The winds of winter

‘The Winds of Winter’ is the tenth and final episode of the sixth season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the sixtieth overall.

It opens with artistic scenes in the Great Sept that are worth watching even if you don’t see the rest of the episode. Martin was obviously inspired by the medieval church.

High Sparrow: ‘Will you fight to defend your faith against heretics and apostates?’

Brother Loras: ‘I will’.

But even in the Big Sept the writers put up a damn feminist scene. Addressing the High Sparrow, Margaery blasphemes (‘Forget about the Bloody Gods and listen to what I’m telling you!’) in front of the Faith Militant, a sort of inquisitors, and all the nobles gathered at the trial of Loras and Cersei.

This is something as inconceivable as a woman shouting something similar to the pope of other times in St. Peter’s Basilica with the Holy Inquisition present.

The scene is ultra-feminist because Margaery not only curses in a holy place. She’s so clever that she senses that somehow the Great Sept is going to be attacked—something unbelievable within the plot itself. After the Night King killed the old man tangled in the tree only his disciple, the new three-eyed raven, has the power to know these things clairvoyantly (wildfire cache about to explode under the Great Sept).

Even worse, much worse, is what happens after the Great Sept explodes killing everyone, religious and nobles included. This level of feminism is so repulsive that I will tell it very briefly. The girl Arya, who should be dead from the stab wounds she received in a previous episode, single-handedly murders the feudal lord of House Frey and his sons. (Before that scene, Tyrion, supposedly the most intelligent man in Westeros, tells Dany ‘I believe in you’ and Dany turns him into Hand of the Queen with all the ritual of kneeling before the queen, etc.)

But the ridiculous feminist messages don’t end there. In Winterfell, after a few words from Jon Snow now that the Boltons were defeated for good, the prepubescent Mormont girl lectures three mature feudal lords! And it is this girl who, speaking to all the assembled lords of the north, proposes, now that there is no longer a guardian of the north, Jon Snow as the king and all acclaim him.

I have said it elsewhere and it bears repeating. To understand the darkest hour of the West what is needed is to understand the greatest hits of mass culture, as it was in the 19th century Uncle Tom’s Cabin (remember that Lincoln told its author: ‘So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!’) and Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, which also became a tremendous bestseller in the United States. In the 20th century, the film based on it would win eleven Academy Awards, and in the 21st century BLM would inherit the message from the little woman Lincoln spoke to.

It is there, the hits, where we can calibrate the pulse of the white man’s collective unconscious. In other words, to understand the dark hour it’s better to understand Game of Thrones than the boring texts of the Frankfurt School. It’s pop culture that drives the stupid masses, not so much what Kevin MacDonald discusses in The Culture of Critique.

To culminate the end of the sixth season, after the suicide of King Tommen there are no longer any men sitting on the Iron Throne. Now it’s a woman’s turn:

Qyburn: ‘I now proclaim Cersei of the House Lannister, First of Her Name, Queen of the Andals and the First Men, Protector of the Seven Kingdoms. Long may she reign!’

But Cersei is not the only queen. In the final scene of the season we see Dany with a massive armada, with her dragons flying above, crossing the sea to conquer Westeros.

The Battle of the Bitches is what lies ahead…

The religious roots of anti-Germanism

by Dietrich Schuler

Editor’s note: This is the German-English translation of the first article we have published in German at the German section of The West’s Darkest Hour.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
If we try to fathom the special fate of the Germans within the framework of the European tragedy, it is not enough to look at the superficial slogans of daily politics, the propaganda theses of the world wars, the mutual prejudices of the European peoples or the moralising blame of re-education. Also, the rather psychological argument that the aversion against the German is rooted in his general efficiency doesn’t probe deeply enough, although there may be a great deal of truth in it.

