Reflections of an Aryan woman, 10

It seems to me that I hear from all sides the objection that has been made to us from the very beginning of the Movement, from the very first speeches of the Master, from the first edition of the Book. I am quoting the words, written in black and white on page 507 of the Book, words which I too have recalled so many times, in public and private meetings, before, during and after the Second World War:

Political parties tend to compromise; the Weltanschauungen never do. Political parties take into consideration the opposition of possible opponents; the Weltanschauungen proclaim their own infallibility. [1]

If this is not the most cynical glorification of intolerance, what is? And I remember—and how!—from the response of all the enemies of National Socialism, from the enthusiasts of good Parliamentary Democracy to the most rabid Communists, also theoretical defenders of ‘human rights’, to the slightest suggestion of identical treatment of all ‘committed’, including the Hitlerites: ‘There can be no question of tolerating the intolerant…’

Are we really ‘intolerant’? And did the Führer, in the passage quoted, or elsewhere, exalt intolerance? Yes, he did. But it is not the same intolerance that I have tried to describe throughout the preceding pages. It is the response to it, the reaction against it, which is very different.

In ancient times, before the virus of Jewish intolerance was spread throughout the world, we were tolerant as well as racist, as were all the Indo-Europeans and all the peoples of the world, including the Jews themselves, before the great Mosaic reformation. I will say more: without it our Movement, with its intransigence and aggressiveness, would not have existed—would not have had any justification. For it can only be understood in an age of accelerated decadence.

It is the supreme, desperate reaction—the reaction of people who have nothing to lose, since whatever comes of their revolution cannot be worse than what they see around them—against this decadence. Now this decadence is, as I have tried to show, linked to two attitudes that complement each other: the superstition of ‘man’ and to the superstition of ‘happiness’. It is these two superstitions which give rise to intolerance of the type I have described above, not really ‘that of the Jews’ (with the exception, no doubt, of the prophets), but that of all the doctrines with roots in Judaism: that which the Jews use, after having aroused it in other peoples, to incite those peoples to fight for them, without even knowing it.

Intolerance can only be fought with the help of other intolerance based on another faith, just as terror can only be fought with terror: a terror exercised in the name of another idea.

Editor’s Note: I’ve already embedded a clip of the 1959 film Ben-Hur in a previous post, but it’s worth rewatching.

It is at this point that white nationalists err big time, as it is schizophrenic to try to awaken the masses of whites to the JQ and at the same time behave like Sextus, not like Messala: a revolutionary idea must be fought with another revolutionary idea.

Most white nationalists are so traitors to their race that they really think like Sextus (watch the clip: here).

We fight the intolerance of the devotees of ‘man’ and those thirsty for ‘happiness’—both directly born of Judaism, and the humanitarian rationalists with scientific pretensions, fed by the same two superstitions. We are fighting against it with our intolerance, which has arisen not from the naive desire to make all men happy in this world or any other, but from the will to keep pure and strong this human minority, the biological elite that our Aryan race represents, so that one day (probably after the end of the present time-cycle) a community may emerge which is as close to our idea of the overman—without faults or weaknesses—as the tigers are to the idea of the perfect feline.

It does not matter to us whether the individuals who make up this biological elite are ‘happy’ or ‘unhappy’! The Strong have no interest in personal happiness. Their function is to ensure, from generation to generation, both the continuity of the race in its beauty and virtues, in its health, and the continuity of faith in natural values. The pride they feel in fulfilling this function, and the pleasure of defying those who would draw them to other tasks, must suffice for their ‘happiness’.

Happiness in the sense that the vast majority of people in consumer societies understand it, i.e., material comfort plus the satisfactions of the senses and the heart, is good for the beasts who, deprived of the word, and therefore of the possibility of looking back on themselves, feel no particular pride in fulfilling their functions and have neither ideological adversaries to harass, nor ‘re-educators’ to challenge. It is, as I said at the beginning, their right. Even the ‘man’ of the inferior races should disdain to seek it—all the more so the average Aryan, and especially the Strong.

