Great personalities defend eugenics, 4

by Evropa Soberana

Eugenics is born

From the racial point of view, the effects of the French Revolution are detestable. With the aristocracy traditionally associated with the Nordic aspect, it was common for many individuals to be executed only because they had very Nordish features, even if they were not aristocrats!

Although the Revolution boasted of being a popular reaction against absolutism, sixty percent of the guillotined were simple French peasants. Such level of revolutionary hysteria was reached by the hand of unbalanced and decadent pseudo-intellectuals, belonging precisely to the high social classes, such as Rousseau, alienated and with illuminist pretensions, dazzled by the symbology of their lodges and financed by strange financial circles. A famished and illiterate plebs, elevated to the status of supreme judge, did the rest of the work.

In addition to the French Revolution and Napoleon, other processes marked the end of Christian hegemony: the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the rise of Germany, Great Britain and the United States as great powers, with Russia waiting at the side.

This did not imply, in any way, an improvement of the European race. On the contrary: the race continued to degenerate because of wars and the assistance to the useless. It simply implied that this generation had fewer taboos when it came to expressing itself. Above all, it was the scientific advances and the recovery of the Greco-Roman legacy (as well as the translation of certain Eastern sacred texts of Indo-European origin) what started a more scientific worldview.

Eugenics, which was born in England, really became a mainstream issue and commonsense, fully supported by most of the scientific community that at that time was not coerced by politically correct interests.

It was also supported and by such notable characters as Harvard professor and famous scientist Louis Agassiz, the English philosopher Herbert Spencer [1], the French F.A. Gobineau, American President Woodrow Wilson, British economist J.M. Keynes, French writer Émile Zola, American tycoon W.K. Kellogg, Scottish anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith, British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, famous American aviator Charles Lindberg, the Swedish composer Hugo Alfven and the British politician Sidney Webb.

All or almost all of the men that will be mentioned in this section—mostly English and American—were considered geniuses, laid the foundations of many modern scientific disciplines and were highly respected by the society of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Moreover, eugenics really was put into practice in countries considered advanced in the industrial, cultural, economic, technological and military sense, such as several states of the USA, Canada, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Switzerland and Japan.

We should not feel excessive sympathy for the social system of this era, dominated by voracious and heartless capitalism. The Industrial Revolution, which began in England spreading to Belgium, northern Germany, France, the United States and the entire West, uprooted millions of good-natured farmers from the healthy and quiet countryside, who were crowded into filthy working-class neighbourhoods, where they gradually degenerated and they became burned-out proletarians, resentful and without identity.

On top of it, the ruling class that benefited from the misery of these individuals allowed themselves the luxury of considering them inferior, while having tea with speculators and usurers. To a certain extent it is necessary to understand that this was the perfect breeding ground for the emergence of Bolshevism, and that the ruling classes of the time did not know how to provide it properly. Only the German Nazis, which I will deal with in the next section, finally had the keenness to reverse this process in a truly socialist way with their doctrine of Blut und Boden.

Another reason why I am partly glad that the eugenicists did not fully apply their policy is that the individuals mentioned here often based their selection on economic, social, cultural and productive criteria. Thus, they would not have hesitated to sterilise a tramp, perhaps even if such a tramp was not a ‘genetic homeless man’, but a worker who had bad luck and ended up in the street.

In short, they did not attempt to apply a biological criterion for the creation of a superior man, but a social criterion for the creation of a productive citizen. And the mass production of exemplary sheep without noble blood is something that does not inspire sympathy, as the goal of a true bio-policy should be the production of free and perfect human specimens physically, mentally and spiritually.

Even considering these unpleasant issues, it is unquestionable that thanks to the conditions enjoyed by the upper classes, a taste for classical literature and the absence of politically correct obstacles, science and philosophy advanced hand in hand thanks to very prepared and creative individuals who had all the time in the world to do some research.

The most alarming factor found by the first eugenicists was that, in the modern world, intelligence and fertility are inversely proportional to each other. That is to say, intelligent people have few children; they do not mate, which is a calamity. Conversely, stupid and weak folks tend to procreate prolifically, which doubles the calamity. This trend, already observable in the 19th century, continues to this day magnified as never before.
 
Sir Charles Darwin (1809-1882), English naturalist, explorer, rigorous and thorough scientist, and also a good writer and family man, famous for postulating the theory of evolution and natural selection.

I find funny the Darwin case. Today, liberals quote him and mention him as if Darwin’s sole objective had been to stagger the Church, trying to make it ‘progressive’, when the only archetype that Darwin embodies is that of the scientist without prejudice.

Progressives who trash Darwin’s name should know that both Darwin and natural selection are anti-progressives. Darwin, like Nature, advocated the selection and survival of the most gifted. That beauty is the outcome of sexual selection is a phrase that largely offers us the quintessence of his mentality. His book On the Origin of Species has a revealing subtitle, very politically incorrect and very little known: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin, like every good scientist, did not care about the moral dilemmas and the taboos around the ‘art of looking good’. Darwin applauded the ‘fascist’, ‘anti-Semitic’ and ‘racist’ ideas of his cousin Galton as soon as he read them, while Galton was also decisively influenced by Darwin. We can conclude, therefore, that the current PC progressive-socio-democrats who try to put Darwin in their same bag have not read Darwin:

It is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing off the lower races. In 500 years how the Anglo-Saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the Human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank. (Charles Darwin to Charles Kingsley, 6 February 1862).

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised race will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world… The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla. (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871).

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world. (Charles Darwin to William Graham, 3 July 1881).

 
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) barely needs an introduction. One of the most read philosophers of all time, and demonstrator of ‘how to philosophise by hammering’, there are many idiot nihilists, leftists or individualists who have tried to appropriate his legacy while a reading of Nietzsche reveals, without any doubt, a pre-Nazi, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-democratic, anti-anarchist and anti-communist mentality.

1.- My demand of the philosopher is well known: that he take his stand beyond good and evil and treat the illusion of moral judgment as beneath him.

