Reflections of an Aryan woman, 34

Note that I say nothing about the political regime in this world of living automatons. I’m not trying to ask what it might be, because that question is irrelevant.

The deeper one sinks into uniformity from below, created and maintained by dirigisme with no other ideal than that of ever-increasing production, with a view to the well-being of the greatest number—in other words, the more it moves away from the type of hierarchical social organism that ceases to be a living pyramid as it once was in all civilisations and becomes a nameless, grey porridge brewed not by artists, still less by sages, but by clever people devoid of any awareness of extra-human values working for the immediate, in the narrowest sense of the word—the more it is like this the less the form of government matters.

There is still, theoretically at least, a difference between the condition of an assembly line worker in the Cadillac factories and that of an assembly line worker in some industrial complex in the Marxist world; between a saleswoman in a supermarket in Western Europe or the USA and that of a food distributor in a canteen anywhere behind the iron curtain. And the list of parallels could go on and on.

In principle, the worker in the ‘free world’ is not obliged to accept conditioning. When the siren sounds, or when the monster shop closes, he can do what he wants, go where he wants, use his leisure time as he pleases. Nothing forces him physically to buy drinks for his mates at the local café, or in monthly instalments the indispensable TV set or the no less ‘indispensable’ car. There are no political, or semi-political, semi-cultural meetings which he is forced to attend, on pain of finding himself, the next day, without a job or, worse still, suspected of deviationism and incarcerated—whereas in the USSR or China there are some and how! (according to the echoes we have of it; I repeat, I don’t know, first hand, the Marxist world).

Nothing would prevent a worker or an office employee or a saleswoman in the free world from using her leisure time as I would use it in his place if, for whatever reason, I had to work in a factory, an office or a supermarket to pay my bills. Nothing would prevent him provided that he finds a home secluded enough or soundproofed not to be bothered by the neighbours’ radio or television, and a manager or building owner complaisant enough to allow him to keep some domestic animal around, should that be his pleasure. Then perhaps his leisure hours would be truly blessed, and his modest flat a haven of peace.

Then perhaps he (or she) could, after spending an hour or two in silence, completely free himself entirely from the persistent noise of machines (or the light music imposed in certain workshops or shops); or the blinding glare of lights, of the atmosphere of people, have a quiet supper, alone or amid his family, walking his dog under the trees of some not too busy boulevard, and absorb himself, before the hour of sleep, in some nice read.

Then perhaps, but only then, the progress of machinery would guarantee him leisure, which he would use to cultivate himself, the more he would become ‘man’ again, in the most honest sense of the word; and the more one could, to some extent, speak of a ‘liberating technology’—although I could never be persuaded that even two hours a day spent in the depressing atmosphere of the factory or the office, or the modern department stores, are not, on balance, more exhausting than ten or twelve hours employed in some interesting work—in some art, such as that of the potter or the weaver of bygone ages.

But for this to happen, the worker, the proletarian, in the countries of the ‘free world’, who, in principle, can do what he wants after his working hours, would have to want something other than what he is conditioned to want. His ‘freedom’ resembles that of a young man, brought up since childhood in the atmosphere of a Jesuit boarding school, to whom one would say: ‘You are now of age. You are free to practice whatever religion you like’.

One student in ten million will practice something other than the strictest Catholicism; and the very one who breaks away from it will, most of the time, retain its imprint for the rest of his life.

In the same way, even in the ‘free world’ where, in theory, all ideas, all faiths, all tastes are accepted, the man of the masses and, increasingly, that of the ‘free’ intelligentsia, is, from childhood, caught up in the atmosphere of technical civilisation, and stultified by it and by all its ‘progressive’, humanitarian or pseudo-humanitarian, and pseudo-scientific publicity—the propaganda of ‘universal happiness’ by material comfort and purchasable pleasures. And he no longer wishes to break free of it.

One individual in ten million violently disengages from it, and turns his back on it, with or without ostentation, as the painter Delvaux did; as a few anonymous people do every day without even bothering to leave the banal building where they have made their room the sanctuary of a life that is anachronistic without necessarily appearing to be.

The only thing that might be said in favour of the ‘free world’, as opposed to its enemy brother, the Marxist world, is that it doesn’t take police sanctions against this exceptional individual—unless, of course, we express our hostility to today’s mores in the form of Hitlerism. And even in this respect there is a little less constraint than among the Communists in power: one can, everywhere in the ‘free world’, except, no doubt, in the unfortunate Germany, whose soul the victors of 1945 killed, have a portrait of the Führer on one’s bedside table, without fear of indiscreet inspections followed by legal sanctions.

What could be said in favour of the Marxist world, however, is that the latter has, despite everything, a faith—based on false notions and real counter-values, that is undeniable if we take a stand from the viewpoint of the eternal, which is that of Tradition, but finally, a faith—whereas the so-called ‘free’ world has none at all. The militant of values other than those exalted by official communist propaganda is likely to find himself one day in some ‘correction camp’ only if he pushes his temerity to the point of forgetting that he is in the underground, and must remain there.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This interview with a Serbian intellectual who lived in the Spanish island Gran Canaria (where I lived for ten months) woke me up ten years ago to the fact that today’s West is more totalitarian than Eastern Europe in the time of Breshnev. Savitri continues:

______ 卐 ______

 
But the mass of the indoctrinated, who form the majority of the population there, will have the impression that they are working—and working hard—for the advent of something that seems great to them and that they love, whether it be the world revolution of the proletarians, the union of all Slavs under the aegis of holy Russia (this ideal is, it seems, that of more than one Russian Communist), or the domination of the yellow race through universal Communism. Industrial or agricultural production—that in the name of which so much eminently dull work has to be done—leads, in the final analysis, to such grandiose goals. It’s more exciting than the safe and neat little life culminating in the Saturday or Friday night drive to Monday morning.

Both worlds are, in fact, abominable caricatures of the hierarchical societies that once claimed to be, or at least wanted to be, as faithful images as possible of the eternal order of which the cosmos is the visible manifestation. The technical civilisation of the ‘free world’ opposes the unity in diversity which these societies possessed with the despairing uniformity of the man who is mass-produced, without direction, without impetus—not that of the water in a river, but that of a heap of sand whose grains, all insignificant and all similar, would each believe themselves to be very interesting.