It has been almost completely overlooked that the birth of anti-Germanism already occurred at the beginning of Christianisation. The Christian apostles first gathered around themselves everywhere the proletarian masses, the poor, the badly off and the socially weak of the ancient world. Christianity was nothing else than a pre-Marxism in the magical feeling of life of that time. ‘Evil’ then, for the early baptised, was everything that shone in the Roman Empire: the rulers, the leaders in politics, economics, art and science, the military and administrators. Christianity thus contained—Nietzsche had recognised this crystal-clearly—an ancient slave revolt against everything high and well-bred, and the mean vindictiveness of that lower-class revelled in their lust to see the hated, envied and secretly admired languish in the hottest hell. Therefore, this religion had to be anti-Germanic in and of itself. The heathen races and peoples of Central and Northern Europe, with their elementary joy of being and sensuality, formed the direct antipode to the Christian state of mind. In particular, it was the soldierly ‘barbarian tribes’ of the Germanic peoples who attracted the hatred of the oriental desert religion. For oriental was and is the original Christian spirit.

The European nobility, however, is still today, after 2,000 or 1,500 years, predominantly Nordic, and the Teutons embodied in a special way the forest soul of northern Europe, which was now subjugated in the course of many centuries by the desert spirit alien to its nature. This is to be understood quite literally. Thus the celebrated jungle doctor Albert Schweitzer said: ‘I am subjugated by Jesus’. But he didn’t want to understand this negatively, but triumphantly. The servant-like, emasculating effect of this religion can no longer be demonstrated more clearly.

In addition, it has always been overlooked or, at least, it has never been clearly pointed out, that the Christian religion encountered harsh military resistance in its spread exclusively in Germany, nowhere else in Europe. The Christianisation of south-eastern and southern Europe, as well as that of Russia and Poland, took place completely smoothly. Likewise, it found no opposition throughout Western Europe. This is of fundamental importance and symbolic of what was in the offing in Europe through many centuries, leading to the tragic inferno of the white continent since about 850. What we are told about ‘persecutions of Christians’ in antiquity is mostly fictitious: they are the legends of saints, hardly any of which would stand up to thorough scrutiny. Antiquity was, religiously, extremely tolerant and all too tolerant to its detriment.

The decisive point, however, lies in the following: the Christianisation of Germany took place in the West, starting from those two states whose modern shape was formed by three important Germanic tribes: England and France. And these tribes, as is well known, are called Franks, Saxons and Angles. It was a double attack, waged on the one hand by the most brutal military force by the Frankish Emperor Charles in a thirty-year war of extermination, and on the other hand by preaching, flattering persuasion and treacherous actions, such as the felling of the Donar Oak by Boniface. And this insidious attack, supported by Germanic courage, came from those Anglo-Saxons who had been Christianised on the British Isle and now continued the work of alienation on the mainland of whom Winfried, the so-called ‘German Apostle’, together with his relative Lioba, were particularly well known.

The guardian of central European paganism was first and foremost the Saxon tribe, which remained in the mainland, supported by the Frisians. From here the re-Germanisation of northeast Germany would take place. Without these Lower Saxons there would be no German people. But they were subjugated by the part of the closely related Franks, which the Gallo-Roman foreigners had Frenchified with the help of the Franks, who remained Germanic.

The sneering and often arrogant tone that for centuries has always been heard in Western Europe as soon as German things are mentioned goes back to the 8th and 9th Christian centuries. And it is therefore no coincidence that worldwide summons to arms, which were directed twice against Germany in the 20th century, had its spiritual-political leadership essentially with France and England, which were bearers of world languages and high moral standing.

Therefore, it cannot really be surprising, although curiously it was never really stated, that the whole anti-German atrocity propaganda, as it found its dramatic climax in the first half of the 20th century, was nothing but the increased echo of sermons to the pagans and anti-Germanic incantations of Christian missionaries, apostles and itinerant teachers more than a thousand years ago.