2.- A first, tentative example: at all times morality has aimed to ‘improve’ men—this aim is above all what was called morality.

To call the taming of an animal its ‘improvement’ sounds almost like a joke to our ears. Whoever knows what goes on in kennels doubts that dogs are ‘improved’ there. They are weakened, they are made less harmful, and through the depressive effect of fear, through pain, through wounds, and through hunger, they become sickly beasts. It is no different with the tamed man whom the priest has ‘improved’.

In the early Middle Ages, when the church was indeed, above all, a kennel, the most perfect specimens of the ‘blond beast’ were hunted down everywhere; and the noble Teutons, for example, were ‘improved’.

But how did such an ‘improved’ Teuton look after he had been drawn into a monastery? Like a caricature of man, a miscarriage: he had become a ‘sinner’, he was stuck in a cage, tormented with all sorts of painful concepts. And there he lay, sick, miserable, hateful to himself, full of evil feelings against the impulses of his own life, full of suspicion against all that was still strong and happy. In short, a ‘Christian’…

3.- Let us consider the other method for ‘improving’ mankind, the method of breeding a particular race or type of man. The most magnificent example of this is furnished by Indian [Aryan] morality, sanctioned as religion in the form of ‘the law of Manu’. Here the objective is to breed no less than four races within the same society: one priestly, one warlike, one for trade and agriculture, and finally a race of servants, the Sudras.

Obviously, we are no longer dealing with animal tamers: a man that is a hundred times milder and more reasonable is the only one who could even conceive such a plan of breeding. One breathes a sigh of relief at leaving the Christian atmosphere of disease and dungeons for this healthier, higher, and wider world. How wretched is the New Testament compared to Manu, how foul it smells!

Yet this method also found it necessary to be terrible—not in the struggle against beasts, but against their equivalent—the ill-bred man, the mongrel man, the chandala. And again the breeder had no other means to fight against this large group of mongrel men than by making them sick and weak. Perhaps there is nothing that goes against our feelings more than these protective measures of Indian [Aryan] morality.

Manu himself says: ‘The chandalas are the fruit of adultery, incest, and rape (crimes that follow from the fundamental concept of breeding)’.

4.- These regulations are instructive enough: we encounter Aryan humanity at its purest and most primordial; we learn that the concept of ‘pure blood’ is very far from being a harmless concept. On the other hand, it becomes obvious in which people the chandala hatred against this Aryan ‘humaneness’ has become a religion, eternalized itself, and become genius—primarily in the Gospels, even more so in the Book of Enoch.

Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favoured, against ‘race’: the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love. (Twilight of the Idols, section ‘The “Improvers” of Mankind’).

 
Clémence Royer (1830-1902), self-taught and French anarchist who wrote and lectured on feminism, economics, politics and science. She is best known for her translation of On the Origin of Species in French.

The data of the theory of natural selection leave us no doubt that the higher races have appeared gradually and that, therefore, under the law of progress, they are destined to replace the inferior races still in development, and do not mix or merge with them, at the risk of being absorbed by them by miscegenation, reducing the middle level of the species.

In short, human races are not separate species, but rather well marked and of very uneven varieties, and it must be thought twice before promoting political and civil equality in a country with a minority of Indo-Europeans and a majority of blacks or Mongols. (Preface to her translation of On the Origin of Species, 1862.)

 
Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), Darwin’s cousin, anthropologist, geographer, explorer, inventor, meteorologist, statistician and English psychologist. Galton, impressed by the theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest observed by his cousin, was the one who coined the word Eugenics (‘good birth’, or ‘birth of the good’) around 1884.

Galton advocated the prevention of the reproduction of morons, the mentally retarded and the insane—calling these measures ‘negative eugenics’ or limiting the growth of the worst—and granting certificates and economic funds to young men and women who were ‘suitable for civilisation’ so they could marry young and procreate an abundant offspring—‘positive eugenics’ or favouring the best.

Galton, a representative of a ruling Anglo-Saxon class that would remain healthy until 1939, wrote that blacks were inferior to whites and incapable of any civilisation, while Jews could only aspire to ‘parasitism’ within more gifted and capable nations.

Galton intended that eugenics (‘being well born’) become a religion, which would eventually replace Christianity. He accused Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire; for having seriously damaged Western Civilisation by preaching pity and charity towards the useless and that ‘the weak will inherit the Earth’. He carried out an exhaustive, rigorous and scientific study of entire genealogies of illustrious characters, elaborating detailed statistics and finding—unsurprisingly—that genius is derived by inheritance and, therefore, from family.

Under his patronage the British Eugenics Society was founded in 1908, which would soon strengthen ties with similar groups in the United States.

I propose to show in this book that a man’s natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations. (Hereditary Genius, opening statement of the introductory chapter.)

What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction. The improvement of our stock seems to me one of the highest objects that we can reasonably attempt. (‘Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims’, 1904).

[Eugenics] must be recognized as a subject whose practical development deserves serious consideration. It must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious, tenet of the future, for eugenics co-operate with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races (Ibid).

It is neither more nor less than that the development of our nature, under Darwin’s law of Natural Selection, has not yet over-taken the development of our religious civilisation (Memories of my Life).

I take Eugenics very seriously, feeling that its principles ought to become one of the dominant motives in a civilised nation, much as if they were one of its religious tenets. I have often expressed myself in this sense, and will conclude this book by briefly reiterating my views (Ibid.).

 
Jack London (1876-1903), famous American writer of socialist tendency but racist, patriot, an apologist of the Anglo-Saxon and Nietzschean civilisation.

For a time he operated a cattle farm, where he became convinced that the farmers had been practicing eugenics since immemorial times.

I believe that the future human world belongs to eugenics, and will be determined by the practice of eugenics. (Letters, 376).

________

Note

[1] Herbert Spencer coined the famous phrase survival of the fittest in addition to launching the current of thought that posterity knows as ‘social Darwinism’.