The dictatorship of an increasingly invasive proletariat, on the other hand, opposes it with a uniformity of marching robots, all driven by the same energy: robots whose absence of individuality is a wicked parody of the deliberate renunciation of the individual, conscious of his place and role, in favour of that which is beyond him. The zeal for work and the irresistible push forward of these same automatons who believe they are devoted to the ‘happiness of man’ counterfeits the ancient efficiency of the masses who built, under the direction of true masters, monuments of beauty and truth: the pyramids, with or without floors, of Egypt, Mesopotamia or Central America; the Great Wall of China; the temples of India and those of Angkor; the Colosseum; the Byzantine, Romanesque, or Gothic cathedrals…

Of the two caricatures, the second, the Marxist, is arguably more clever in its crudeness than the other. To see this, one need only look at the number of people of real human worth who have fallen for it and who, in all sincerity, convinced that they were guided by an ideal of liberation and disinterested service, have swelled the ranks of the militants of the most fanatical form of Anti-Tradition that has yet appeared. This can be seen in Europe as well as in other regions—in India, in particular, where the Communist leaders are recruited mainly from the Aryan castes, strange as that may be. There is something in the very rigour of Communism that attracts certain characters eager for both discipline and sacrifice; something which makes them see the worst kind of slavery under the disguise of self-sacrifice, and the most laughable narrow-mindedness under the guise of a sacred intolerance.

The caricature of the ‘free world’ is less dangerous in the sense that it is outwardly ‘less resembling’, and therefore less capable to appeal to elite characters. But it is more dangerous in that, being less outrageous, it is at first sight less shocking to those whom Marxism repels, precisely because they have discovered in it the features of a false religion.

Having none of the attributes of a ‘faith’ it reassures them, encouraging them to believe that thanks to democratic ‘tolerance’—a tolerance which, as I have said, extends to all but us Hitlerites—they will be able to continue to profess in peace all the cults (all the exoterisms) which are dear to them: Christianity or Judaism in the West; Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, elsewhere; even one of these in the historical domain of another—why not, when the individual believes himself to be everything, and arrogates to himself, therefore, the right to choose everything?

They don’t realise that the very mentality of the technocratic world, with all its emphasis on the immediately and materially useful, the ‘functional’, and therefore the increasingly extensive applications of the sciences and pseudo-sciences at the expense of any detachment, is the antithesis of any disinterested thirst for knowledge as well as of any love of works of art and also of beings because of their beauty alone. They don’t realise that it can only accelerate the severing of any exoteric religion or philosophy from esotericism, without which it has no eternal value, and thus precipitate the ruin of all culture.

They don’t realise this because they forget that disinterested knowledge, the blossoming of art worthy of the name and the protection of beings (including man insofar as he responds to what his noun, Anthropos, ‘he who looks or reaches upwards’ would lead one to expect) go hand in hand, beauty being inseparable from truth, and culture being nothing if it doesn’t express both.

They forget—or have never known—that, deprived of their connection with the great cosmic and ontological truths they should illustrate, exoteric religions very quickly become fables to which no one attaches credence anymore; degenerate philosophies become idle chatter and political doctrines, recipes for electoral success; and that the technocratic world, with its eminently utilitarian approach to all problems, with its anthropocentrism coupled with its obsession with quantity, diverts even the best minds from the search and contemplation of eternal truths.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 33

You probably know what I get from the devotees of indefinite ‘progress’, Marxists or not. They say: ‘All this is temporary. Be patient! The machinery is only at its beginning; it has not yet reached its full potential’.

Today, of course, the multiplicity of new needs has resulted in the haste to earn money, and the fact that more and more people accept to earn money by engaging in the most dehumanising occupations. Today, it is true, more and more workers tend to become robots for a third of their lives, namely during their working hours; and, to some extent, after their working hours (by acquired habit). But let’s not worry! All this will change, thanks to the sacrosanct progress! Already we are in large companies, equipped with ultra-complicated machines—computers or ‘electronic brains’—capable of solving in a few seconds, automatically, from their data, problems that would take a man half a day to calculate the solution.

Less than a century ago, the worker worked twelve or even fifteen hours a day. Today, he works eight hours, and only five days a week. Tomorrow, thanks to the contribution of machines in all branches of his activity, he will work five hours, and soon two hours a day, or even less. The machines will do the work—machines so perfect that it will take only one man to supervise a whole team. In the end, man will hardly do anything. His life will be an unlimited holiday, during which he will have all the time he needs to ‘cultivate’ himself. As for the disadvantages of overpopulation, these will be remedied in advance by limiting births: the famous ‘family planning’.

At first sight, this is enough to seduce the optimists. But the reality will be less simple than the theory. It always is.

First of all, we must realise that no Malthusian policy can be fully effective on a global scale. It is easier to set up factories in technically least developed countries, and to give people who have hitherto lived close to the state of nature a taste for modern conveniences such as washing machines and television sets, than to encourage these same people to father only a limited number of children. Even the population of Western and Northern Europe, or the USA where the most modern methods of contraception are widely used, are growing, though not as fast as in other parts of the world—and will continue to grow as long as there are doctors to prolong the lives of the suffering, the infirm, the mentally retarded, and all those who should be dead.

The people of the so-called ‘underdeveloped’ countries are much less permeable than the citizens of Western Europe or the USA to anti-conception propaganda. If we really wanted to reduce the population to reasonable proportions, we would have to forcibly sterilise nine out of ten people, or else abolish the medical profession and hospitals, and let natural selection do its work, as it did before the madness of the technical age. But it is only us, the ugly ‘barbarians’ who would be prepared to resort to such measures. And we are not in power, and do not expect to be there any time soon.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: Precisely what in my soliloquies I call the extermination of the Neanderthals.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The friends of man, who are at the same time fervent supporters of indefinite technical progress, will have to come to terms with a world in which human living space will become increasingly restricted, even if it means reducing to a minimum the areas still occupied by the forest, the savannah and the desert, the last refuges of noble living beings other than man, for the benefit of the so-called ‘thinking’ primate. It will no longer be the already swarming masses of currently overpopulated countries. These will be crowds twice, three times, ten times more compact than the one which today covers the immense ‘Esplanade’ of Calcutta around six o’clock in the evening, when the heat subsides. Wherever you go, you will be brushed against, elbowed, jostled—and occasionally, no doubt, knocked down and trampled on—by people and more people who, thanks to the machines, will have almost nothing left to do.