Moreover, our intolerance, like that of the orthodox Hindus, is manifested on the plane of life, of action, not on that of pure thought, for we do not believe that the basic propositions of our Weltanschauung are true: we know it. We are undoubtedly irritated by those uninformed people who persist in denying them—those who, for example, proclaim loudly that ‘race does not exist’.

We feel no more hostility towards them than towards madmen who go away repeating that two and two make five. We see that if we add two pebbles to two pebbles, and count the whole, we inevitably find four pebbles. And although this belongs to another order of ideas—the domain of natural science, and not to that of mathematics—we also see, and very clearly, that there are, among all the people who are called Indo-Europeans, or Aryans, common, well-defined traits. That some fools—or parrots, repeating what they have been fed on television by anti-racist propaganda—deny this does not change the facts. It is not to ‘save’ these fools, or parrots, from error, for the sake of their souls, or out of respect for their ‘reason’, that we would crack down on them if we had the power to do so, but only to prevent the repercussions their speeches might have in society, and especially among the young.

Their ‘reason’ is so unreasonable—and so little ‘theirs’!—that we have no respect for them. And we are not interested in the fate of their souls, if they have any. But the survival of our race—still so beautiful, wherever it has remained more or less pure—and the possibilities of assertion and action that a future, however threatening it may seem, interest us deeply. It is in the name of these that we would, if we had the power, take ruthless measures against them. In a society long since imbued with our spirit, in which every anti-racist, egalitarian, pacifist statement, contrary to the divine wisdom of Nature—every expression of the superstition of ‘man’—would be received with irresistible laughter, like a crude fairground joke, or with total indifference, even more deadly, perhaps we would not take action against our adversaries, but would let them yap all they want. They would not be dangerous, and would soon tire of it.

_________

[1] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, German edition 1935, p. 507.

Best Russian film

Those who have read Pierce and Kemp’s books will know of other very dark hours for the white race. But without images or a good novel, like Julian by Vidal, it’s almost impossible to convey what happened with the proper emotions. Since Hollywood is in enemy hands, what is filmed there about the past distorts historical reality to the point of axiological reversal. But the best movie ever made in Russia, Andrei Rublev, transports us to one of these terrible moments as if we were in the cave of the three-eyed raven retrocognitively seeing the historical past. Tarkovsky’s film is three hours long and was shot in black and white:

In the second part of the film, while the Russian Prince is away his younger brother, hungry for power, allies with a group of Tartars and attacks Vladimir. We see flashbacks of the Prince and his brother attending a church service. The non-white invasion of the combined armed forces on horseback and the resulting carnage is shown in great detail. The city is burned, the citizens are murdered and the women raped and murdered.

One scene shows a horse falling from a flight of stairs and being stabbed by a spear. Another shows that a cow is being set on fire. Fomá narrowly escapes being killed in the city and escapes to the nearby countryside, but when he crosses a river he is shot in the back with an arrow and killed.

The Tartars make their way to the barricaded church, now completely decorated with Andrei’s paintings, where most of the citizens have taken refuge. The Tartars show no mercy and slaughter the people inside and burn all the painted wooden altarpieces.

Andrei saves Dúrochka from being raped by killing a Tartar with an axe. The bishop’s messenger is cruelly tortured into revealing the location of the city’s gold. After being repeatedly burned, he has liquid metal from a melted crucifix poured into his mouth and is dragged away tied to a horse.

After that, only Andrei and Dúrochka are left alive in the church. A traumatised Andrei imagines a conversation with the late Theophanes the Greek, mourning the loss of his work and the evil of humanity, while Dúrochka absentmindedly braids the hair of a dead woman. Andréi decides to leave his profession of Orthodox Church painter and takes a vow of silence to atone for his sin due to the idiotic Christian commandment to never kill another man, even if he was a Tartar invader.