Great personalities defend eugenics, 2

by Evropa Soberana

Antiquity

With the de-barbarization that ensued after the emergence of a sedentary lifestyle, the people soon realised that a society uprooted from Nature immediately degenerates. In short, humanity woke up to the dangers of civilisation.

To compensate for it, the leaders of these societies set up processes aimed at counteracting the pernicious effects of the greatest cancer that humanity has suffered: dysgenics, that is, the degeneration of the race that results from the absence of natural selection.

Here we will see that, in many civilised societies of antiquity, the laws of Nature were automatically followed. Its leaders intervened consciously and voluntarily to stop human reproduction and allow reproduction only to the best, so that the species did not degenerate. As Madison Grant wrote, where the environment is too soft and luxurious and it is not necessary to fight to survive, not only weak individuals are allowed to live. Strong types also gain weight mentally and physically!

The most illustrative examples of this era are Hindus, Greeks (among these the Spartans) and Romans. The Hellenic ideal of the kalokagathia, that is to say, an association of goodness-beauty—achieved by maintaining the purity of blood within the framework of a process of selection of the best—laid the foundations to everything that in the West has been considered ‘classical’ and ‘beautiful’ since then until recently.

In another long essay we have seen that the art that has come to us from European antiquity is perhaps only two percent of what existed and, to top it off, probably the least interesting and sublime: primitive Christians destroyed almost every legacy Greco-Roman civilisation. No one can know how many philosophers and authors suffered total destruction of their works, without anyone knowing again who they were or what they thought; and many other classic writings were censored, adulterated, corrected or mutilated.

However, we have at least some spoils of the pre-Christian era. Although ninety-eight percent of classical art was destroyed by the early Christians, what survived speaks for itself as a tribute to the selection, balance, health and excellence of all human qualities.

The Hindus. The Indo-European (i.e., Nordic) invaders arrived in India around 1400 BCE and immediately placed measures to favour high birth rates of the best elements of the population, identified with the Aryan invaders, and the decline of the worst, identified with the Negroid-Dravidic stratum.

The entire caste system was a great eugenics process in which the chandala (a term also used by Nietzsche to define the morals of Jews and Christians), the outcast, the untouchable, the sinful caste, the one considered inferior, was subjected to a horrendous lifestyle: using only the clothes of the dead bodies, drink only water from stagnant areas or animal tracks, not allow their women to be attended during childbirth, prohibition of washing, work as executioners, burials and latrine cleaners, and an unpleasant etcetera. Such impositions favoured that diseases were endemic among them; they fell like flies so that their numbers never constituted a danger for the best.

We are therefore faced with an example of negative eugenics: limiting the procreation of the worst. These measures are included in the Laws of Manu, the legendary Indo-Aryan legislator who laid the foundations for caste hierarchy. According to scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky, a renowned Ukrainian geneticist, ‘The caste system of India has been the greatest genetic experiment ever conducted by man’ (Genetic Diversity and Human Equality).

A woman always gives the world a child endowed with the same qualities as the one who has fathered him… A man of abject birth takes the natural evil of his father or his mother, or both at the same time, and can never hide its origin (Law of Manu, Book X).

Lycurgus (8th century BCE), a regent of Sparta, travelled through Spain, Egypt and India accumulating wisdom and, later, carrying out a revolution in Sparta after which the polis would militarize and establish a social system based on eugenics. The measures of this program highlight the infanticides of deformed, ugly or stupid newborns. Broadly speaking, Lycurgus’s policy was based on training perfect human beings that gave birth to perfect human beings, and there was no place for genetic engenders in that plan. On the other hand, the crypteia, carried out by the Spartan authorities on the helots (the submissive plebs) can perfectly be considered a very brutal and primitive example of negative eugenics.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Having helots as slaves was a fatal flaw for Spartan civilisation. The laws of Lycurgus did not foresee that eugenic customs would fatally relax after a catastrophic war (as would happen after the Peloponnesian War). A real solution would have been, as William Pierce saw in his study on Greece, to exterminate the non-Nordic Mediterraneans of Sparta and extend such policy to all Greece, and eventually to all Europe.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
As for the Spartan policies of positive eugenics—favouring the multiplication of the best—we see popular rituals such as the coronation of a male champion and a female champion in a sports competition, or a king and queen in a beauty pageant, or tax exemption to the citizens who left four children. The best were expected to marry the best. Single people over twenty-five years old were extremely frowned upon and punished with fines and humiliating acts.

If the parents are strong, the children will be strong (Fr. 7).

Heraclitus (535-484 BCE), a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher known for his aphorisms in the style of the Oracle of Delphi. He established that wisdom was much more than a mere accumulation of knowledge and intelligence, also valuing intuition, instinct and will. He said: ‘I ask all mortals to father well-born children of noble parents’.

Leonidas (dies in 480 BCE), King of Sparta and supreme commander of the Greek troops in the Battle of Thermopylae. He fought in numerical inferiority against the Persians until the end, giving time for the evacuation of Greek cities, granting margin for an Athenian victory in the battle of Salamis and laying the foundations of the definitive Persian defeat in Plataea. Leonidas and his Spartans are an example of heroism, dedication to their people, a spirit of sacrifice, training and honour for all Western armies of all time.

Marry the capable and give birth to the capable! (exhortation to the Spartan people before leaving for the Thermopylae according to Plutarch, On the Malice of Herodotus, 32).

Theognis of Megara (6th century BCE) was one of the great Greek poets. He has bequeathed us in his Theognidea a series of interesting reflections and advice to his disciple Cyrnus. Among other things, Theognis divides the population into ‘good’—the nobility, identified with the Hellenic invaders—and ‘bad’—the native plebeian population of Greece, which progressively accumulated money and rights:

In rams and asses and horses, Cyrnus, we seek
the thoroughbred, and a man is concerned therein
to get him offspring of good stock;

Yet in marriage a good man thinketh not twice of wedding
the bad daughter of a bad sire if the father give him many possessions;

Nor doth a woman disdain the bed of a bad man if he be wealthy,
but is fain rather to be rich than to be good.