The core of anti-Germanism was always political theology. The orators, ‘clergymen’, article writers, and radio propagandists of our Allied war opponents merely transposed into modern language what those apostles had once prefigured: the Teuton as a hulking barbarian, stupid, brutal, uneducated and, as an additional variant, absolutely humourless!

After the Germans were finally incorporated into the fold of the Christian herd of Europe, they themselves continued the subjugation of Central and Eastern Germany to the Wends and Old Prussians. Especially the Baltic Old Prussians were now subjugated by the Order of the Teutonic Knights in the 13th and 14th centuries, just as had happened 400 to 500 years earlier to the Saxons on the part of the Franks. Christianised Poles weren’t able to conquer these freedom-loving pagan Old Prussians.

The Baltic Prussians weren’t Slavs, they formed together with the Latvians and Lithuanians a special branch of the Indo-Germanic language family. Linguistically, they occupied an intermediate position between Germanic and Slavic, as can be seen, for example, in the word garbas which means mountain. ‘Garbas’ is only a metathesis of ‘mountain’ with a Baltic suffix attached. In Slavic it became ‘gora’.

In terms of blood, however, these later Germanised Old Prussians, who gave the name to the later state of Prussia, were the closest relatives of the Germanic tribes. Until the Second World War the real Latvia as well as East Prussia belonged to the areas with the strongest predominance of the Nordic race. Let us therefore note two things: the northwest of Germany was forcibly Christianised in the same way as later would happen to its extreme northeast. The area around Königsberg was forced under the Christian yoke only a full millennium after southern France with Marseille and Bordeaux. Only through this do we recognise the full historical root of the talk of the ‘German barbarians’, which has long been in vogue especially in our western neighbouring country.

From a purely political point of view it must of course be said that, as things stood, the subjugation of the Saxons by the Frankish Emperor may have been positive, in spite of the terrible Germanic fratricides, because otherwise the establishment of a German state and state people, as we know it historically, couldn’t have been carried out. This has also been asserted again and again. The same applies to the Christianisation and simultaneous Germanisation of East Germany, which, however, was actually a re-Germanisation. It is possible that without the influence of foreign religious elements a large Germanic northern empire would have arisen from Scandinavia to the low mountain ranges. Without the Roman Church, the Germanic tribes of northern France would most probably not have been Romanised, so that quite other possibilities of Germanic state formation in the European framework seem conceivable. But these are speculations. The main purpose here is to prove that through Christianity everything in Europe became mendacious to the core.

If the opposing propaganda in the Second World War tried to divide the Germans by the confrontation of ‘Nazis’ and ‘anti-Nazis’, it did the same in the First World War by the use of the terms ‘Prussians’ and ‘non-Prussians’. If we have internalised all this, then the German Sonderweg is no longer a mystery to us. The Germans are, often and largely quite unconsciously, the conscience of the real, down-to-earth, pagan Europe. There is nothing else. Christian Europe was a falsification, a pseudo-morphosis. Central Europe is the original homeland of the Indo-Germanic root people, not some Asian steppes, as we have been led to believe. What this primitive pagan Europe could have become with the great ruler virtues and the political talent of the old Romans, but above all the unequalled philosophical height of the Hellenes, give us a faint idea.

Along with Germany, Europe, the entire white race would have to die. But by paying homage to anti-Germanism themselves, the Germans, blocked the way to the right knowledge for the other Europeans. He who destroys the core of a thing, destroys thereby also the whole. And it is therefore no wonder that the deep division of the soul, which came to Europe with Christianity, raged especially painfully among the Germans.

The adoption of this foreign religion and the attempt to adapt it to our way of being was the real fall from the grace of Europe. Religion is the highest and most sacred thing: one doesn’t allow it to be taken away from the foreigner, nor, what is just as bad, to be foisted upon him. A race of the rank of the White European without its own religion is a historical scandal, a mortal sin…

He whoever walked through the German people with an awake heart, has recognised the deep inner misery of this people… Especially since the 20th century, the division of the soul has become abundantly visible, which runs through our tribes, our clans, families, even the individual personalities. The feeling becomes more and more urgent that we live in an unholy, hopeless, evil and un-homely world.