In the next film segment, Andrei is once again in the Andronikov monastery while famine and war dominate the country. He no longer paints or speaks but keeps the girl Dúrochka with him as a silent companion. After a few scenes, a group of Tartars stops at the monastery. The blonde Dúrochka is the perfect paradigm of Andrew Anglin’s words that I quoted in On Beth’s cute tits:

What I am ‘claiming’—which is in fact simply explaining an objective reality, based on accepted science—is that women have no concept of ‘race’, as it is too abstract for their simple brains. What they have a concept of is getting impregnated by the dominant male.

This girl, Dúrochka, ignores the atrocities that the Tartars had done in the Russian town and is fascinated by one of the soldier’s shiny breastplates. Still sitting on their horses, the Tartars tease her and play with her, but a soldier likes her, puts on her a horned helmet and dresses her as a bride, and finally decides to take her with him as his eighth wife, the only Russian wife of the non-white Tartar. Andrei tries to stop her from leaving him, but she spits in the face of the miserable Russian monk to let her go with the powerful Tartars. The scene perfectly portrays the mentality of white women but ultimately it is the fault of men like Andrei who, instead of fighting, obey the ‘love thine enemy’ gospel message.

Today in the morning when I went out for a walk to warm my feet on a cloudy day, a revelation came to me about all those scenes which can be seen in the video embedded above from 1:25 to 2:10. Yes: white women of our time are behaving like Dúrochka, jumping on the horse of the mighty: the Allies and Jews who wrote history books after WW2. Otherwise they would be on the side of their ethnic group, which would mean transvaluing all values concerning the Third Reich.

However, what Stalin’s hordes did in Germany is no different than what the Tartars did in the segment linked in the previous paragraph. And none of the main WN authors complains about this on their misleadingly called ‘white nationalist’ websites. That’s why I said yesterday that not even the commenters who visit this site are priests of the 14 words.

For any of them to become a priest, he wouldn’t only have to want to multiply with Aryan girls like the SS booklet I’ve been quoting. In practical terms this means hostilely taking over the State and destroying feminism in a single day through a massive rape of the Sabine women (insofar as today’s Western women are not as decent as the women whose pics appear in the SS booklet I’ve been quoting). See the section in On Beth’s cute tits, linked on the sidebar, where an MGTOWer says that in patriarchy men have the power of sexual reproduction, while in feminist society it’s women who have that power.

It also means founding, in the new extremely brutal ethnostate, a kind of reply to Hollywood’s brainwashing machine by filming the Allied atrocities in Germany and in the forced labour and extermination camps of the Soviet Union, where huge numbers of Germans were deported never to return. No one who doesn’t feel compassion for the slaughtered Germans has the right to comment here, since besides the 14 words I am also a priest of the 4 words.

Remember that.

The Dúrochka-like women in today’s West are simply jumping on the horses of the powerful. And the American and European males aren’t really men but a kind of neochristian monks (see for example what Mauricio recently said about Greg Johnson: a perfect paradigm of today’s ‘white nationalism’). Even their WN websites remind me of Andrei Rublev who, in those apocalyptic moments for Russia, instead of transvaluing Xtian values plunged himself into theological discussions and felt guilty for killing a single Tartar.

Only those who, unlike Rublev, have left Xtian ethics behind will be capable of saving their race.

Mexican proverb

‘The brave man lives until the coward wants’.

Published in: on January 26, 2021 at 2:25 pm  Comments (1)  

Against white reformists

Editor’s note: The following text by Michael O’Meara originally appeared on Vanguard News Network, September 24, 2007 and Greg Johnson later republished it on Counter-Currents, July 17, 2012. It also appears in O’Meara’s book Toward the White Republic.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

‘Je crois à la Révolution dans la mesure où je ne crois ni à la durée ni à la valeur de la Société qui m’entoure’. —Pierre Drieu La Rochelle (pic left)

Almost as depressing as the thought of our people’s extinction is that of the white opposition to it.