For ’tis possessions they prize;
and a good man weddeth of bad stock and a bad man of good;
race is confounded of riches.

In like manner, son of Polypaus,
marvel thou not that the race of thy townsmen is made obscure;
’tis because bad things are mingled with good.

Even he that knoweth her to be such, weddeth a low-born woman for pelf,
albeit he be of good repute and she of ill;
for he is urged by strong Necessity, who giveth a man hardihood.

 

Critias (460-403 BCE), Athenian philosopher, speaker, teacher, poet and uncle of Plato. He is known for being part of the Spartan occupation government known as the thirty tyrants. We will appreciate the importance that this man attached not only to inheritance, but to sports training without which a human being will never be complete.

I begin with the birth of a man, demonstrating how he can be the best and strongest in the body if his father trains and endures hardness, and if his future mother is strong and also trains.

Plato (428-347 BCE), probably the most famous philosopher of all time, was inspired by Sparta to propose the measures of Greek regeneration in his work The Republic, plagued with values of both positive eugenics—promoting the best—as negative eugenics—limit the worst—, especially with regard to the caste of the ‘guardians’. Plato, like most Greek philosophers, was in favour of exposing defective children to the weather so that they died.

It is necessary, according to our principles, that the relationships of the most outstanding individuals of one sex or the other are very frequent, and those of the lower individuals very rare. In addition, it is necessary to raise the children of the first and not of the second, if you want the flock to not degenerate (The Republic).

Based on what was agreed, it is necessary for the best men to join the best women as often as possible, and on the contrary, the worst with the worst; and the offspring of the best and not the worst should be raised, so our flock will become excellent (Statesman, 459).

That even better children are born from elite men, and from useful men to the country, even more useful children (Statesman, 461).

Xenophon (430-354), soldier, accomplished horseman during the Peloponnesian war, mercenary in the heart of Persia during the expedition of the ten thousand, philosopher, pro-Spartan and historian. Notorious anti-democrat who abhorred the Athenian government, he longed for fairer forms of government such as those he met in Persia and Sparta, where he sent his children to be educated. Together with Plutarch, Xenophon is the greatest source of information about Sparta, admiring the eugenic practices established by Lycurgus.

[Lycurgus] considered that the production of children was the noblest duty of free citizens (Constitution of the Lacedaemonians).

An old man had to introduce his wife to a young man in the prime of life whom he admired for his qualities, to have children with him (Constitution of the Lacedaemonians).

Isocrates (436-338 BCE), politician, philosopher and Greek teacher, was one of the famous ten Attic speakers and probably the most influential rhetorician of his time. He founded a public speaking school that became famous for its effectiveness and criticised the politics of many Greek cities, which instead of stimulating their birth rate inflated their numbers through the mass immigration of slaves, which he considered inferior to the Hellenic population. In this quotation it is verified to what extent Isocrates valued quality versus quantity:

It should not be said as happy that city which, from all extremes, randomly accumulates many citizens; but the one that best preserves the race of the settled since the beginning.

Euripides (480-406 BCE), playwright, a friend of Socrates and undoubtedly one of the greatest poets of all antiquity; his stain was an excessive machismo that led him to criticise the greater freedom enjoyed by women in Sparta. Disappointed and disgusted by the policies of a decadent Greece he retired to Macedonia, a place where Hellenic traditions were still pure, where he finally died.

There is no more precious treasure for children than to be born of a noble and virtuous father and to marry among noble families. Curse to the reckless who, defeated by passion, joins the unworthy and leaves his children to dishonour in return for guilty pleasures (Heracleidae).

Aristotle (384-322 BCE), the famous philosopher who educated Alexander the Great and laid the western foundations of Hellenism, logic and sciences such as biology, taxonomy and zoology. Aristotle extends extensively in his work Politeia on the problems posed by eugenics, birth control, childhood feeding and education (books VII and VIII). He generally admired the ancient Spartan system, with some reservations—in my opinion unfounded as Sparta was not decadent—because the ephorate was tyrannical.

(Left, a Patrician bust.) The Patricians were the Roman leaders in the early days, when Rome was a Republic. These men were the patriarchs or clan chiefs of each of the thirty noble families descended from Italic invaders, and they ran all Roman institutions including the legions, the courts and the Senate. Sober, pure, ascetic and hard, their people held them in high regard as repositories of the highest wisdom and Roman posterity honoured them as gods.

Their descendants formed the Patricians, the later Roman aristocracy, which gradually decayed throughout the Empire until almost completely dissolving, turning Rome into a disgusting decadent monster that deserved to be razed. After the Punic wars and Julius Caesar, Rome largely lost its Indo-European spirit.

In the IV of the XII tablets of the law, it was established that deformed children must be killed at birth. It was also left to the patriarchs of the patrician clans to decide which were the unfit children. They were usually drowned in the waters of the Tiber River, and other times abandoned, exposing them to wild animals and elements in a process called exposure. Apparently, the Romans did not fare so badly with this purifying tactic as we see in their conquering history.

Distorium vultum sequitur distortio morum, ‘A crooked face follows a crooked moral’—Roman proverb.

Meleager of Gadara (1st century BCE), Greek epigram compiler within the Hellenistic stage, who wrote: ‘If one mixes good with bad, a good progeny would not be born, but if both parents are good, they will beget noble children’ (Fr. 9).

Horace (65 BCE-8 CE) said: ‘The virtue of parents is a great dowry’ and ‘’The good and the brave descend from the good and the brave’ (Odes, IV, 4, 29).

Seneca (4 BCE-65 CE), Roman philosopher of the Stoic school (the same school that Marcus Aurelius and Julian the Apostate belonged), of Hispanic-Celtic origin and teacher of Emperor Nero.

