisation of mental faculties the integration of the soul got lost. The Greeks one could say got stuck in one dimension of their expressive abilities because of the tremendous success of that ability. A contemporary German brain specialist Professor Manfred Spitzer confirms this by saying that the brain reinforces every nervous track every time that one uses it till it becomes a nervous “highway” so to say. The only way to escape out of this is conscious adventurism, but that I am sure is prevented by human laziness.

That white Europeans in the last two thousand years have been so creative in spite of Christ-insanity is only thanks to an inborn and Aryan (genetic as they prefer it these days) devotion to the higher states of mind, which one could define as the essence of aesthetic awareness. But now bleeding themselves hollow in this process of serving Mammon emotional schizophrenia is the result.

They have finally lost this costly thin thread (Das Goldene Band by Miguel Serrano) that connects them to their spiritual dimension as is demonstrated by the degeneration of European contemporary art after WWII, and the absolute collapse of real creativity we can witness in European art.

I don’t equate real creativity with technological smartness here.

The white European as the inventor of science, got “lobotomised” so to say, not being able to express and live his emotional dimension because of his inner distortion that the victory of his beloved science has cost him. Since the end of the 19th century and the ascent of technology the costly thin thread (Das Goldene Band) has been cut off and the desire to live and to reproduce are vanishing as we witness.

Is it not so that white Europeans have lost completely the dimension of celebration and the ability to have festivities of a joyous and emotional nature without the help of alcohol or designer drugs?

What one can measure in PET and MRI scans is that Chinese and Japanese have a much more efficient use of their brain than westerners when they calculate and think. There must be a connection with them using pictograms instead of ideograms as we do in Indo Germanic language.

I have a suspicion that exactly because of this weakening of instinctual health, that means the ability to defend your own interests, in Roman times already, the white Europeans could not resist the mental pestilence that was being spread by Christians and through the backdoor also by Jews. No historian has realised the immense weight that the keeping up of an imperium lays on the rational faculties of a ruling class like the Romans.

Miscegenation of the Romans was an indication of a weakened awareness of one’s own interest, an extreme rational mentality interfering with an autonomous vital biological process which was basically derailed by this aggressive rationality. The Roman pantheon notwithstanding its pagan nature was not really an authentic happening, their real thing was building aquaducts, temples and roads and have standing armies.

As I see it European man did not create a mechanism that would bring back the balance in his mind by keeping conscious connection to emotional and instinctive expressions. This is the basic mechanism that stifles all cultures that don’t renew themselves consciously but keep hanging on to old traumata or mechanisms that were once successful but now fill up their minds and prevent them from experiencing reality.

Our “Institutions” have to go.

Remains to clarify the connection between Christians and Jews and the degeneration as such.

To put it in the simplest and crudest form of explanation: The Aryan, sacrificing his integrity by creating and then by hanging on too long to a frenetic use of science and technology, finally has reached a state of being that is cut of from his spiritual dimension, being emotionally “lobotomised”, that means he does not know what his feelings are and when he knows them he cannot express them authentically.

This makes him depraved, spiritually incapacitated so to say, but he is still longing for the higher states of being. If one listens carefully to the great European thinkers like all the great German philosophers all they are after is the kick of attaining a higher state of mind. One could say that it is a masturbatory activity.

Philosophy is a complete waste of time because it is an illusion that actually separates one from reality. The only one not falling in this category is Nietzsche.

In short the white man has become needy and insecure.

The Jew has because of his circumcision trip landed up in the same boat. Since a few thousand years he has an unnatural mind and his costly thin thread (Das Goldene Band) is also cut off. His depravity is essentially on the instinctive and the heart level but therefore the more potent. At least he has power and money and is emotionally more integrated than the Christian.

His addiction is not philosophy as with the Germans and is therefore also not so serious as the Germans, but his addiction is status and power. That is why his mind is urging him to do business by delivering seductive illusions to the unhappy Christians like Paul of Tarsus was doing. He has created communism, psycho-analysis, all kinds of suddho religions that seems to relieve suffering.