It’s not just that this opposition is minuscule in number, confined to the internet, has a negative rather than a positive understanding of what needs to be done, lacks consensus as to its common aim, and attracts a great many asocial, dysfunctional types incapable of sustaining any sort of nationalist resistance.

Worse, it seems at times not even to know the enemy. Whether racial conservatives endeavouring to stem the rising tide of colour and get back to the high ground of pre-1965 America or white nationalists ‘who are not revolutionaries, but paleoconservatives who don’t want to change the system, but to make it work for them’, the white opposition fixates on media (i.e., the internet), on consciousness raising, and on political policies aimed at reforming a system that is inherently anti-white.

Worse still, its Sisyphean activities are engaged in the belief that the old white America, dedicated to money-making and happiness, can be won back and is worth winning, that this can be done through ideas, in the form of media-conveyed information, exposés, and arguments, and through existing institutional channels, like the courts and the electoral system.

If only it were that simple.

Our people face extinction not because the Jews or the liberals monopolise the media, force feed us anti-white ideas, control the leading institutions, and wield all the power and influence. This is a big part of it, to be sure, but to see things solely—or principally—in these terms is to overlook the last two or three centuries of Western history.

The threat to white existence is profound, rooted in the civilisational, ontological, and spiritual disorders undergirding the Judaification presently pervading our daily lives.

When Yuri Slezkine boasts that the modern age is the Jewish age, he gets to the heart of this in a way few white nationalists ever do. Based on the Levantine behaviour of ‘rule breakers, border crossers, and go-betweens’, the entire course of the modern Jewish age works, in effect, toward our collective de-Aryanization.

Since its advent, with the liberal-democratic revolutions of the late 18th century, the Modern West, unlike its Medieval and Ancient counterparts, has shed all sense of tradition, transcendence, and fidelity; it violates the natural order of things; it pursues a purely practical, economic course geared to the lowest order of existence; it can’t see the higher points of reference; and it replaces the rights of blood and heritage with false creeds and material acquisitions.

Whether the modernisation spurred by the liberal-democratic revolutions was inherently Judaifying or not (the anti-Semitic tradition is divided on the question) is irrelevant to the fact that Judaification and modernisation—what Kevin MacDonald calls ‘the rise of Jewish power and the disestablishment of the specifically European nature of the US’—happened in tandem, being obverse expressions of the same historical phenomenon.

With the advent of modernity’s Judaification, the Aryan spirit that gave form to our race at the dawn of history and accompanied it through every subsequent stage of its Greco-Roman, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, and European growth was exiled from the world.

Our people face extinction, it follows, because the entire structure of Western life—culture, civilisation, economy, whatever you want to call it—betrays the defining essence of their being.

What is to be done?

The development of alternative media, consciousness raising, various local activities to defend white existence must, to start, give no credence to the reformist snare that the system can be made receptive to white interests. This illusion is the greatest treason. For it is the system itself, communicating vessel of the Jews’ lunar spirit, that de-Aryanizes us, contaminates our blood, and seeks our destruction. It is the enemy. It cannot be reformed, only abandoned—if we are to live. All talk of working through it is but Utopian chatter, better left to sheenies, darkies, and schoolteachers.

The notion that racialists follow the left’s Gramscian ‘march through the institutions’ is equally unserious. Covington’s Northwest Volunteer Army is a hundred times more realistic than the thought of re-establishing the integrity of white life through elections or an expanded media.

Of necessity, our course must be Aryan, not American. The old America may have been racially conscious, but in a typically liberal way, privileging the lower functions of production and reproduction—which fated it to become ‘capitalist, cosmopolitan, and anti-national’. Its racialism was thus not the blood consciousness native to the warriors who sired our race, just as its upper world of wheeling-dealing money men, bought politicians, and leading families is but the respectable verso of its criminal underworld—alien to traditional Aryan standards of hierarchy, form, virility, transcendence, authority, and sovereignty.