We exterminate hydrophobic dogs; we kill the indomitable bulls; we slaughter sick sheep for fear that they infest the flock; we suffocate the monstrous foetuses and even drown the children if they are weak and deformed. It is not passion, but reason, to separate healthy parts from those that can corrupt them (Of Anger, XV).

Plutarch (45-120 CE). Philosopher, mathematician, historian, speaker and priest of Apollo at the Oracle of Delphi. It is also one of the important sources of information about Sparta in his books Ancient Customs of the Lacedaemonians and Life of Lycurgus.

Leaving a being who is not healthy and strong from the beginning is not beneficial for the State or for the individual himself (Ancient Customs of the Lacedaemonians).

When a baby was born he was taken to a council of elders to be examined. If the baby was defective in some way the elders threw him down a ravine. Such a baby, in the opinion of the Spartans, should not be allowed to live (Life of Lycurgus).

Open thread:

Is Charles Manson good for Hitler’s 88 words?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unlike you I awoke when I was 13 and…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prostrated anti-Semites


Sometimes it is important to focus on a detail of a masterpiece of Christian art; for example, close-ups of Jesus’ feet and hands nailed to the cross. Here we see the contorted feet of Grünewald: a painter of the badly named ‘German Renaissance’. Grünewald ignored the Greco-Roman world of the Italian Renaissance to continue the style of late Central European medieval art.

In the Gates of Vienna discussion forum, ten years ago a Swede commented that all Westerners are now either Christians or liberals. I would paraphrase that statement by saying that every white is either Christian or neo-Christian. This includes the alt-right atheists, unable to let Christian ethics go. Even most anti-Semites remain prostrated before the contorted feet of the crucified Jew.

For that reason I do not even comment on The Occidental Observer anymore. But I am very amused that a few who have broken away with such ethics try to argue with Christians and neo-Christians on The Occidental Observer and Unz Review. In this site I have collected many comments from Robert Morgan, but I have also expressed my differences with him regarding technology.

Well: a regular visitor to The West’s Darkest Hour has been discussing technology with Morgan (here). Morgan is anti-Christian. Adunai, another anti-Christian, has also discussed with others in that webzine. What Adunai replied to one of these Christians reminds me of something that caught my attention from the first time I read Nietzsche, more than forty years ago.

Nietzsche said that while he rejected the universal love ethic that the New Testament preached, he loved the Old Testament because, unlike the gospel, the ancient Hebrews fulfilled Darwinian laws.

Obviously I’m rephrasing Nietzsche, but in essence he said that. What now has piqued my attention is that white nationalists who have not broken with the religion of their parents see things the other way around: they accept the New Testament and reject the Old. They do not realise that, with this, they have fallen into the trap that the Semitic authors of the New Testament set up for them: to use the fairness of the fair race to invert the values of that race. I refer to the transit from a culture when handsome Greco-Roman statues were so much admired to Grünewald’s feet.

Next, Adunai’s responses to Morgan and others on Unz Review:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Robert Morgan said: Civilization too is a revolt against Nature.

Adunai responded: How so? The very definition of humans is a bit anti-Nature, but nothing’s wrong with that. Man invented fire and scorched woods with it—like any other form of life, he wants to kill everything around himself. Humans destroy species in Amazonia, they breed out pathetic mutants such as dogs, cows and wheat—all to consume and to enslave, in order to ensure their own survival.

The problem only arises when their super-animal intelligence bugs out and accepts the anti-Nature inside themselves, the anti-human suicide—see Christianity. No other animal would fall for the schizophrenia of a virgin mother of a resurrected corpse, and for a god that gives ‘life’ as a reward for death. But no other animal has invented a space rocket either.

It’s just hard for humans to accept a science-inspired atheist Darwinian worldview. But I believe it to be possible—see the DPR of Korea.

P.S. It’s a shame Laurent Guyénot is a 9/11 truther. How can one see through the madness of Christianity, and yet swallow the lies of truthers?
 

A commenter said: It is obvious that the OT is just Jew mystical garbage filled with tribal hate.

Adunai responded: You are so Christian, you see the good part of the Bible as the bad one. That tribal hate you speak of is precisely what we need! What we must admire and put into myth! What every single healthy nation has lived with.

Currently, you hate Jews for being racist. That’s insane. No wonder Jews despise Christians—just like a scientist ‘despises’ the poison he has created, he will not drink it himself. Think War—Harm Your Enemies—Produce Children.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘Technological innovation tore those barriers down. With the barriers down and races mingling freely, discrete human races and discrete cultures are doomed’.

Adunai responded: I never understood this position. Hadn’t it be for the Christian axiology, the White race would have cleansed all of Africa, Asia and America of the non-White nations as early as in the 1890s. Or for sure in the 1950s, with the advent of atomic weapons.

Why do you focus so firmly on the technologies failing to see it as a tool Whites have used as they have seen fit? The problem is not the technology, it is purely the axiology. Technology only allowed the HIV to transition into the AIDS.

But for all I care, it’s only for the better. Better to deal with this menace sooner than later. Europe had little hope in 317, even less in 732 and 800 (when the Franks failed to kill the Church). The French, industrial and green revolutions do not change that.

In short, I disagree with your pessimism concerning technology.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘Further, you seem to be very much in the “free will” / man is a special creation camp (basically a Biblical point of view), and as I said above, I’m a determinist, so I believe free will is an illusion’.

Adunai responded: So, you believe the Whites’ conversion to Christianity to have been unavoidable? That is pessimistic.

Of course, there is something in the Aryan’s psyche that has failed him—see Buddhism in India. There is also the deep contradiction that I see between man as an animal and his newfound intelligence and introspection, his ability to commit suicide, his ability to hate all life. It is in our Nature to destroy Nature, and that is healthy, but can inspire Christianity as a side-effect.

But I am an optimist and I disagree that the White man was born irredeemably defective, that the Jew is our perfect parasite. Because if it is so, or at least cannot be fought against, then all hope is lost, or worse yet, never existed to begin with.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘Therefore, when you say something like “whites could have” done this, that, or the other thing, it makes no sense to me. They had what they thought were very good reasons for not doing it, or in effect had no choice’.