The interaction between Jews and Christians is an involuntary one indeed, and it is not strange that since a few thousand years they have become intertwined in a sort of parasitic symbiosis, rooted in a mutually dependant spiritual depravity. In a very blunt way one could say that this symbiosis is of the nature of the relation between a prostitute and a pimp.

Published in: on June 21, 2019 at 7:45 am  Comments (13)  

The Antichrist § 14

We have changed our minds. We have become more modest in every way. We have stopped deriving humanity from ‘spirit’, from ‘divinity’, we have stuck human beings back among the animals. We see them as the strongest animals because they are the most cunning: one consequence of this is their spirituality. On the other hand, we are also opposed to a certain vanity that re-emerges here too, acting as if human beings were the great hidden goal of animal evolution. Humans are in no way the crown of creation, all beings occupy the same level of perfection…

Christianity’s Criminal History, 112

Editor’s note: Here we see once again some passages on the historical Libanius: a central character in Gore Vidal’s Julian. What Deschner says here about Libanius is splendidly novelized by Vidal in the very final paragraph of his novel.

To contextualise these translations of Karlheinz Deschner’s encyclopaedic history of the Church in 10-volumes, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, read the abridged translation of Volume I.
 

The Western world darkens more and more

Culture was highly esteemed in the 4th and 5th centuries. It was one of the legacies of antiquity and enjoyed an ‘almost religious veneration’ (Dannenbauer). Still in the year 360 a law of the emperor Constantius could declare that education was the supreme virtue. And really many noble families of that time, Gallic and Roman, were consecrated to it and particularly in the bosom of the Senatorial proceedings.

But they were already simple custodians of the culture, to which they did not enrich. And everywhere there were circles and social forces of a very different kind, even in the highest positions. The Christian king Theodoric the Great was no longer able to write his own name on the documents: neither could most of the Christian princes. Theodoric wrote the four letters LEGI (‘I read it’) by means of an aureus mold expressly forged for him. The instruction of the Goth children was practically forbidden by him, since, as he seems to have said, he who trembled before the master’s blows would never know how to despise the cuts and rushes of the sword in battle.

In Gaul, apparently, where the school system had flourished from the beginning of the 2nd century until the end of the 4th century, public schools are disappearing over the course of the next century, no matter how much here and there, in Lyon, Vienne, Bordeaux and Clermont there still are schools of grammar and rhetoric in addition to, naturally, the private ones. But all the teachings, at least the literary, served exclusively for the collection of material for sermons and treatises, to deal with the Bible and for the consolidation of the faith. Scientific inquiry was already a thing of the past: it no longer counted or was appreciated. The knowledge of Greek, which for centuries was the requirement of every authentic culture, became a rarity. Even the Roman classics, such as Horace, Ovid and Catullus, were cited less and less.

Libanius, the champion of Hellenistic culture, the most famous professor of rhetoric of the century, complains about the aversion aroused by that profession. ‘They see’, he says, referring to his students, ‘that this cause is despised and thrown on the floor; that does not bring fame, power or wealth but a painful servitude under many lords, parents, mothers, pedagogues and other students, who put things upside down and believe that it is the teacher who needs them. When they see all this they avoid this depreciated profession like a boat the pitfalls’.

In the time of Augustine there are hardly any schools of philosophy in the West. Philosophy is frowned upon, it is a thing of the devil, the original father of all ‘heresy’, and it causes fear to the pious. Even in a centre of culture as important as Bordeaux philosophy is no longer taught. And even in the East, the largest and most important of the universities of the Roman Empire, that of Constantinople, has only one chair of philosophy out of a total of 31.

The knowledge of something that had existed for a long time was lost in almost all areas. The spiritual horizon became increasingly narrower. Ancient culture languished from Gaul to Africa, while in Italy it practically disappeared. The interest in natural science vanished. Also jurisprudence, at least in the West, suffers ‘havoc’, an ‘astonishing demolition’ (Wieacker).