As for the white masses—whose vegetative existence is lived unconscious of the higher forces governing them and oriented to the materialist and family concerns of the lower orders—they’ll never be moved by ideas and principles openly challenging the existing order. Only a social crisis set off by some cataclysm that makes their normal way of life impossible will cause them to look for alternatives. And at that point, what matters most will not be ideas and principles, but men and organisations whose exemplary stature instils in them the confidence for decisive action.

What need, then, have we for more education, more programs, more market strategies, more media, more time in the Gay Old Party to make the existing anti-white system work for us? Any self-respecting white man who wants to know what’s going on or what to do doesn’t have far to search. All the answers are already there, waiting for the taking.

In any case, the increasingly totalitarian character of contemporary liberalism, not to mention the plantation of a hundred million muds on our soil, makes the entertainment of such reform an exercise in folly.

The white race will be reborn, then, not by electing Congressmen, hiring lobbyists, and participating in a system that seeks its destruction, but by returning to its original self—and to the challenge of creating a new elite, a revolutionary vanguard morally and organisationally armed to stand against the Jewish age—so that when the foul system supporting it collapses in decay, there will be someone around to fight for our fair share of the spoils.

It’s in this way that the nobles of blood and spirit are born and come to rule.

All the ancient Aryan civilisations arose, in fact, from ‘a race of conquerors who overcame lands and peoples on the basis of a higher calling and qualification’—a higher calling and qualification modelled on the Aryan Doctrine of Battle and Victory. Hierarchy, order, courage, and a solar universality came, as a result, to inform white life.

If our people are to restore European America (in the Pacific Northwest or elsewhere), it will be in the Aryan way, through a return to the ancient practices that formed us in the beginning and made us who we are. It will not come about through a process dependent on all that is the root of our present humiliation.

Why I almost closed the comments section

Although at the moment the sticky post on my most recent compilation of texts is open for comments, I think I must continue to confess why I basically removed the comments section on the first day of the year.

In my previous post today, ‘Peruvian Hannibals Lecter’, I’ve mentioned Day of Wrath once again. Those who have assimilated the content of that book know what I mean by the concept of ‘psychoclasses’.

Well then: if I don’t want to waste any more time arguing with most of the visitors, it’s because we belong to very different psychoclasses. To me it’s obvious that, say, the massive rape of pubescent girls in Britain by migrants of colour is reason enough for the bloodiest revolution ever told. One of the few women who used to comment here spoke of Vlad the Impaler, Dracula, as the paradigm of how whites should behave. But they do exactly the opposite: even those who demonstrated on the Capitol.

Think for a moment about the gulf that separates the 15th century Vlad from today’s whites, including those on the racialised right (‘racialised right’ is the correct term: as we also saw recently the term ‘white nationalism’ is a misnomer).

Assuming a time warp, what dialogue could Vlad the Impaler have with a typical fellow of the racialised right? None, as today’s whites don’t behave like chimpanzees but like bonobos. And they do so because of a milieu of false abundance (search for that phrase in this text).

Now, remember that a couple of years ago one of my first cousins chimped-out: he killed his daughter and then hanged himself. That tragedy pales in comparison to the hell my sister and I endured long ago. As for me defending the English nymphets (remember the painting Daybreak) is the engine that originally moved me to create this site, we can already imagine how I would defend them.

What can Vlad Drăculea, one of the most important rulers in the history of Wallachia and a national hero of Romania, have in common with the folk who went to the Capitol? See for example what Kevin MacDonald published yesterday, ‘I was at the Washington, D.C. “Save America” rally’. Neither MacDonald nor the author of the most recent article on the same subject published on Counter-Currents would be able to defend their race with the methods that earned Vlad his reputation: so much so that centuries later his patronymic inspired the name of an arch-villainous character in pop culture.

I have often said that Americans are in happy mode. People like those who demonstrated in Washington are starting to transit to angry mode. Those who will defend their houses with guns against the chimp-out assault with the new administration will be in combat mode. But combat mode doesn’t overthrow the government. Due to my hellish past I’m already in killing mode (let’s wipe out all the enemies!), and have been in that stage for decades.