You have to be naive to believe that, as soon as the daily fatigue resulting from work ceases to exist for them, these billions of human beings will devote themselves to study, or to practise whatever pleasure art in which an important part of creation will enter. You only have to look around and see how today’s workers, who toil forty hours a week instead of ninety as they did a hundred years ago, use their leisure time.

They go to the café, to the cinema, attend some sports competition or, more often than not, listen to radio broadcasts at home, or remain seated in front of their television sets and avidly follow what is happening on the small screen.

Sometimes they read. But what do they read? What they find at their fingertips—because to know what you want to read, and to strive to find it, you have to be better informed than most people are.

What comes to hand, without their bothering to look for it, is usually either some periodical or book which, without being pernicious, is superficial and doesn’t make them think in any way, or a product of decadent or tendentious literature: something that distorts their taste or their minds (or both), or gives them inaccurate information, or info purposely interpreted in such a way as to inculcate in them a given opinion that the people in power want them to hold.

They read France-Soir, Caroline chérie, La mort est mon métier[1] or some pseudo-scientific article on the ‘conquest of space’ which gives them the impression of having been initiated into the mysteries of modern science, when in fact they have remained as ignorant as before, but have become a little more pretentious. There are, moreover, despite the enormous number of books which appear every year on every conceivable subject, fewer and fewer ‘books of substance’: those which a thinking man rereads a hundred times, always deriving some new enrichment from them, and to which he owes intuitions of great cosmic truths—even human truths in the name of which he would be able to start his life over again, if he could. The individuals who seek such books do not belong to the masses.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This reminds me of my Sunday entry. As a teenager I asked in a bookstore: “¿Tienen libros en pro del nazismo? [Do you have books in favour of Nazism?]”. I still remember my exact words! Savitri continues:

______ 卐 ______

 
What will the billions of people of tomorrow’s world do with their time? Will they cultivate their minds, as our inveterate optimists think?

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: When Savitri wrote her book I was a huge fan of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I was completely unaware that the novel’s author, Arthur C. Clarke, professed a starkly stupid optimism about technology. (Without exterminating Neanderthals, all technology does is launch human stupidity at the speed of light.)

______ 卐 ______

 
No, they won’t! They will do all day long what our good proletarians of 1970 do when they come back from the factory or the office, or during their month of paid leave: they will watch their small screen, and very obediently believe what the men in power will have introduced into the programmes so that they believe it.

They will go to the movies; will attend free conferences organised for them, always in the spirit of the leaders of the moment who will probably be the same as today, namely the victors of the Second World War: the Jews and the Communists, the devotees of the oldest and the most recent faith of our Dark Age, both centred on ‘man’. They will make organised trips with guides and light music, also indispensable, in transport vehicles, buses and planes, on the outward and return journey. In short, the life of perpetual or almost perpetual leisure will be regulated, directed, dictated by committees elected by universal suffrage, after adequate propaganda to the masses.

And that will be too bad for those who would have preferred to pursue in silence a creation they loved because they felt it was beautiful; or who would have liked to organise the world on other bases and according to another ideal. So much the worse for those—increasingly rare—who will refuse to let themselves be conditioned!

It will be, to some extent, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World with the difference that instead of robots working in front of machines, it will be robots enjoying themselves on command and under the official planning of enjoyment, while the machines provide for their subsistence. One will no more choose how to use one’s leisure time than the majority of people today choose the occupation that will provide them with ‘food and shelter’. It will be presupposed—as is already the case, for example, in certain tourist buses, where one is forced to listen to the radio all along the route, whether one likes it or not—that all men have practically the same needs and tastes, which is in flagrant contradiction to the everyday experience among unconditioned people (fortunately, there are still a few of them today).

The aim is to give them all the same needs and tastes by means of ever more sophisticated, ever more ‘scientific’ conditioning.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: All this soft totalitarianism that we are already experiencing will collapse if Chris Martenson’s calculations on peak oil, which we have been advertising on this site, are correct.

_________

[1] By Robert Merle: a fanciful account of the German concentration camps.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 32

It is natural that he should want to do nothing to help ‘save’ a civilisation whose demise he wishes to see, and that the people who admire it should, more or less vaguely, smell the enemy in him. It is no less natural that a doctrine that runs against the tide of Time—a doctrine that preaches, in the name of a Golden Age ideal, revolt, and even violent action, against the ‘values’ of our decadent age and its institutions—should arouse his enthusiasm and secure his support: he is himself an individual of those I have called ‘men against Time’.

But why do the people who are the submissive and obedient children of our time turn out to be so dissatisfied and anxious? Why is it that this ‘progress’, in which they so firmly believe, doesn’t bring them, in the exercise of their profession, that minimum of joy without which all work is a chore?

It is because the technical environment doesn’t only act on the masses; it creates them from scratch. As soon as technical development exceeds a certain ‘critical point’, which is difficult to define, the human community, naturally hierarchical, tends to break up. Little by little it is replaced by the mass; the mass, that is to say above all the great number, with little or no hierarchy, because of unstable, shifting and unpredictable quality.

Quality is (statistically) always in inverse proportion to quantity. And the most nefarious technique from this point of view—the one most directly responsible for all the consequences of the indiscriminate formation of human masses on the surface of the globe—is undoubtedly medicine: the most harmful because it is the one that is in the most flagrant opposition to the spirit of Nature from one end of the scale of living beings; that which, instead of seeking to preserve the health, and any kind of biological priority of the strong, strives to cure diseases and prolong the lives of the weak by keeping alive the incurable, the monsters, the idiots, the insane, and all sorts of people whose removal in a society founded on sound principles would take for granted.

The result of the progress made by this technique—achieved at the cost of the most hideous experiments, practised on perfectly healthy and beautiful animals, which are tortured and dislocated, always in the name of man’s ‘right’ to sacrifice everything to his species—is that the number of men on earth is increasing in alarming proportions, while their quality decreases. You can’t have quality and quantity. You have to choose.

It is now a fact that the population of the world is growing geometrically; that, above all, the population of the hitherto ‘underdeveloped’ countries is growing faster than any other. These countries have not yet reached the technical level of the industrialised countries, but they have already been sent a host of doctors; they have already been indoctrinated into taking ‘hygienic measures’ which they didn’t know about, when they were not outright imposed on them.