The bishop Paulinus of Nola, who died in 431, never read a historian: a typical attitude of the moment. Whole eras fall in the oblivion, for example, the time of the Roman emperors. The only renowned historian in the late 4th century is Ammianus Marcellinus, a non-Christian. Entire synods forbid the bishops to read ‘pagan’ books. In short: scientific research ceases; experimental testing stops; people think increasingly with less autonomy.

A few decades later no doctor could heal Bishop Gregory de Tours, a man with a mind full of superstitions, but he could miraculously be healed through a drink of water with some dust taken from the tomb of St. Martin.

Only clerics will still read.

The Antichrist § 12

If you stop and think that among almost all peoples the philosopher is just a further development of the priestly type, then this legacy of the priests, the art of falling for your own forgeries, will not seem particularly surprising.

Published in: on October 16, 2018 at 12:01 am  Comments (1)  

The Antichrist § 11

One more word against Kant as a moralist. ‘Virtue’, ‘duty’, ‘goodness in itself’, goodness that has been stamped with the character of the impersonal and the universally valid—these are all chimeras, and expression of decay, of the final exhaustion of life, of the Königsberg Chineseanity.

A people is destroyed when it confuses its own duty with the concept of duty in general…

Kant became an idiot. — And such a man was the contemporary of Goethe! This disaster of a spider passed for the German philosopher — and still does!

Published in: on September 26, 2018 at 12:01 am  Comments (1)  

The Antichrist § 10

Germans understand me immediately when I say that philosophy has been corrupted by theologian blood…

What German philosophy really is—an underhanded theology…

Why were Germans so convinced that Kant marked a change for the better? The theologian instinct of the German scholar had guessed just what was possible again: a hidden path to the old ideal lay open…

Kant’s success is just a theologian success: Kant, like Luther, like Leibniz, was one more drag on an already precarious German sense of integrity —

Published in: on August 27, 2018 at 9:13 pm  Comments (5)  

The Antichrist § 8

 

We need to say whom we feel opposed to—theologians and everything with theologian blood in its veins—the whole of our philosophy…

Published in: on August 5, 2018 at 2:44 pm  Comments Off on The Antichrist § 8  

The Story of Philosophy, 8

Aristotle and Greek science

 

Under Plato he studied eight—or twenty—years; and indeed the pervasive Platonism of Aristotle’s speculations, even of those most anti-Platonic, suggests the longer period. One would like to imagine these as very happy years: a brilliant pupil guided by an incomparable teacher, walking like Greek lovers in the gardens of philosophy. But they were both geniuses; and it is notorious that geniuses accord with one another as harmoniously as dynamite with fire. Almost half a century separated them; it was difficult for understanding to bridge the gap of years and cancel the incompatibility of souls.

On the same page Durant adds that Aristotle

was the first, after Euripides, to gather together a library; and the foundation of the principles of library classification was among his many contributions to scholarship. Therefore Plato spoke of Aristotle’s home as “the house of the reader, ” and seems to have meant the sincerest compliment; but some ancient gossip will have it that the Master intended a sly but vigorous dig at a certain book-wormishness in Aristotle.

After an unquoted paragraph Durant writes:

The other incidents of this Athenian period are still more problematical. Some biographers tell us that Aristotle founded a school of oratory to rival Isocrates; and that he had among his pupils in this school the wealthy Hermias, who was soon to become aristocrat of the city-state of Atarneus. After reaching this elevation Hermias invited Aristotle to his court; and in the year 344 b.c. he rewarded his teacher for past favours by bestowing upon him a sister (or a niece) in marriage. One might suspect this as a Greek gift; but the historians hasten to assure us that Aristotle, despite his genius, lived happily enough with his wife, and spoke of her most affectionately in his will. It was just a year later that Philip, King of Macedon, called Aristotle to the court at Pella to undertake the education of Alexander. It bespeaks the rising repute of our philosopher that the greatest monarch of the time, looking about for the greatest teacher, should single out Aristotle to be the tutor of the future master of the world.

You can imagine treating white women like barter today? But it was healthier than Western feminism.