Some of the folk who have visited this site are much closer to the racialised right than to the bloodthirsty methods we need to reclaim the West. But due to the false milieu of western abundance after WWII, the blonde beast of yesteryear has been emasculated to the degree that even Pierce’s fiction doesn’t resonate in his mind.

I can’t keep talking to people who, from the viewpoint of my psychological Rubicon, are stuck between happy mode and angry mode. Today’s circumstances are even direr than those faced by the Romanian hero, as the very existence of the race is at stake, and I don’t see an adequate reaction, at least an internal leap to a more advanced psychoclass (‘internal’, as as charging against the enemy is premature for the moment).

So this site will remain virtually closed to comments until they transition to combat and killing modes, although by then we’ll have moved to the dark web or even regular mail, as the repression of free speech will be greater. (I hope next week my PO box will be ready to receive letters.)

Published in: on January 9, 2021 at 12:55 pm  Comments Off on Why I almost closed the comments section  

Men’s club

Today I read two other articles from Siege, ‘The Numbers Game’ and ‘Twilight of the Idiots’. In the first Mason mentions the four phases that Rockwell envisioned to seize power in the United States, as well as Tommasi’s secret: that all talk, all discussion, was counter-revolutionary; the situation has been talked to death and racialists still go on talking! In other words, what matters is action.

So true, but after Charlottesville it has become increasingly clear that the System won’t allow the slightest action, even if it is perfectly legal, on the part of whites (although it does allow illegal actions as long as they come from BLM or Antifa).

Even so, if there is something that is breathed in these Siege articles it is that a few decades ago the American movement was a club for men, unlike what today we call white nationalism: a club for women. However, upon reviewing the history of the men’s club in Siege, with the benefit of hindsight the three-eyed raven sees things quite differently.

Today I received the second edition of Hellstorm, published this year by Money Tree Publishing and accompanied by Kyle Hunt’s DVD documentary based on Goodrich’s book. Incidentally, I will soon begin to reproduce the translated chapters of a book by a German author who touches on the same subject: Bleeding Germany Dry.

I confess that before the elections I had fantasised about reducing this site to its bare minimum, posting only two articles per month: one from Bleeding Germany Dry and the other from Christianity’s Criminal History.

Seeing the past of ‘Westeros’, the hidden past that most Aryans are unaware of, is what provides the cognitive power to change the paradigm. What happened with the hostile takeover of Europe by a Semitic-inspired cult, as well as the greatest crime in history (the Hellstorm Holocaust), should awaken the Aryan male. Rockwell, Tommasi and Mason never had this retrocognitive vision. None of them knew, especially, what happened in the first centuries of Christendom. None had the ‘third eye’ to see the past or lived entwined with the weirwood.

But it’s not just the past. One of the things I liked about the television adaptation of A Song of Ice and Fire is that, the one who inherited the title and powers of the three-eyed crow, couldn’t see the future with the clarity that he could see the past, though even with this limitation isolated glimpses of the future came to him: like the shadow of the dragon that briefly flew over King’s Landing. Similarly, some prophets have glimpsed what is going to happen to the US—Westeros’ King’s Landing!—dollar, as we saw in the video that I embedded at the end of my previous post.

What I want to get to is that those who belonged to the men’s club lacked the powers to see the past and the future (of course: those who now belong to the women’s club also lack such power). They weren’t able, for example, to realise that to change the paradigm it was first necessary to see how the Night King was formed, who now only wants the extinction of the white race. Being aware of this implies an accurate knowledge of the history of Christianity told from the racial point of view. In the English-speaking world, this was not attempted until almost three years ago. On December 4, 2017 I began to translate into English an essay by a Spaniard entitled ‘Roma contra Judea; Judea contra Roma’, which is now the central essay of The West’s Darkest Hour.