As a result, the traditional occupations like working the land or various crafts are no longer sufficient to absorb the countless energies available. There will be unemployment and famine, unless mechanised industries are installed everywhere, that is to say, unless the immense majority of the population, whose numbers have quadrupled in thirty years, are turned into proletarians; unless they are torn away from their traditions, wherever they have retained any, and are forced into factories and work that, by its very nature—because it is mechanical—cannot be interesting.

Production will then skyrocket. It will be necessary to sell what has been manufactured. To do this, it will be necessary to persuade people to buy what they neither need nor want, to make them believe that they need it and to instil in them the desire for it at all costs. This will be the task of advertising.

People will fall for this deception because there are already too many of them to be moderately intelligent. It will take money for them to acquire what they don’t need, but have been persuaded to want. To earn it quickly, to spend it right away, they will agree to do boring jobs, jobs in which there is no creative element and that in a smaller society, with a slower life, nobody would want to do.

They will accept them, because technology and propaganda will have turned them into an increasingly uniform, or rather formless, multitude in which the individual exists, in fact, less and less while imagining himself to have more and more ‘rights’, and aspiring to more and more purchasable enjoyments—a caricature of the organic unity of the old hierarchical societies, where the individual thought himself nothing, but lived healthily and usefully, in his place, as a cell of a strong and flourishing body.

The key to discontent in everyday life, and especially in working life, is to be found in the two notions of multitude and haste.

Published in: on October 19, 2021 at 12:39 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 32  

Hitler or hell

Consider what’s happening with side reactions to Covid vaccines. Is it fair to say that doctors destroy health? (from my research about psychiatry I knew that there was something very wrong in the medical profession).

Lawyers destroy justice (consider what lawyers did to racialists after Charlottesville), universities destroy knowledge (academia has become Woke!), governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys our morals (always keep in mind the photo of the kiss on the feet of Pope Francis I to a black immigrant because he was black), central banks destroy the economy, and…

The world is upside down.

When yesterday I tweeted ‘Wokeness is just the latest mutation of Christianity, it’s just that now it doesn’t have Yahweh or Jesus—F.J.’ someone replied: ‘Basically, self-flagellation without any “payment” in the end, and that’s the definition of insanity IMO’.

Everything has to do with Westerners choosing hell. What is happening throughout the West is historical justice of that election. As another commenter recently said, ‘They have to experience a big karma, a brutal karma: a baptism of fire just like they did in Dresden. Only after then maybe they will think what we have lost and what is necessary to regain it’.

Published in: on October 11, 2021 at 10:50 am  Comments (2)  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 1

Editor’s Note: Memories and Reflections of an Aryan Woman by Savitri Devi was written in 1968, 1971 and published in 1976. While the book edition I plan to publish on Daybreak Press contains the entire text of Memories, the following is only the first abbreviated chapter.

It wouldn’t make much sense to publish a new edition but the edition of the image below is out of print (in case it isn’t please let me know).

Yesterday, when I saw a few seconds of the last video of Richard Spencer chatting with his English colleague, I could no longer bear the lack of gravitas of these two pundits of the alt-right. Lack of gravitas is poison for priests or priestesses of the sacred words. In Savitri’s prose, ‘pale imitations [of NS] without heart’.

Since it is a long text, if you do not have time to read it pay attention to the words I highlighted in bold-type:

 

Chapter I—The Religion of the Strong

‘Enochia, monstrous City of the Manly, Den of the Violent, Citadel of the Strong, Which has never known fear or remorse’. —Leconte de Lisle (‘Cain’, Barbaric Poems)

If I had to choose a motto for myself, I would take this one—pure, dure, sure (pure, hard, certain)—in other words: unalterable. I would express by this the ideal of the Strong, that which nothing brings down, nothing corrupts, nothing changes; those on whom one can count, because their life is order and fidelity, in accord with the eternal…

Free yourself from two deadly superstitions: the search for ‘happiness’ and concern for ‘humanity’… Help the animal and the tree—and defend them against the selfish and mean-spirited man…

But those who have the Word, father of thought, and among them the Strong especially, have something better to do than pursue ‘happiness’… The pleasure or the displeasure, the happiness or the discontent of the individual does not count. Well-being—beyond the minimum that is necessary for each to fulfil his task—does not count. Only the task counts: the quest for the essential, the eternal, through life and through thought…

He who has the Word, father of thought, and who, far from putting it in service of the essential, wastes it in the search for personal satisfactions; he who has technology, fruit of thought, and who makes use of it especially to increase his well-being and that of other men, taking that for the main task, is unworthy of his privileges. He is not worthy of the beings of beauty and silence, the animal, the tree—he who himself follows their path. He who uses the powers that the Word and thought give him to inflict death and especially suffering on the beautiful beings that do not speak, in view of his own well-being or that of other men, he who uses the privileges of man against living nature sins against the universal Mother—against Life—and the Order that desires noblesse oblige. He is not Strong; he is not an aristocrat in the deep sense of the word, but petty, an egoist and a coward, an object of disgust in the eyes of the natural élite.

All society, all ‘civilisation’ that proceeds from the same aspiration to human well-being above all, to well-being or human ‘happiness’ at any price, is marked by the seal of the Powers of Decadence, enemies of the cosmic order of the play of forces without end. It is a civilisation of the Dark Age. If you are obliged to suffer it, suffer it by unceasingly opposing it, denouncing it, combating it every minute of your life. Make it your glory to hasten its end—at least to cooperate with all your might with the natural action of the forces leading to its end. For it is accursed. It is organised ugliness and meanness.

Rid yourself not only of the superstition of ‘happiness’, if it ever allured you, but also that of man. Protect yourself from the attitude, as vain as it is stupid, that consists in trying ‘to love all men’ simply because they are men. And if this attitude was never yours, if, from childhood, you were impermeable to the propaganda of the devotees of ‘humanity’, give thanks to the immortal Gods to whom you owe this innate wisdom…

For ‘man’, who is esteemed so highly, is not a reality but a construction of the mind…

The most perfect Nordic specimen, whose heart is noble and whose judgment is firm and just, and whose features and carriage are those of the Greek statues of the finest age, is ‘a man’. A Hottentot, a Pygmy, a Papuan, a Jew, a Levantine mixed with Jews, are ‘men’. ‘Man’ does not exist. There exist only quite diverse varieties of primates that by convention are called ‘human’…

The ethnic chaos of the masses of a metropolis at the forefront of technological progress tends to acquire a uniformity of grayness, a kind of manufactured homogeneity—desired by those who control the masses—a sinister caricature of the relative unity natural to people of the same blood that binds a scale of values and common practices; a uniformity which, far from revealing a ‘collective mind’, at whatever level of awareness, reveals only the deterioration of a society that has definitively turned its back on the eternal—in other words: a damned society.