Adunai responded: Whites could have made a party that tried to curtail the destruction by technology. Oh wait, they did—namely, the NSDAP. Even the last anti-Christian emperor was born after 317.

What I’m saying is that Whites could have denied Christianity in the 4th, 8th, 16th or 20th century, but chose not to. They could have mastered technology, for with the right axiology, it would have spelled certain doom for all non-White nations on Earth, and not at all led to any race-mixing—but under Christianity, it did provoke suicide. You can only see technology under Christianity, and you think it’s the only way [red emphasis by Ed.].

When you see a car, you see a Negro arriving in Finland. When I see a car, I see Whites arriving in Egypt in 1910 and genociding all the locals. We had the first shot.
 

A commenter said: ‘Given the US Constitution, Eisenhower’s desegregation orders made sense’.

Adunai responded: Yes… Then why won’t you tear down that stupid White-hating Christian document? Why are you trying to rationalize it?

Desegregation is diametrically opposite of the genocide of blacks. Desegregation = death of Whites. Desegregation makes sense due to the Constitution and its idealist Christian egalitarianism… To hell with the Constitution!
 

A comemnter said: ‘Congo Rats are rated as repugnant in reliable tests of racial attractiveness’.

Adunai responded: Who cares how attractive Negroes are? Are you a faggot? Because only faggot feminists think in this way.

The real culprit is White men, and White men alone. It is the White men that allow their daughters marry non-Whites. Not women. Not the attractiveness of said non-Whites. It’s the Christian malware in your head.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘In the context of your example, what I’ve said is that if the negroes had had no way to get to Finland, they wouldn’t be there, and this seems to me inarguable’.

Adunai responded: It is not. Because a non-Christian technological civilization would not have given Negroes access to their technology to begin with. And would have exterminated them in a short while, as predicted by Darwin.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘I agree that in your imaginary world…’

Adunai responded: The world without Christianity. It happened in a localized version in Germany.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘The struggle for survival and human nature determine how it will be employed’.

Adunai responded: No, they don’t. The White race does not struggle for survival. The reason is still unclear, but I blame Christianity first and foremost. You don’t have an issue with doing likewise when it’s about the 1860s America, but when it’s about more recent times, it’s suddenly technology. I fail to see the connection.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘…and almost never have they been killed off completely, even in non-Christian societies. They have usually been assimilated into the conquering race’.

Adunai responded: There were different kinds of conquest in history. The conquest of Europe by Aryans, by Rome, by Mongols. Some were genocidal, others not. Some were empires, others loose confederations of savages.

What is different now? Science. Knowledge of the world. Materialist philosophy that clearly states the supremacy of genetics in the genesis of culture. The issue is not technology—it would only have helped the extermination. The issue is that the idealist poison of Christianity seeped so deep into the Aryan soul that any hope for the materialist worldview was vanquished in 1945 under the double sign of Christianity and Bolshevism.
 

Robert Morgan said: ‘The struggle for survival will force this outcome, because if you don’t use slaves in this way, then your enemies that do will become wealthier than you, more powerful, and eventually overwhelm you. This is how, in the real world, human nature and the struggle for survival determine outcomes’.

Adunai responded: I don’t deny it. But how does the industrial civilization relate to it? I say that its advances in sciences would have made race-mixing the highest taboo and race war the noblest goal in any non-Christian society. Industry would only have amplified the desire to healthy life in a population. But in our case, technology has amplified the death wish.

You want to remove industry—then what? A return to pre-industrial society will not bar crude empires from spawning that can and will race-mix anyway. Too rotten to keep healthy values, yet not bright enough to develop racial science and fission weapons. Where’s a good future in that?

Do you put all your hope on the hypothetical barbarians that will burn Rome time and time again? Our pre-industrial Rome ate a good chunk of Europe, mind you—and even all of central Germany might have been romanized and judaized. Mongols and Turks demolished all Aryan culture in Kazakhstan. Vikings interbred with Eskimos in Iceland. What would stop Aryans from perishing in a non-technological world? I posit that only the power of chemical and atomic bonds can assure the existence of the European race once and for all.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Morgan is obviously violating Occam’s razor by multiplying entities (technology) when the Xtian inversion of values alone explains the West’s darkest hour beautifully.

Kill ’em all

Editor’s note: This crucifixion of Antonello da Messina is kept in a museum of Antwerp. The death of the thieves escorts and accompanies Jesus. The iconographic tradition puts the ‘good guy’ on his right and the ‘bad guy’ on his left.

But Christian morality has crucified the laws of selection that Darwin discovered, to the degree of irreparably fouling much Aryan gene through miscegenation. The following is Robert Morgan’s most recent comment on Unz Review.

His position is not original. Remember that Charles Darwin himself predicted that blacks, as an obsolete subspecies, would be exterminated in a world ruled by the selection of the fittest. Or as I would say in my blasphemous paraphrase of Jesus, ‘Many genes will be called but few will be chosen’.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Commenter: “However deporting 4.5 million blacks in 1865 would have required 22,000 ships, if each ship held 200, or 10,000 ships if each carried 450.”

Morgan: Shipping the negroes back to Africa wasn’t the only option, of course. They could simply have killed them; failing that, they could have put them on reservations.

Why didn’t they?

A policy of extermination, with reservations for any left over, seemed to be good enough for the injuns, so Christian morality can’t be entirely to blame, even though the negroes, unlike the injuns, had been Christianized and thus were imagined to be the white man’s brothers and sisters in Christ.

But the answer becomes clear once we realize that the one drop rule, coupled with the white slavemasters’ proclivity for breeding with the negro women, meant that there were no doubt many nominally negro slaves who, like the half-sister of Thomas Jefferson’s dead wife, Sally Hemings, had a lot of white blood.