Seeing the past is absolutely essential, as well as having at least some fleeting glimpses of the future. It is true that the women’s club that is white nationalism isn’t going anywhere. But the men’s club neither got anywhere! They lacked the insight of the crow who authored that essay. This is why the subtitle of this site now reads ‘metapolitics: not time for armed struggle yet!’

Before killing the Night King we must know what exactly we are dealing with. He is not Jewry but Christianity and its bastard son, secularised Christian ethics. Remember what I said yesterday in the comments section, that I rephrase today:

By the ‘Judeo-Christian’ problem I mean that there is white agency, not only Jewish subversion. For example, Brad Griffin of Occidental Dissent willingly gives himself up to evil by subscribing to Lutheranism. You can choose: apostasy from the Jewish infection but he chooses evil. Likewise, Greg Johnson indulges in evil by subscribing to secularised Christian ethics. (See, for example, his manifesto and his neochristian distinction between ‘Old Right’—men’s club—and ‘New Right’—his women’s club.) Johnson is perfectly aware of the Jewish Question but still obeys, in secularised form, the commands of the New Testament: the Night King.

The fact that Griffin, Johnson, and many, many others in our movement are still entangled in the Semitic tail, shows, in my view, that whites are not helpless victims of Jewry, but active agents in their own destruction. Just see my last essay in Daybreak about Kevin MacDonald (free PDF linked on the sidebar).

In other words: If even the racialist right, which is perfectly aware of the Jewish Problem, maintains ethno-suicidal vestiges, that can only mean that there is something beyond Jewish Question: what I call the Christian Question, the Night King.

Pierce’s surviving clip

I would like to add something about what I said yesterday, in one of the comment threads, about one of the few videos that survived the YouTube thoughtpolice, in which we see William Pierce speak.

I don’t agree with everything the prematurely aged Pierce said there. For example, I don’t see anything wrong with some young people exclaiming 14/88 and giving Roman salutes. But we must understand that Pierce founded his association in the shadow of Rockwell, whom he admired. That Rockwell was murdered by one of his own group must have caused young Pierce great consternation.

Rockwell admitted every young Aryan to his ranks, and I remember very much an anecdote that he himself tells that he accepted a young lad who was practically homeless; he even entered their headquarters half-naked when he wanted to join the club. In time, this young man proved to be an excellent element for the group, and we shouldn’t criticise the commander for having accepted him.

The problem with this practice is that it is impossible to detect who the real deranged is; who will later become a traitor and a murderer.

It is unrealistic to ask people to be ‘winners’ and not ‘losers’ in life as Pierce demands in his video. As Trainspotter once said, so-called winners are pigs: bourgeois who, if they join a racialist organisation, they won’t go beyond what we see in AmRen meetings or the discussion threads of the webzine with the same name.

In other words, we either have would-be revolutionaries of unsound mind who in any moment can kill us (what happened to Rockwell, Tommasi or the most recent accident in Atomwaffen Division), or decadent bourgeois who won’t ever raise a weapon.

It is a huge dilemma, and the saddest thing is that there is no way to solve it today for the simple fact that the feminised bourgeois need to suffer horrors before growing a pair, as Pierce himself splendidly portrays in his novel when talking about the liberated zones. Only after the coming catastrophe will it be possible to find more and more people of sound mind who also will be useful to the cause.

Our only options are meta-politics although never condemn a lone wolf in our forums, which is why I just changed the subtitle to ‘Metapolitics because it’s not time to kill yet’.

Published in: on November 17, 2020 at 10:50 am  Comments (6)  

Mason interview with Metzger

If white nationalists were like James and Tom instead of the conservative types they are, I wouldn’t have been criticising them so relentlessly on this site…

After minute 47: ‘Name the real enemy: Not the black on the street but the government!’ And after 1:07: ‘Broad masses of non-whites are not the enemies: it is the criminal regime in Washington’.

After YouTube’s thoughtpolice took down so many channels, the full interview still can be seen on two different platforms (here and here).