But the other European peoples also know this feeling. Sham victories over Germany have benefited neither them nor Europe as a whole. Quite the contrary! All of them are not one bit better off today than the Germans themselves. Christianity has not eliminated a single of the world’s evils, nor has it even alleviated them: it lives from evil. Only in it, in an ugly, miserable, cloying world, do its rotten fruits blossom and flourish.

But the struggle against Germany with unwarlike but all the more effective means goes on unceasingly. Fortunately, more and more people, even in non-German countries, are realising that there is anti-white racism everywhere.

_________

Dietrich Schuler (1927-2011) was a German educator, writer and philosopher of religion.

Source: Dietrich Schuler: Untergang der Weltmacht USA: Rettung für die weißen Völker? (2003). This excerpt has been translated by Albus from German using DeepL; reworked by him, and the resulting English syntax edited by C.T.

Answer to Job

Two books changed my view of history, Pierce’s and deMause’s. As I have complained countless times, many racialists have not even read Pierce’s. Following what Woods said yesterday they would do well to leave social media to read important works (starting with Woods himself).

Regarding Lloyd deMause, if there is something that psychohistory teaches is that, if men have been worshipping horrible gods (‘sacrifice your child’, ‘love the Semitic god who condemns us to eternal fire’, etc.) it is because the deities are the transferred shadow of our abusive parents.

And once again, to grasp that it’s necessary to read, if not deMause for his extreme liberalism, at least the way in which I’ve appropriated his ideas.

On my stats page I see that yesterday and today twenty-seven people visited my article ‘God’ that I published two years ago, and that I chose to be included in Day of Wrath. I would like to add the following clarification on that piece in which I speak of my favourite book by Carl Jung.

Since I didn’t have an English copy of Answer to Job, it contained a translation of mine from my Spanish copy Respuesta a Job. But yesterday I found a direct translation from German to English on the internet. Thus I have replaced my translated quote both in my entry ‘God’ and in Day of Wrath, which I updated yesterday.

This is the quotation of Jung, an Aryan who dared to psychoanalyse the god of the ancient Hebrews:

Truly, Yahweh can do all things and permits himself all things without batting an eyelid. With brazen countenance he can project his shadow side and remain unconscious at man’s expense…

Before, he [Job] had known Yahweh “by the hearing of the ear,” but now he has got a taste of his reality, more so even than David—an incisive lesson that had better not be forgotten. Formerly he was naïve, dreaming perhaps of a “good” God… that God would be faithful and true…

But, to his horror, he has discovered that Yahweh is not human but, in certain respects, less than human, that he is just what Yahweh himself says of Leviathan: “He is king over all proud beasts” [Online edition of Jung’s book].

If Woods confesses to us that he will be reading a lot of books and doesn’t want to read Daybreak Press books on the sidebar, why not start with Answer to Job?

Published in: on July 30, 2020 at 10:37 am  Comments (3)  

One more movie

Regarding what I said in my previous posts, that the treatment of children was so atrocious in the past that it caused psychosis in ancient societies, perhaps some visitors have already read a quote in one of the chapters of Day of Wrath:

In my view, the psychohistory of Lloyd deMause is indeed a notable approach to history, in the sense in which Wikipedia uses the term “notability.” I am not personally involved in psychohistory—I am a mathematical sociologist—but here are some thoughts for your consideration.

Psychohistory as put forth by deMause and his many followers attempts to explain the pattern of changes in the incidence of child abuse in history. This is a perfectly respectable and non-fringe domain of scientific research. They argue that the incidence was much higher in the past, and that there has been an irregular history of improvement. This is a hypothesis that could just as easily have been framed by an epidemiologist as a psychologist. DeMause proposes a theory that society has gone through a series of stages in its treatment and discipline of children.