Philip had no sympathy with the individualism that had fostered the art and intellect of Greece but had at the same time disintegrated her social order; in all these little capitals he saw not the exhilarating culture and the unsurpassable art, but the commercial corruption and the political chaos; he saw insatiable merchants and bankers absorbing the vital resources of the nation, incompetent politicians and clever orators misleading a busy populace into disastrous plots and wars, factions cleaving classes and classes congealing into castes: this, said Philip, was not a nation but only a welter of individuals—geniuses and slaves; he would bring the hand of order down upon this turmoil, and make all Greece stand up united and strong as the political centre and basis of the world. In his youth in Thebes he had learned the arts of military strategy and civil organization under the noble Epaminondas; and now, with courage as boundless as his ambition, he bettered the instruction. In 338 b.c. he defeated the Athenians at Chaeronea, and saw at last a Greece united, though with chains. And then, as he stood upon this victory, and planned how he and his son should master and unify the world, he fell under an assassin’s hand.

Durant ignored what I know about psychoclasses: different levels of childrearing from the point of view of empathy toward the child. It is disturbing to read, for example, that according to Plutarch, Olympias, Philip’s wife and the mother of Alexander, was a devout member of the orgiastic snake-worshiping cult of Dionysus. Plutarch even suggests that she slept with snakes in her bed. Although Oliver Stone’s film of Alexander is Hollywood, not a real biography, the first part of the film up to the assassination of Philip is not that bad as to provide an idea of the unhealthy relationship between Olympias and her son.

“For a while,” says Plutarch, “Alexander loved and cherished Aristotle no less than as if he had been his own father; saying that though he had received life from the one, the other had taught him the art of living.” (“Life,” says a fine Greek adage, “is the gift of nature; but beautiful living is the gift of wisdom.”)

But was it wisdom? The real ‘wisdom of the West’ only started with a politician like Hitler and, on the other side of the Atlantic, a white supremacist like Pierce. Ancient philosophers ignored the dangers involved in conquering non-white nations without the policy extermination or expulsion.

Published in: on May 17, 2018 at 1:07 pm  Comments (6)  

The Story of Philosophy, 7

To save the white race from extinction it is not enough to start using the Semitic words that our Christian parents instilled in us as insults to Neo-Christian Aryans. We also have to make a destructive critique of what we have inherited from the secular world in the West. I have said that, if theology has been the wicked party for the West (tomorrow I’ll resume Deschner’s chapter on St Augustine), philosophy has been the stupid party. On Plato, I have little to add about the stupidities of his philosophy to what has already been said in the previous article of this series. But I still would like to say something.

In the section of Durant’s book, ‘The Ethical Problem’, Plato puts Thrasymachus discussing with Socrates. I must confess that I find quite irritating the figure of Socrates, with his eternal questions always putting on the defensive his opponents. If I had walked on the streets of Pericles’ Athens, I would have told Socrates what Bill O’Reilly told Michael Moore when he met him on the street: that he would answer his questions to Moore as long as he in turn answered O’Reilly’s questions. Otherwise we are always on the defensive against Socrates/Moore.

On the next page, Durant talks about the Gorgias dialogue and says that ‘Callicles denounces morality as an invention of the weak to neutralize the strength of the strong’. In the next section of the same chapter Durant quotes the Protagoras dialogue: ‘As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them’. Some pages later Durant quotes one of the passages in which I completely agree with Plato:

The elements of instruction should be presented to the mind in childhood, but not with any compulsion; for a freeman should be a freeman too in the acquisition of knowledge.

Knowledge which is acquired under compulsion has no hold on the mind. Therefore do not use compulsion, but let early education be rather a sort of amusement; this will better enable you to find out the natural bent of the child.

But several pages later Durant tells us that ‘the guardians will have no wives’ and about empowered women, he adds:

But whence will these women come? Some, no doubt, the guardians will woo out of the industrial or military classes; others will have become, by their own right, members of the guardian class. For there is to be no sex barrier of any kind in this community; least of all in education—the girl shall have the same intellectual opportunities as the boy, the same chance to rise to the highest positions in the state.