So much interbreeding had gone on that some of the negroes could even pass for white. How to dispose of the octaroons and other racially mixed posed a difficult problem for whites of those days, who perhaps might otherwise have been more inclined to send them all to Jesus. No doubt the white-looking contingent among the negroes was also a factor in the decision to make them citizens and give them the vote.

One might pity whites of those days for having to make such a difficult decision, but that pity must be alloyed with a degree of contempt for their cowardice in taking only half measures to address the problem. They’ve cursed their posterity by making them deal with the consequences of their greed and lust.

Each time we read these days of a negro senselessly murdering or brutally raping a white, we have them to blame.

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.

Why non-whites must be exterminated

In one of his most recent comments, Robert Morgan said:

Experimentation on animals tends to get a blanket pass because it sometimes saves human lives. Perhaps this is the result of Christian culture, according to which man is the only creature with a soul, so the tacit assumption is it’s okay so long as it’s for a good cause, and in any case animals, being soulless, aren’t worth bothering about.

But only in the West, I think, do a fair number of people get irate about the cruelty. Is there a PETA in China or Vietnam, or in all of Africa? If there is, I’d wager that it was founded and is staffed by whites.

I’ve read, for example, that the Chinese, who also eat cats, will lower them into boiling water an inch at a time. Making the animal suffer excruciating pain is thought to make the meat taste better. The details of kosher slaughter are about as sadistic, although whether it’s done to improve the flavor, or simply out of sheer pleasure at being able to torture something that’s utterly helpless, I can’t say.

The biggest flaw in white nationalism is subscribing Christian morality in the sense that love for mankind is a commandment taken for granted. That this universalism didn’t exist before Christianity suggests to me it is a malware installed in the white psyche by our (((racial enemies))), the gospel authors.

If non-whites are not exterminated after a world-wide Revolution à la Turner Diaries, animals will continue to be tortured in hell by these little devils called humans. Always remember that the first steps the Nazis took after reaching power in the 1930s were laws forbidding the unnecessary torment of animals. Always remember that (see first comment below)!

Of course: I expand the axis of my philosophy—exterminationism—in the books I write in my native language. It is true that I suspended the writing of a long From St Francis to Himmler, but these days I finished the much shorter From Jesus to Hitler. I will choose a translated chapter from it for the 2020 edition of Day of Wrath.

The crux of my philosophy is that ninety-nine percent of humans must be wiped out in order to leave room to a compassionate white race: a Utopia that already can be seen in the image chosen for the bare backup of this site.

What’s wrong with exterminationism?

In this blog I have cited two Jews, Marcus Eli Savage and Mitchell Heisman, who admitted that Christianity was nothing but a psyop devised by their tribe to control the blond beast.

Before I woke up to the Jewish question I used to read the books of another Jew, Stefan Zweig (perhaps the only Jew whose libretto for an opera by Richard Strauss was accepted at the time of the Third Reich). Zweig begins his biography of Mary Baker Eddy with a very deep idea, ‘The most mysterious moment of a man is when he becomes aware of his intimate personality; the most mysterious moment in the history of mankind is the birth of their religions’. That is why I have placed so much emphasis on this site when analysing Paul and Mark the Evangelist: the literary authors (Jesus did not exist) of a religion that would eventually castrate all Aryans around the globe.

So castrated actually that, recently, in the comments section of a well-known blog of southern nationalists in the US, a commenter who detests me explained his reasons for why he hates me: because I criticise Christianity almost full time in this blog and also, because I promote an exterminationist ideology.

Only modern emasculated whites, what I call Jew-obeyers, can complain about that. We can already imagine the ancient Greeks or the Romans being frightened of a fellow citizen who criticised a Jewish sect called Christianity (remember the quotations of ancient Greeks and Romans about Jews and Christians in the ‘masthead’ of this site). If during the siege of Jerusalem in the year 70—when Mark wrote his gospel!—a Roman would tell Titus that an exterminationist ideology would have to be implemented, no one would have been frightened. At most, they would have told the exterminationist that it was better to enslave the survivors and sell them in the Mediterranean market for economic gain, what they actually did.

Had the ancient Romans benefited from the hindsight of the modern era—that the miscegenation that they were already beginning to practice in the 1st century would result in the collapse of the Empire—, they would have accepted the arguments of the exterminationist philosopher.

So what’s wrong with exterminationism? Not for nothing in this site have I called miscegenation ‘the sin against the holy spirit’, in the sense that it is so unforgivable sin that, once consummated, only the gradual decline and the eventual fall of an Aryan empire can take place. Those white nationalists or Southerners who have not yet learned the role that miscegenation played in ancient Rome would do well to read ‘The Race Problem of the Roman Empire’ by the Swedish philologist Martin P. Nilsson. Only after that it will be somewhat more digestible to understand what William Pierce wanted to tell us in a chapter, ‘Extermination or Expulsion’, from his only non-fiction book.

Food for thought:
Martin P. Nilsson’s text.
William L. Pierce’s text.

Inland

Yesterday the image of The Fair Race still enjoyed the privilege of being up on the sidebar. Today I put Day of Wrath in its place and I would like to explain my reasons.

I did not write The Fair Race, I only chose the essays that appear between its covers. The Fair Race is for normies. It opens with an essay on how the founding myth of the post-WW2 West—the defamation of Germany—is lethal to the Aryan race. That essay, together with the review of Hellstorm that is also collected there, could perfectly be the first two stones for the normie to start crossing the psychological Rubicon. In The Fair Race there are many other essays by several authors that could be considered as the rest of the path stones that help the uninitiated to finish crossing the river.

Day of Wrath, on the other hand, describes the land at the other side of the Rubicon. Unlike The Fair Race, I wrote all the essays in Day of Wrath; most of them published in my two books in Spanish, and translated into English for Day of Wrath.

The typical normie needs the stones to be able to cross the river. I needed them myself. The normie would be frightened if we drove him to the other side without the proper preparation.