Again, this is well within the bounds of social science. None of these questions are pseudoscientific. Even the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, a bastion of scientific epidemiology, is interested in these kinds of hypotheses.

Except for some Amazonian tribes, in our time parents are no longer allowed to bury their kids alive. Ours is an infinitely more advanced psychoclass compared to the prehistoric psychoclass and even of many historical societies (think for example of what I said yesterday about the Aztecs).

But even in our western society it is taboo to talk about the abuse that some of our parents inflicted upon us as children. Except for what Stefan Molyneux said about his abusive Jewish mother, who among the racialists has raised the issue?

Not long ago I published a list of a hundred movies that could be seen in these times of pandemic. I forgot to mention Stand by Me, which contains a scene worth remembering (linked by the end of this post).

Interestingly, yesterday when I watched a DVD about LOTR’s The Two Towers I later learned that, in the extended edition of one of the films, a scene appears in which Faramir goes through a flashback which shows Boromir and his father Denethor, Steward of Gondor: who doesn’t love his youngest son.

The funny thing is that even in the non-extended version that we all saw on the big screen Gandalf tells Faramir the lie ‘Your father loves you’. Similarly, in Stand by Me Chris told Gordie a well-intentioned lie: that it was false that his father hated him.

While there is a chasm between the sacrificial practices of ancient times with the way some parents treat their children today, it is very rare to hear someone confess his pain as directly and emotionally as the boy Gordie did in the movie.

I try to break the taboo in my autobiographical books.

Published in: on July 29, 2020 at 9:48 am  Comments (2)  

A response to Rollory

This entry is a response to this comment. Bernardino de Sahagún, a scholar who wrote about the ancient Amerindian practices of the 16th century, wrote:

I do not believe that there is a heart so hard that when listening to such inhuman cruelty, and more than bestial and devilish such as the one described above, does not get touched and moved by the tears and horror and is appalled; and certainly it is lamentable and horrible to see that our human nature has come to such baseness and opprobrium that parents kill and eat their children, without thinking they were doing anything wrong.

Like Frazer, Sahagún organised his treatise in twelve books. I have two editions of it in my bookshelf. And also like Frazer, Sahagún recorded the Aztec practices but didn’t explain them. For me, a satisfactory explanation of killing and eating your own child requires a model of depth psychology that is unavailable to academic anthropologists, who resort to glib explanations.

What is a satisfactory explanation? In short, the one that generates a certain empathy for the victim and the victimizer. Sahagún, a European considered the first ethnologist in Mexico, had empathy with the victim but was clueless about the victimiser’s motives or drives.

Remember that it was a common practice in ancient Mexico to kill and eat your child. Anthropologists today are even worse than Sahagún: they don’t even condemn the Amerindian perpetrator because the coloured are sacred. They even call it ‘noble savage’.

Unlike anthropology, psychohistory sees the atrocious childrearing ways that the perp had suffered. The answer begins to be glimpsed, as what the Amerinds suffered yesterday is identical to what the serial killers of today suffered as children with their parents.

In other words, common childrearing practices in the past were as atrocious as childrearing practices of schizogenic parents today.

If empathy is not generated even with the perp to the extent of understanding his actions (‘put yourself in his shoes’, sandals or even bare feet in this case), the explanations are glib. This is true even when we rightly condemn the serial killer to the electric chair in the justice system.

All current anthropology, without exception, provides glib explanations when we ask ourselves ultimate questions. The toll of severe child abuse is verboten not only in academia, including psychiatry, but among commoners as well. Among racialists, only Stephan Molyneux spoke about it. If he already did a backup of all of his videos in Bitchute, see e.g. his video on Charles Manson’s childhood.