One would imagine that Durant would strenuously rebel against this feminism in ancient Athens, but no. In the final section of the chapter, devoted to Durant’s criticism of the philosopher, he wrote instead:

What Plato lacks above all, perhaps, is the Heracleitean sense of flux and change; he is too anxious to have the moving picture of this world become a fixed and still tableau…

Essentially he is right—is he not?—what this world needs is to be ruled by its wisest men. It is our business to adapt his thought to our own times and limitations. Today we must take democracy for granted: we cannot limit the suffrage as Plato proposed…

…and that would be such equality of educational opportunity as would open to all men and women, irrespective of the means of their parents, the road to university training and political advancement.

Will Durant, who wrote this book in the 1920s, was nothing but a normie. And compared with us, white nationalists are normies too: as they have not figured out that, in addition to Jewry, they have enemies in the very fabric of history, which is why Plato proposed a static state.

A dynamic society is not recommended because, as we have said elsewhere, the human being is not ready for Prometheus’ fire. Since the Industrial Revolution whites have done nothing but commit ethnic suicide for the simple fact that they are still children playing with matches who burn their own house. That is why, at the end of my ¿Me Ayudarás?, I recommend a static society as Arthur Clarke described it in Against the Fall of Night when writing about Lys, a novella later expanded into The City and the Stars: the utopia that I imagine with the paintings of Le Lorraine.

The Story of Philosophy, 6

The Republic

The last words of Will Durant in the previous entry of this series: ‘Let us study The Republic’. But in this post I will not quote any passage from Durant’s book. I will give my opinion on this classic work that bequeathed us historical Greece.

In the first place, it must be recognised that the race of the ancient Greeks was of the Nordic type. In The Fair Race there are two articles on the subject, one written by a Spaniard and another by an American. Since then civilisation has metamorphosed so much, especially in axiology, technology and demography, that what Plato wrote could only be valid after the extermination of all non-whites, as William Pierce put it at the end of The Turner Diaries. Sorry, but the Greeks of the ancient world were physically beautiful, says the article of the mentioned Spaniard. Hence, in our technological times with a demographic explosion that, because of Christianity, reversed the beautiful values of the classical world, only in an ethnically cleansed Earth what the ancient Greek philosophers discussed could become germane again.

The tragedy of the Aryans reminds me of the meaning of the One Ring in the tetralogy of Wagner, a symbol that Tolkien would pick up in his novel. It has been Aryan greed what blinded them to the fact that using non-whites as capital was suicide in the long term. That is the moral that emerges from the stories about the white race of William Pierce and Arthur Kemp. But even from the 19th century some Americans felt the danger, as shown in the paintings of Thomas Cole. A world with the destroyed Ring means, in many aspects, a return to the small cities: the subject matter not only for Plato but for Aristotle. For the latter, a Greek city should not exceed ten thousand inhabitants…

That is precisely the moral of my books in Spanish: after so many hells in ‘the Black Iron Age’ as I said as a teenager, I propose a return to the Shire so to speak. For the same reason, if there is something that hurts me when I see the sites of white nationalists, it is that they are cut off from their European past. I have spoken on this site about music, but not much about painting. The following is the oil canvas by Claude Le Lorrain (1600-1682) that appears at the top of my Facebook page:

On my most recent trip to London I saw some splendid canvases of Le Lorrain’s paintings in the National Gallery. Outside of London and the madding crowd, some English aristocrats of past centuries took Le Lorrain as a paradigm to mould their extensive lands, and even some buildings in the countryside. Some of this can even be seen in the movies of this century. In this very beautiful film of 2005 for example, when Mr Darcy declares his love to Elizabeth, I could not contain my admiration for that place: it seems to be taken from a canvas by my favourite painter (watch the last ten seconds of this YouTube clip)! Who of the contemporary racists has such contact with their visual past?