Published in: on November 14, 2020 at 7:44 pm  Comments (19)  

The Iliad, book I

As we saw in the essay on Sparta in The Fair Race, around 1200 b.c.e. the Achaeans besieged and conquered Troy in a crusade that united the Hellenes in a common endeavour, so prone to war with each other. In The Iliad Homer describes them as a gang of barbarians with the mentality and appearance of Vikings who sweep the refined and civilised Troy.

The first book of The Iliad begins already after nine years of war between Achaeans and Trojans, when a plague breaks out on the Achaean camp. The soothsayer Calchas, consulted about it, predicts that the plague will not cease until the girl Chryseis, who Agamemnon had kidnapped, was returned to her father Chryses of Troy. Achilles’ wrath stems from the affront inflicted on him by Agamemnon, who, by yielding Chryseis to her father because of the threat of the soothsayer, now snatches from Achilles’ share of the spoils the young priestess Briseis. (In our times of feminised western males that feel no wrath when seeing a Negro with an English rose, how I wish the return of this blond beast of yore…!)

After all this, Achilles retires from the battle and ensures that he will only return when the Trojan fire reaches his own ships. He asks his mother Thetis to convince Zeus to help the Trojans and Zeus accepts.

More than once I have said that what must be studied are the phenomena that has captured, in a massive way, the popular imagination of the white man. In modern times, those who complain only about Jews look to, say, the Frankfurt School. But to understand the soul of the white man they should pay more attention to what whites have read voraciously; for example, the literary phenomena that marked recent centuries. I mean the gigantic bestsellers of the past that portray the suicidal infatuation of English speakers about Jews (for example Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe and Lew Wallace’s Ben-Hur) or about blacks (e.g., Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin).

In our century, white madness is also noted in their delusional empowerment of women. As I have also said on this site, it is alarming that almost no one tore his garments at the most nefarious presentation of the ‘girl power’ ideology in Game of Thrones, exemplified in Arya Stark. Game of Thrones fans are such an alienated and degenerate folk that they disowned the grand finale, which is a masterpiece, and instead liked the empowerment of the girl Arya in previous seasons. Such feminism even reached a now-deceased neonazi novelist who wanted to create an Aryan republic in his state, as we saw in Daybreak’s ‘Freedom’s daughters’.

As a child I enjoyed Ivanhoe and Ben-Hur although never watched Uncle Tom’s Cabin that I saw advertised in the newspaper. I was ten years old then. Nowadays, from the current bestsellers of George Martin I would only rescue how the author portrayed Bran Stark.

But back to The Iliad, the monumental bestseller of the Greco-Roman world, although recited in private rather than read. Going into the details of the first book is important because it takes us back to the gods of the Homeric Greeks, so different from the meek Jesus. The first thing that strikes the attention in The Iliad compared to our meek times is that it represents the most absolute antithesis of the ethno-suicidal feminism that most westerners now accept, represented in Game of Thrones and in a myriad of other television series.

For example, in this first book of The Iliad the abducted girls Chryseis and Briseis have no voice or vote before their abductors: it is the men who fight for them and who complain, either the father of the kidnapped girl or the god Apollo who listened to such complaints; as well as Agamemnon and Achilles, the alpha males who can enjoy the spoils of war: young and pretty girls. Briseis, Achilles’ sex slave that Agamemnon later snatches from him, is called ‘the fair-cheeked one’ and ‘the one with a cute waist’.

Also notable in this first book of The Iliad is that the Homeric Greeks were very white people. Five times Hera is called ‘white-armed Hera’. Also ‘light-eyed Athena’ grabs Achilles ‘by his blond hair.’ Eos is ‘the one with the rosy fingers’, and ‘silver-footed Thetis’ is the mother of the main character of Homer’s tale.

With women like that it really makes you want to abduct one of them and breed…

Quotable quote

Winter is coming, and you don’t stand a chance unless you Eloi guys become killing machines again and your Weenas birthing machines… —‘Whose arc is it that will move?’

Published in: on August 11, 2020 at 1:40 pm  Comments Off on Quotable quote