Published in: on July 28, 2020 at 10:12 am  Comments (5)  

Blaming mankind

On this site I have quoted a lot from Robert Morgan. Although he’s right about Christianity, Morgan seems to be saying that technology was something like the apple of knowledge that men ate and were expelled from paradise. That vision of man presupposes the Golden Age of humanity, which for some reason was corrupted in the Bronze Age and eventually in the Iron Age: a myth.

Morgan’s mistake, blaming technology for everything, is due to his lack of knowledge of my appropriation of psychohistory, as massive child sacrifice in pre-technological civilisation speaks horrors of humanity. (In our time there is almost no ritual sacrifice of children, but society allows parents to mistreat their children’s egos to the extent of schizophrenizing them.)

Morgan’s position reminds me of Marxists who blame capitalism, as if before capitalism there had been no horrors in the world (see for example what I say about schizophrenia and pre-Columbian Amerinds in Day of Wrath). The only thing technology does is empower even more a modified ape that does very bad things for the reasons outlined in my book: the ‘long childhood’ that lends itself to all kinds of parental abuse, traumas and a pandemonium of cruelty and severe mental disorders. However, under another pseudonym Morgan used to comment here without reading Day of Wrath where I explain psychohistory.

The trick is not only to blame capitalism, Jewry, technological civilisation or even Christianity but man himself or rather what I call ‘exterminable Neanderthals’. And only the Aryan race has the potential to leave human Neanderthalism behind.

When Morgan commented here, to rebut his technological reductionism (‘Eve’s apple’) I pointed out to psychohistory. He said something to the effect that I had focused on Amerindians. But pure whites also did similar things.

Among Scandinavians, the practices of throwing living offerings in holy waters began in the Stone Age and continued during the Bronze and Iron ages. There was never a Golden Age, as shown in the remains of sacrificed children even in the days of our pre-human ancestors.

By the 3rd century BCE whites were already offering human lives in Scandinavia: hundreds of men, women and children have been found in lakes that were sacred. In 1839, a Danish newspaper published an article about the exhumation of a body from a peat bog in Jutland, and to date several hundred mummified bodies of Scandinavians who had been dumped in the bogs, slaughtered 2,400 years ago, have been exhumed.

The 1974 book The Northmen by Thomas Froncek and the team of Time-Life shows several photographs of those victims, including the mummified body of a girl who, preserved by the peat bog, shows that she was a beautiful young blonde woman, who was attached to a large stone to drown her. Her entire body was found in 1952 at the bottom of a Schleswig-Holstein bog.

Why did even the beautiful Nordics do these things with their crown of the evolution they had created through sexual selection (the Aryan woman)? Recently a commenter sent me a very good edition of James George Frazer’s The Golden Bough. But Frazer lacked the tool of psychohistory because it did not exist when he lived (1854-1941). In his truly encyclopaedic work Frazer was unable to explain why on earth can people sacrifice their own children or their women, a practice that sometimes included torture.

As psychohistory explains, everything has to do with the traumas caused by ‘the long childhood’ in our species: traumas that demand not only repetition, but also sublimation of the parents onto figures of demanding gods (or a demanding monotheistic god).

Lloyd deMause, who died this year, figured out much of the why such horrible rituals cropped up in all human races since prehistory. But who among the commenters is interested in my work? DeMause was such a deranged liberal that I had to take over his psychohistory, turn it, and use it as a tool for the priest of the 4 and 14 words.

Trauma model of mental disorders

The following is my response to what Joseph Walsh just told me: here.

But I sense you seem to think that because you had a troubled relationship with your parents which caused you much mental anguish, that all illnesses of the mind are due to the behaviour of one’s parents?

Have you read my Day of Wrath, or at least the Wikipedia article ‘Trauma model of mental disorders’ that I started the previous decade (or even my May post ‘On depression’)? Day of Wrath, by the way, is not autobiographical.

I could be mistaken but if that is the case that seems like a massive case of projection. Not only do you seem to think all mental illness is due to parental abuse but you’ve extrapolated that the near-extinction the white race is facing is due to erroneous white parents-white child relationships.