But one can still sometimes discover an exceptional individual within such a society, an individual who disdains the ethnic chaos that he sees around him and of which he is perhaps himself a product, and who, in order to escape, adheres to some doctrine of the extinction of the species, or even puts himself completely at the service of a true race, with all the renunciation that entails for him. The mechanism of heredity is so complex and the play of external influences so random that it is not possible to envisage who among the children of a declining society will become such individuals—no more than it is possible to envisage which new-born member of a tribe will aspire one day to something other than received values and ideas, or which child raised in a particular faith will hasten to leave it as soon as he can…

If there were an Aztec who was shocked by the sacrifices offered to the gods of his people, this man would be among the first to adopt the religion of the Spanish conquerors; and an Aryan of Europe who, in our time, feels only contempt for the ‘Christian and democratic’ values of the West and dreams of a society in the image of ancient Sparta, adheres, if he has a taste for combat, to the Hitlerian faith.

* * *

Thus there is no moral obligation to love all men, unless one postulates a duty to love all living things, including the most harmful insects, because a man (or a group of men) that, by nature or choice, spreads ugliness, lies, and suffering, is worse than any harmful insect. It would be absurd to fight the one, the least powerful and therefore the least dangerous of all, and to tolerate—and worse, to ‘love’—the other.

Love, therefore, the higher man, the Aryan worthy of the name: beautiful, good, and courageous; responsible; capable of all sacrifices for the achievement of his task; the Aryan healthy and strong. He is your brother and your comrade in arms in the fight of your race against the forces of disintegration, he whose children will continue this sacred fight in your place, when your body is returned to the elements.

Respect the man of noble races other than your own, who carries out, in a different place, a combat parallel to yours—to ours. He is your ally. He is our ally, be he at the other end of the world…

But despise the mass man with his empty heart and shallow mind; the mass egoist, mean and pretentious, who lives only for his own well-being and for what money can buy. Despise him, while using him as much as you can. If he is of our race and sufficiently pure, then from him children can be born who, educated in our care at a time when we will again have our say, will be worth infinitely more than he is. It is the best, perhaps the only, service he can render. Any time that a man of good race, cheerfully integrated into ‘consumer society’, disappoints you, tell yourself that he does not count as a conscious individual; only his blood counts. See in him only what the breeder of horses or dogs considers in his subjects: his pedigree. Let us be frank: what he says, believes, and thinks is of no importance.

As for the enemy of immutable values, the enemy of Nature and Life—he who would like to sacrifice the most beautiful to the least beautiful or the downright ugly, the strong to the weak, the healthy to the suffering, sick, and defective; he who rises up, alone or in a group, against the eternal: fight him with all the ardour of your heart, all the force of your arms, all the power of your intelligence. It is not necessary to hate him. He follows his nature and achieves his destiny while being opposed to the eternal values. He plays his role in the cosmic dance without beginning or end…

Fight him with violence; fight him without violence—as the case may be. Fight him by thinking day and night of the opposition between your role and his.

* * *

Extremely rare are the alleged doctrines of ‘liberation’, and rarer still are political doctrines (if their base is ‘philosophical’) that meet this condition. If one of them, while not meeting it, under the pressure of a need of the human heart as old as mankind, adopts rituals, it will tend to give rise to a false religion—to a sacrilegious organisation, in other words, a counter-Tradition. This is, in our age, the case with Marxism, insofar as a pretence of ritual life began to be introduced there. The humble and sincere Slavic peasant who, among many others, waits in front of the mausoleum of Lenin for the moment when he will finally be allowed to gather in the presence of the body, rendered artificially incorruptible, of the man who made the ideas of the Jew Marx the basis of a world revolution, is a man of faith. He came there in pilgrimage, to nourish his devoted heart, as his fathers went to prostrate themselves, in some famous church, in front of a miraculous icon. The food of the heart remains, or has become again, for him more significant than that of the stomach. There he would remain, if need be, for two days without eating and drinking, to live in the minute when he will pass in silence in front of the mummified flesh of Lenin. But the heart lives on truth, on contact with that which is, always and everywhere. The untruths that it believes divert it from this contact and leave, sooner or later, a hunger for the absolute. But the whole philosophy of Marx, adopted by Lenin as the foundation of the proletarian State, is based on flagrant untruths: on the assertion that man is nothing more than what his economic milieu makes of him; on the negation of the role of heredity, therefore of race; on the negation of the role of superior personalities (and races) in the course of history. The sincere man, religiously devoted to the Masters who have exalted this error in theory and unleashed from it a revolution on a worldwide scale, serves unknowingly the Forces of disintegration; those which, in the more or less dualistic terminology of more than one traditional teaching, one calls the ‘Powers of the Abyss’.

Among the doctrines of the twentieth century called political, I know of only one that, while being in fact infinitely more than ‘political’, meets the condition sine qua non, without which it is impossible for a Weltanschauung, even with the aid of ritual, to be used as the basis of a true religion, namely, that it rests on eternal truths, exceeding by far mankind and its immediate problems, not to mention the particular people to whom it was initially preached and the problems they had then. Only one, I say, and I speak of the true Aryan racism, in other words, Hitlerism.

* * *

In a passage of his novel The Seven Colors, [i] Robert Brasillach describes the consecration ceremony for the new flags of the Third Reich at one of the great annual meetings at Nuremberg, at which he himself was present. After the imposing procession of all the organisations dependent upon or attached to the National Socialist Party, the Führer solemnly advanced under the eyes of five hundred thousand spectators crowded on the steps of the immense stadium, on which reigned an absolute silence. One after another, he raised the new banners and put them in contact with the ‘Blood Flag’: the standard that his earliest disciples had carried during the Putsch of 9 November 1923 and to which the blood of the Sixteen who fell this day had given a sacred character. In this way, each flag became similar to that one; ‘charged’ like it with a mystical fluid by participation in the sacrifice of the Sixteen. And the French writer remarks, quite justly, that he whom the religious meaning of this act escapes ‘does not understand anything of Hitlerism’. He emphasizes, in other words, that this act is a ritual.