This uninitiated may need to listen to the proponents of Alt-Lite, who do not focus on racial issues, before moving on to the stone of race realism. But the latter consists of bare scientific facts that the normie will assimilate at some time, and he will want to know a meta-perspective that encompasses such facts; let’s say, the intellectual product of some pundits of the Alt-Right. Eventually it will be necessary to continue crossing the river and run into the Jewish question and White Nationalism. But White Nationalism is still a stone inside the dangerous waters. Only a few become familiar with the beach on dry land on the other side of the river, National Socialism. But the Third Reich was murdered almost in its origins by Anglo-Saxon traitors, and there is hardly anyone in the world who has explored the inland beyond the beach, on the other side of the Rubicon.

Day of Wrath explores these new lands. It is a text that carries the philosophy of Himmler and Pierce to its ultimate consequences. If one sees the images that I chose for the two books, The Fair Race and Day of Wrath, he will perceive that only by expelling non-whites from the continent (that the white god Quetzalcoatl has just discovered) it will be possible for nymphs as ethereal as the one painted by Parrish almost one hundred years ago, to flourish. In other words, the exterminationist ideology must come first, then the fourteen words will have a chance to be fulfilled: something that those who are stepping on the path stones cannot see.

For reasons that I do not understand, today I received the last edition of Day of Wrath by FedEx when I requested it by ordinary mail. As can be seen if we compare it with the image of the sidebar, only my initials appear in the November 2018 edition. It is a book about which only one review has been written. The review was very negative and I rebutted it (here). But the criticism had a valid point: my old version was riddled with syntax errors. I had to run a grammar correction program to correct them since English is not my mother tongue.

The corrected edition that came to me today, with its new glossy cover, looks better than the previous edition, distributed by Amazon. Compared to the racial issue, Day of Wrath addresses the greatest of taboos. As one German disciple of Alice Miller, whose father had an important position in the Third Reich, said, the subject of the psychic ravages caused by abusive parents ‘is the most potent taboo of mankind’.

On the other hand, racism was not a taboo for the white man. From the ancient Egyptians who put up signs so that negroes did not pass beyond certain latitudes, the Spartans so proud of their Nordic heritage and the Roman patricians, as well as the Visigoths who burned at the stake those who miscegenated in Hispania, until the first decades of the 20th century when eugenics was openly taught in the US, racism only became taboo since the Anglo-Saxons betrayed our dear Führer.

Yes, only for the new generations has racism become a taboo. But what has never been discussed before, until our times, is the horrific way in which parents have been treating their children—something that is still taboo today, as no one wants to see that those who become schizophrenic were driven mad by their own parents. (See e.g., the series on psychiatry that I’ve been reproducing every Friday.)

That is the central theme of Day of Wrath, combined with what I’ve said to bring Pierce’s exterminationism out from the mere novelesque genre: a great excursion, already inland, after we reach the other side of the river.

Petr’s rant

Or:

By their fruits ye shall know them

Very rarely people link to this site, presumably because our point of view is so light-years away from the POV of the common mortal that it is impossible for the normie that visits us to cross, in a single jump, the psychological Rubicon without the rosy stepping stones of the Alt-Right.

I think Petr is a Christian, but it is not clear to which ethnic group he belongs. At any event, on The Phora this guy said:

After a long pause, I decided to check out what C.T. is up to nowadays. (I know he is one of the most poisonously anti-Christian net Nazis out there, and I believe in the “know thine enemy” principle.)

And boy, it was an educational, even enlightening experience to see to what depths he and his few hand-around friends have sunk. As a matter of fact, I consider this to be a sort of moral victory; this shows the spiritual dead end that anti-Christian, anti-God WN activism ultimately leads to. They seem have taken the most extreme apocalyptic “Turner Diaries” views of William Pierce and ran with them. Thus they have come to the ultimate reductio ad absurdum of neo-Nazi ideology.

In fact, C.T. and his crew have abandoned not only Christian morality but also any shred of sober pagan morality (“nothing too much,” sophrosyne) and ended up in sheer manic-depressive nihilism. This stuff below is like the nastiest possible Antifa caricature of WNs come to life. I am not eager to “punch right,” but if this were seriously what all Nazis really believe in, then it would be justified not only to punch them, but to hunt them down as hostis humani generis, as the ancient Romans called pirates.

And it’s not just some booze-fueled tough talking or the Daily Stormer-like irony either—C.T. is a humorless fanatic who would clearly like to be taken seriously:

“For an introduction to my exterminationist philosophy see: here.”

But his genocidal fantasies are just impotent wish-fulfillment daydreams, and as such, even more grotesquely pathetic (you should never make threats you cannot carry out). In fact, people like him have now ironically become what Nietzsche caricatured early Christians being like—despised, embittered, resentment-filled losers hiding in dark holes and dreaming of massive vengeance to come. But without any real God to back them up.

All in all, thank God for the Alt Right and WN 2.0. if this is the mentality it freed us from!

Then Petr quotes in toto ‘How Awake Are You?’, the brilliant comment that our friend from the Iberian Peninsula posted last Thursday. Then Petr ended his rant with these words:

And the comments that follow are as pitiful and repulsive (literally so; you feel repelled from the company of such toxic losers) as the piece itself.

The problem with Petr and all those who make a superficial visit to this site is that they do not even read the links that they put themselves. For example, when quoting my words above (‘see: here’), any visitor of true nobility of the soul that clicked on those words would begin to follow the white rabbit. Eventually, he would enter Wonderland and realise that the devils tormenting innocent animals should be removed from the face of the Earth.

Who is the good and who the bad guy: Petr and company or us? Let’s use the parameter of their Jesus to answer the question: By their fruits ye shall know them.

In addition to perpetuating the lives of the devils tormentors, the promiscuous ‘loving’ ideology of Petr & Co. is murdering the fairest specimens of Homo sapiens. On the other hand, if we come to power, our fruits would mean not only the end of the torment of animals but living in the world of Parrish.