Please note the Schopenhauer quote in my previous post today, ‘Elemental psychology’, that people learn religions like they learn languages. That is, we have been programmed. You cannot think in Spanish or Greek however hard you try, and the same is true with religion. You can only learn Buddhism as you can learn a second language, but the whole matter is artificial and you end up thinking in your native language. Perhaps the best analogy is diseases that are transmitted through human contact, such as viruses.

The thing is, for two millennia, many white parents have been forcing their white children to worship the god of the Jews. I call that child abuse. And it is easy to see it as child abuse if we compare the religion of eternal torture even of unbaptised babies (a doctrine that Luther believed!) with the incredible beauty, majesty and nobility of classical religion.

If you know the book by Catherine Nixey that I quoted today in ‘Elemental psychology’, a woman who is your fellow citizen, you will see that what happened from the 4th to the 6th century was an astronomical trauma for converted whites: a trauma that the race has yet to heal to this day. In fact, all Christendom has been nothing other than suffering from a mental illness, analogous to how those diagnosed with schizophrenia suffer symptoms that can be traced to a very specific form of parental abuse that crashes the spirits of their children (see also Modrow’s book that I mentioned in my previous post).

But going back to Christianity and neochristianity. They are transmitted via parents. Without the malware within the operating system that abusive parents implant—that is, parents who install the Jesus archetype as a paradigm to follow (and add to it the secular programs that such operating system facilitates in schools and the media)—there is no ethno-suicidal drive.

In other words, in this secular phase of the red giant of Christianity, whites are burning in earthly purgatory for having committed, seventeen hundred years ago, the mortal sin of abandoning their Aryan gods to honour the Semitic god. And everything has to do with introjects as the infection has passed from parents to children for two thousand years…

Trying to break the chain of parental introjects is the job of the priest of the 14 words, even assuming that whites don’t want to listen to him and avoid his antivirus programs that could heal them of this age-old psychosis.

Regarding what you tell me about talking about this on Skype, I also dislike writing and prefer the spoken word (which is why my articles are so short). But that would only make sense if you read at least my book Day of Wrath. Otherwise, I would have to explain my intricate appropriation of Psychohistory through the spoken word: a miserable task considering that English is an artificial language for me.

Lloyd deMause (1931-2020)

I just found out that Lloyd deMause died in April.

In 2014, I asked a racially conscious white, that we will call ‎Madgambler, to write to deMause to find out if he had a Jewish background, but deMause did not respond. Madgambler even wrote to one of his closest associates posing as a liberal but said he didn’t know. Since I have said many things on this site about deMause in the context of psychohistory, it would be great to find out if his recent ancestors were ethnic Jews.

Published in: on June 21, 2020 at 9:06 am  Comments (1)  

Whose arc is it that will move?

– Slightly abridged in August 2020 compared to the original post –

I have not finished with what I said about TFM in one of my posts from the previous Friday (see also ‘Turd Flinging Monkey’s views quoted and paraphrased by C.T.’).

I have always complained about the ‘Empire of the yin’, in the sense that today’s Aryans behave like the Eloi blonds with Weena when she was drowning in a scene of The Time Machine, a 1960 film. What I had not understood is that the extreme feminisation of men today is due to environmental causes. See the section ‘The biological origins of patriarchy and feminism’ within the text linked above where the chimpanzee society, in which patriarchy reigns, is contrasted with the bonobo society in which matriarchy reigns.

The Eloi had everything: food, easy sex and a fair climate. In the aforementioned video TFM said that French revolutionaries rebelled because they were starving, but that human beings in general give a damn about politics.

That is very true. I have always suspected that the Westerners of today are not worse than those of before but that, having perennial bread and circus, they behave like the Eloi—in the real world, like the bonobo. Remember that the bonobos were originally chimpanzees, but were stranded in a privileged and isolated region of Congo where they didn’t have to compete with gorillas. Through the millennia they changed genetically from a dimorphic species to a species where the male is physically similar to the female.