But this ritual, to which many others can be added, would never have sufficed to give Hitlerism the character of a religion, if it had not already been a more-than-political doctrine: a Weltanschauung. And above all, it would have been unable to make it a true religion, if, at the base of this Weltanschauung, there had not been eternal truths and a whole attitude which was not (and does not remain), in last analysis, anything other than the quest for the eternal even in what changes—the traditional attitude par excellence.

These words may seem strange in 1969, more than twenty-four years after the defeat of Hitler’s Germany on the battlefield and the collapse of its political structure. They can seem strange, now that one would seek in vain, in the whole geographical region covered by the Third Reich, a visible sign of the resurgence of National Socialism such as the Führer intended it, and that the majority of the organisations which, beyond the old frontiers of the Reich, claim they would rescue the condemned Movement, are just pale imitations without heart, or just lamentable caricatures, sometimes in the service of other goals. But the value of a doctrine—its truth—has nothing to do with the success or the failure of its members on the material plain. This success or failure depends on the accord or discord of the doctrines with the aspirations of people at a given moment of history, and also on the fact that its adherents are or are not, from the military point of view, the diplomatic point of view, from the point of view of the art of propaganda, able to impose themselves—and consequently do impose themselves—on their adversaries…

It is correct that Hitlerians had been vanquished on all fronts in 1945; it is correct that the Third German Reich was dismembered; that the National Socialist party does not exist anymore; that in Germany and elsewhere there are no more Swastika flags in the windows, no streets bearing the name of the Führer, no publications of any kind that honour his memory. It is correct that thousands of Germans learned how to scorn or hate He whom their parents had acclaimed, and that millions are no more interested in him and his teaching than if he had never lived. Yet it remains no less true that the essence of the Hitlerian doctrine is the very expression of eternal laws; the laws that govern not only man, but life; which represent, as I wrote in a book in the German language ‘the wisdom of the starry heaven’,[ii] and that the choice posed to the world is, consequently, the same after 1945 as before. It is the acceptance of this more than human wisdom, it is this accord with the spirit of Nature, which Hitlerism implies, or disintegration, ethnic chaos, the degeneration of man—separation from the Heart of the cosmos; damnation. It is—and the words are again mine—‘Hitler or hell’.[iii]

People of our planet seem to have chosen hell. It is what a declining humanity invariably does. It is the very sign that we are completely in what the Hindu tradition calls the Kali Yuga, the Dark Age [Editor’s note: The West’s darkest hour]. But the ages follow one another. The laws that regulate their succession remain.

It is equally correct that very many acts of violence were committed in the name of Hitlerism, and it is for them that it is reproached so obstinately by the herd of right-thinking people, the ‘decent people’, deeply attached (in theory at least) to humanitarian values.

There are, however, two kinds of acts of violence—or acts leading to violence—‘committed in the name of a doctrine’. There are those that, in the spirit of the doctrine, are necessary, or at least justifiable, in the circumstances in which they take place…

The acts of violence committed in the spirit of Hitlerism— according to its profound logic—far from calling its truth into question, on the contrary, only underscore it. For the application of a true doctrine—that is to say, expressing the very laws of life—in a society, however privileged, of the Dark Age, in other words, in a society which, along with all humanity, is, in spite of its progress on the technical level, and perhaps because of it, in regression from the point of view of Nature, can only be done ‘against Time’; against the universal current of decline that characterizes the Dark Age. And that is materially impossible without violence.

* * *

On 28 October 1953, in front of some comrades, very few in number, gathered at Holzminden on the Weser, the Hitlerian Félix F. told me: ‘Up to 1945, we were a party; after 1945, let us be the core of a great international faith’. He believed, no doubt, that even in an age of universal degeneration such as ours, the Strong of Aryan blood were still numerous enough and conscious enough to be linked in a ‘great international faith’ around the only doctrine worthy of them.

Only the future will tell if he was right or not. But I affirm today that, even if stripped of everything that could be contingent—temporal—in its first expression as a political doctrine, Hitlerism never managed to impose itself on the Aryan élite wherever it exists, it nevertheless remains the Way of the Strong, open to the eternal, their asceticism, in all ages of accelerated decadence, at all ‘ends of the cycle’.

* * *

All true religions, all those that can be integrated into the Tradition, lead to the eternal, certainly. But they do not carry all the same people to it. The religions ‘of extinction’, as I call them—such as Buddhism, Jainism, and later Catharism—guide the lost and the desperate for whom the absence of hope is suffering, people broken or rejected by the fight without end and who aspire to ‘leave it’. The doctrines that preach action in detachment and enthusiasm without hope are addressed to the Strong, to those whom the fight, though ‘useless’, never tires, and who need neither the anticipatory vision of a paradise after death, nor that of a ‘better world’ for their sons and their nephews, to fight with zeal and until the end, according to what is, for them, duty.

The Varnashramdharma of the Hindus—a religion based on the natural hierarchy of the castes (thus of the races, the Hindu castes being hereditary and having nothing to do with the goods that can be acquired) and on the natural succession of duties in the course of a man’s life—is a religion of the Strong. It is dominated by the doctrine of detached Action as it has reached us in the Bhagavad-Gîta. It was conceived as the basis of a traditional society, already decadent, no doubt—the decline begins, in each temporal cycle, at the end of the first Age, called the Age of Truth, Satya Yuga, or Age of Gold—but incommensurable with ours, as it is infinitely closer to the ideal or divine order.

Hitlerism considered in its essence, i.e., stripped of all that attaches it to the political and economic contingencies of a particular time, is the religion of the Strong of the Aryan race, as opposed to a world in decline; a world of ethnic chaos, contempt of living Nature, the silly exaltation of ‘man’ in all that is weak, morbid, eccentrically ‘individual’, different from other beings; a world of human selfishness (individual and collective), of ugliness and cowardice. It is the reaction of the Strong of this race, originally noble, to such a world. And it is that which they offer to all their brothers in race.