A true racist should reject any image of pop culture sold to us by American Jewry. But going back to Plato. Let us suppose, just suppose, that the white race will emerge alive from the coming apocalypse and that, in an Earth already without Orcs and (((Sauron))), they would reconstruct white civilization. In an unpopulated land and with only a few small cities, like the one seen in the painting above, the question would arise as to what kind of government is desirable. In this world, the survivor could be asked about Plato’s magnum opus, something like a second chance or a fresh start for the West. So let’s expose our views about the philosopher.

The first thing I could say is that the distortion that is taught in the academy about the classical world is such that we would have to change the title of The Republic for the simple fact that it is an invented title. The original in Greek was Politeia, whose translation would be ‘regime or government of the polis’, that is to say how to govern a small city-state. The title The Republic falsifies the mind of Plato already from the cover of the book we see in bookstores, inducing the popular notion that the author was an utopian. He was nothing of the sort. Politeia was the recipe of Plato to remedy the bad governments he saw in ancient Greece. His starting point had been the examination of the Greek cities of his time, not of a hazy future but the four regimes of Greece: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny.

Imagine a world à la Lorrain in which only whites inherit the Earth. The bookstores, this time with imprimaturs that do not admit anything from Semitic pens, would show Plato’s main work with the original title… But that does not mean that we should consider the disciple of Socrates a provider of laws, a new Lycurgus. At this stage of the historical game it is obvious that Plato did not see, nor could he see, the iniquity of the world; of men, of the Jewry that would invent Christianity, and the catastrophic industrial revolution.

For example, Plato does not speak of the need to keep Nordic blood pure, at least not with the lucidity the Nazis had. The closed polis of the Spartans complied more with the laws of nature than the open polis of the Athenians (in this Durant was fatally wrong). But not even the Spartans knew Pierce’s formula: to maintain an Aryan culture one must maintain the Aryan ethnicity: and that can only be done by exterminating or expelling all non-Aryans.

Plato’s missteps go further. Above I complained that the typical racist of today has no internal contact with the world of the great masters of painting. Another common ailment in those who have abandoned Christianity is that they keep infectious waste that puts the Aryans at a clear disadvantage compared to the Jewish quarter. One of these residues is the belief in post-mortem life. He who believes this doctrine will not fight as much in this life as the Jews are currently fighting, insofar as they believe they will have a second chance (either in the afterlife or reincarnated).

Jews do not masturbate their minds with unearthly hopes: one of their enormous advantages before us. But to be fair to Christianity I must say that even before Christianity Plato already masturbated his mind, and the minds of his male pupils, with such fantasies: what I have called in this series the root of the baobab. In fact, Plato finishes his great work sermonizing us: if we stick to what he says and believe in the immortal soul, we will be happy:

Thus, Glaucon, the tale has been saved, and will be our salvation, if we believe that the soul is immortal, and hold fast to the heavenly way of Justice and Knowledge. So shall we pass undefiled over the river of Forgetfulness, and be dear to ourselves and to the Gods, and have a crown of reward and happiness both in this world and also in the millennial pilgrimage of the other.

As I observed in a previous entry, during the savage destruction of most of the books of the classical world by the Judeo-Christians, it survived a work that many consider a precursor of the Christian doctrine of the human soul. The Republic, to use the falsified title, is anachronistic in many other ways. In addition to his post-mortem masturbations, what is the point of praising Plato when he did not oppose the incipient miscegenation of Athens with the greatest possible vehemence?

Unlike every rabbi who practices intuitive eugenics, Plato did not even leave offspring. He was not a husband or father. In his case, no good genes passed to the next generation (where his sperm ended, I dare not speculate). Moreover, he believed that in his republic women could perform the same functions of the male, even the highest. Compare the feminism of this philosopher of 2,400 years ago with what the Orthodox Jews of New York teach today: they educate their women to behave like little red riding hoods!

Whoever complies with the laws of Nature survives and who violates them perishes. At present the Jews fulfil them and the Aryans violate them. The white race will not be saved unless it makes a destructive criticism of much of what passes for ‘wisdom of the West’, starting with the Greeks.