The fundamental difference between the bonobo and the human society is that the earthly paradise of the bonobo can last millennia, while the human matriarchy of today will only last a few more years. The reason for this is that in our species matriarchy goes against nature, as Homo sapiens is a dimorphic species. Remember, ‘To understand the West’s darkest hour we must keep in mind that to reach a feminist society two things are required: abundance of resources and absence of external threats. It is my belief that both will be inverted in the aftermaths of a hyperinflated dollar and the subsequent misbehavior of blacks in America’s big cities. The flaw of the anti-white system is that the welfare state has produced a milieu of false abundance’.

Of the four modes of which I have spoken elsewhere (happy mode, angry mode, combat mode and killing mode), I already find myself in the latter while the vast majority of Westerners are in the former. That is the reason why this site receives few visits compared to other racialist sites. I am a creature of pure hatred while most of white nationalists do not think in revolutionary terms, not even as a purely academic exercise.

That has to do with the environment of course. My biographical past in Mexico was as brutal as the chimpanzee society in Africa. The gringos north of the Río Grande live in a privileged zone. But soon our barbarism will reach the whole West whose blonds, after WW2, live in an Elysian island equivalent to the bonobo paradise.

In other words we belong to very different psychoclasses. And in the next few years it will not be me who speaks more civilly and demurely, approaching the chivalry of a Jared Taylor. During the convergence of catastrophes it will be you who will gradually move from happy mode to combat mode. It will not be WDH’s arc what will move toward your side. It will be WN whose arc will be moving towards us and the characters in the novels of Pierce and Covington.

Winter is coming, and you don’t stand a chance unless the Eloi become killing machines again and your Weenas birthing machines…

Published in: on November 25, 2019 at 8:14 am  Comments (13)  

The bondage of groupthink

Further to the November 8th post ‘Hamelin’s lemmings’. One of the main causes of white suicide is the phenomenon of groupthink. As I said in the Hamelin piece, ‘Not falling from the grace of the tribe must have been engraved with incandescent neon letters in the Nordic mind’. But that does not explain all groupthink especially now that, unlike Ice Age Man, whites have leisure time to do serious thinking on important matters.

Why on Earth can white males walk on the street, see a Negro with an Aryan woman, and fail to be consumed by genocidal hatred, the ‘extermination of the Neanderthals’ passion I’m consumed with? Since I am not rich enough to interview Europeans and Americans directly my tentative answer is that, compared to a real philosopher, most whites have no internal life. Yes: they are like NPCs.

There are stages of human consciousness, a process that Lloyd deMause calls psychogenesis: the evolutionary process of developing empathy through the millennia, especially toward children and I would add, the animals as well. Those who don’t want to read Julian Jaynes’ fascinating The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind could at least read a section of my Day of Wrath.

From this meta-perspective, whites, including white nationalists that by not hating their enemies are actually obeying the Big Jew have little, if any, internal life.

Sometimes this lack of introspection is fully volitional. We recently observed how the Lutheran admin of Occidental Dissent straw-manned my question, How can anti-Semite, racist Christians dare to worship the god of the Jews? But all pro-white Christians seem to be behaving like NPCs by lacking an internal life when it comes to ultimate questions about the religion of their parents.

You will notice that often I call Christianity ‘the religion of our parents’. This is because my platform to understand the human psyche and white suicide is depth psychology, which includes the history of childhood and parental introjects. It is not a casual whim that my book appears now at the top of this page. But will nationalists ever connect the dots between their own childhood programming—a bondage that compels them to obey the Big Jew—and white decline?

If you are going to comment, keep this thread focused on this very issue. Otherwise go to my previous post, ‘Open thread’.

Published in: on November 20, 2018 at 12:11 pm  Comments (12)