There are, parallel to it, the religions that exalt the same virtues, the same asceticism of detachment; which rest on the same glorification of combat without end and the same worship of Blood and Soil, but which are addressed to other races—religions, sometimes very old, but continuously renewed, rethought, thanks to the vitality of their followers. Shintoism, based on the deification of the heroes, the ancestors, the Sun, and of the very soil of Japan, is one. As a Japanese said to me in 1940: ‘Your National Socialism is, in our eyes, a Western Shintoism; it is our own philosophy of the world, thought by Aryans and preached to Aryans’. (Alas! In Gamagori, not far from Hiroshima, the Japanese raised a temple to Tojo and those whom the victors of 1945 killed with him as ‘war criminals’. When will one see in Germany monuments, if not ‘temples’, to the glory of all those Germans hung from 6 October 1946 and after, up to 7 June 1951, for having been faithful to their faith, which is also ours, and having done their duty?)

But that is another question.

Let us return to what constitutes the eternity of Hitlerism, that is to say, the not only more-than-political but more-than-human—cosmic—character of its basic truths, in particular of all that relates to race, biological reality, and the people, historical and social reality.

The Führer said to each of his compatriots and, beyond those, to each of his brothers in race and to any man of good race: ‘You are nothing; your people are all’. He has, in addition, in Point Four of the famous Twenty-Five Points which constitute the program of the National Socialist Party, indicated what, in his eyes, made the essence of the concept of the ‘people’: ‘Only he who is a member of the people can be a citizen of the State. Only he who is of Germanic blood can be a member of the (German) people. From whence it follows that no Jew can be a citizen of the (German) State’.[iv]

It is a return, pure and simple, to the ancient conception of the people: of the German conception, certainly, but also the Greek, that of the Romans before the Empire, with that of all peoples, or almost all. It is the negation of the Roman attitude of the centuries of decadence, which allowed any inhabitant of the Empire, any subject of the Emperor, to become a ‘Roman citizen’, be he Jewish, like Paul of Tarsus or Flavius Josephus, or Arab, like the Emperor Philip—and, later, it sufficed to be ‘Christian’, and of the same Church as the Emperor to be an Byzantine ‘citizen’, able to reach the highest offices.[v] [Editor’s note: White nationalists are still unwilling to see that Constantinople was a melting pot of the races, courtesy of universalist Christianity.] It is the negation of the ideas of the ‘people’ and the ‘citizen’ such as presented by the French Revolution at the moment when, at the suggestion of the Abbé Grégoire and others as well, the Constituent Assembly proclaimed ‘French’ all the Jews residing in France and speaking French.

In other words, if a people is an historical and social reality, if its common memories, glorious and painful, common habits and, in general, common language, are factors of cohesion among its members, it is also more than that. It is part of a great race. It is an Aryan or Mongoloid people, an Australoid, Negroid, or Semitic people. It can, without ceasing to be a true people, contain a more or less large proportion of different sub-races, provided that these are all part of the great race to which it belongs. The Führer himself was physically as ‘Alpine’ as he was Nordic, and perhaps more. The brilliant and faithful Goebbels was almost purely Mediterranean. And they are not the only greater Germans or the only personages in the first rank of the Third Reich not to be one hundred percent Nordic…

The people which, even in the midst of the ethnic chaos that reigns more and more everywhere on earth, ‘devotes all its energy’ to preventing interbreeding and ‘to promoting its best racial elements’, writes the Führer, ‘is sure to become sooner or later the master of the world’,[vi] (provided, naturally, that it is a dynamic and creative people). Consequently, it will live; it will remain a true people, while each of its competitors, more and more invaded, submerged by heterogeneous elements, will have ceased to be such—and for the same reason, cease to merit (and to rouse) the sacrifice of individuals of value.

The sincere man who, in agreement with the spirit of Aryan racism, i.e., of Hitlerism or any other noble racism, effaces himself before a true people that is his; who, in order to serve it above all, tramples personal interest, money, pleasure, the glory of his own name; this man approaches the eternal. His good citizenship is devotion and asceticism.

But he needs a true people to serve. For he who is devoted to a mixed ‘people’, in other words to a human community without race and definite character, a ‘people’ in name only, wastes his time. His activity is a little less shocking than that of people who devote themselves to the service of the handicapped, retarded, deficient, of human refuse of all kinds, because the mongrel, if he is healthy in body, is nevertheless quite useful. Just the same, it would be better for an individual of value who emerges by chance from a ‘people’ which is not one, to devote himself in all humility to a true people of a superior race, or that he be content to serve innocent life, beautiful non-human life, that he defend animals and trees against man, or, if he can, that he combine the two activities [Editor’s note: the 14 words and the 4 words!]. Perhaps then—supposing the widespread Indian belief in an unknown reality—he will be reborn one day in a human community worthy of him… provided that he does not act in view of such an honour, that he never desires it.

* * *

The mixture began with the evil pride born of the Word: the pride that pushed the man to believe himself a being apart and against the iron laws that attach him to the earth and to Life; that made him dig an imaginary trench between himself and all other living things; that encouraged him to place his whole species on a pedestal; to scorn, in the name of the false fraternity of the Word, flagrant racial inequalities, and to think that he could with impunity bring together what Nature separates; that he was ‘superior’, above this prohibition, above divine law.

Hitlerism represents, in the midst of ethnic chaos, in the midst of an epoch of the world’s physical and moral decline, the supreme effort to bring the thinking Aryan back to respect for the cosmic order as it is affirmed in the laws of development, conservation, and disintegration of races, back to willing submission to Nature, our Mother and to lead back, willingly or by force, the non-thinking Aryan, who is nevertheless valuable because of the possibilities of his offspring. The cult of the ‘people’—at the same time of Blood and Soil—leads to the cult of the race common to people of the same blood and the eternal Laws that govern its conservation.

_______________

[i] Robert Brasillach, Les Sept Couleurs (Paris: Editions Plon, 1939). On 6 February 1945 Charles De Gaulle’s ‘Liberation Government’ executed Brasillach for treason. —Trans.

[ii] ‘Die Weisheit des sternhellen Weltraumes’ in Hart wie Kruppstahl [Hard as Krupp Steel], completed in 1963.

[iii] ‘Hitler or Hell’, in Gold in the Furnace (Calcutta: A.K. Mukherji, 1952), 416; written in 1948-49.

[iv] Text of item four of the Twenty-Five Points.

[v] Such as Leon ‘the Armenian’ who reached the throne of Byzantium.

[vi] Mein Kampf, German edition of 1935, 782.

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…

Published in: on April 24, 2021 at 12:58 pm  Comments Off on The winds of winter  

The Red Woman

‘The Red Woman’ is the sixth season premiere episode of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 51st overall. From a cinematic point of view the first shot, and indeed the opening scenes of this season, are a masterpiece. The camera zooms in on the Wall on a night in Castle Black as Jon Snow’s direwolf Ghost begins to howl, though we haven’t seen it yet. The next scene keeps the mystery, when we finally see Ghost and later Ser Davos until the close-up towards Jon’s corpse.

Far from there and already in the daytime, on the sea crossing from Dorne to King’s Landing we see that the blonde Myrcella, Jaime and Cersei’s daughter, has been fatally poisoned. A priest of the fourteen words would think that that was better than Myrcella marrying her non-white fiancée and fathered a café-au-lait prince to unite Houses Lannister and Martel.

Then we see the most grotesque scenes of the episode. Ellaria Sand and her daughters carry out a coup, killing Doran and his son. We can already imagine four Muslim women staging a successful coup by killing the caliph and the young prince, taking over the caliphate! But let’s remember that we are facing the most serious disinformation campaign in Western history regarding the roles of men and women. And the most serious thing of all is not what these Hollywood Jews do, but that white people consume their liquid poison as Myrcella consumed hers, with their eyes closed.

The last scene, which gave the episode its title, is as well done as the first scenes but once again: from a strictly cinematic point of view. We see that the witch Melisandre is actually much older than she appears, thanks to her dark magic.

Published in: on April 15, 2021 at 12:26 pm  Comments Off on The Red Woman  

The raven’s sight

More than forty years ago, in ‘Why the West Will Go Under’ published on National Vanguard (excerpted: here), William Pierce predicted everything that would happen today. I consider Pierce to be one of the extremely, extremely few three-eyed ravens to use the metaphor I use at the end of my eleven autobiographical books.

Four decades after his very wise words, a few racialists have begun to see glimpses of what Pierce clearly and transparently saw when whites thought that everything was great. The following are three posts from commenters of an article published yesterday on American Renaissance:

Commenter 1: There is no fixing this politically. You need to understand that right now. As I have said numerous times, it will take a Hitleresque type of ruthlessness to save the country and the white race. You want to keep playing fair with these people, then prepare to die.

Jared Taylor who runs that webzine has been trying for decades to play fair (remember that Taylor’s parents were fanatic Christians that moved to Japan to save the heathen).

Commenter 2: What I will never understand is just how many White people in the US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand support the extermination of the European peoples worldwide.

Has this guy read one of the three articles that we recommend in the comments section of the sticky post, that of Black Pigeon Speaks? (When I finish my review of Game of Thrones I will replace it with a passage from my eleventh book.)

Commenter 3: What if the nation has been sick from the inception and this end is fitting? Do we really want to save this horrid monster? We should not even attempt life support, let the USA die.

They are just beginning to glimpse things that the three-eyed raven had seen thanks to his precognitive abilities…

Published in: on April 10, 2021 at 1:10 pm  Comments (15)  

The Rains of Castamere

‘The Rains of Castamere’ is the ninth and penultimate episode of the third season of the HBO fantasy television series Game of Thrones. It centres on the wedding of Edmure Tully (Catelyn’s brother) and Roslin Frey, one of the most memorable events in the book series, commonly called ‘The Red Wedding’ during which Robb Stark and his banners are massacred. The title of the episode is a song belonging to the Lannister family, the lyrics that herald the Red Wedding and which the band plays at the wedding just before the slaughter begins.

The first scene of the episode provides the viewer with a bad message. King Robb asks his mother Catelyn for advice, who should have stayed safe at the castle of her uncle Ser Brynden Tully, popularly called ‘Blackfish’, whom she just visited. But the mother is in the tent of the King of the North in a military campaign against the Lannisters. Robb seeks advice from precisely this stupid woman who started the war by arresting Tyrion Lannister for a crime he didn’t commit. So not only is Robb going on a honeymoon at the most serious time of his life, but he asks his mom for advice early in the episode.

During the wedding, Walder Frey beckons Robb of what he missed (a true nymph, by marrying non-white buttocks) while Edmure Tully is the one now marrying Roslin Frey. ‘Father, Smith, Warrior, Mother, Maiden, Crone, Stranger…’ Immediately following this, still speaking simultaneously, Edmure and Roslin recite their vows. The groom says ‘I am hers and she is mine. From this day, until the end of my days’ while the bride at the same time says ‘I am his and he is mine. From this day, until the end of my days’. Secular whites today should know that even for pagans—there are no Christians in Martin’s universe—marriage was the most sacred institution.

At Yunkai, Dany’s watchdogs open the city gates for her SJW whims and come back in blood, Daario bowing once more to Dany and saying ‘The city is yours, my queen’. But let’s go back to The Twins, sometimes known as the Crossing, the castle and the seat of House Frey. Before the climax of not only the episode but the season, Robb kisses his wife even though, standing in front of Lord Frey, that is an insult as Robb broke his promise to marry a Frey girl. But Lord Frey had it all planned out, and Robb and his banners didn’t realise that the wedding between Roslin and Edmure was a trap.

If white fans of Game of Thrones weren’t the worst dung since prehistoric times they would celebrate the stabbing of non-white buttocks, Walder Frey’s little wedding gift to the couple, just as the Visigoths celebrated the murder of a mixed couple. But contemporary whites are the worst dung. Their values, including some of white nationalists, have been inverted in pursuit of the evangelical message and now good turns bad in the eyes of viewers.

Feudal Lord Frey, on the other hand, enjoys the reckoning. Catelyn and Robb have already been wounded by crossbow arrows and non-white buttocks lies lifeless on the ground, stabbed right into her pregnant belly by a Frey man. Stunned like an imbecile, Robb stares at the corpse while his wounded mother, who appears to be the one with the guts, tries to negotiate with Frey for her son’s life.

These reversals of roles are very good in that they even portray many white nationalists who don’t give a damn that their women have been empowered (see for example what I have said about ‘revolutionary’ novelist Harold Covington on this site). If values hadn’t been inverted by Christianity and neochristianity Walder Frey would be considered one of the heroes of the series.

In 2019 I had already said something about the Red Wedding and women’s reaction to it. Interestingly, among the videos I’ve seen on YouTube only David Bradley, the English actor who played the role of Walder Frey, seemed to enjoy the bloodbath because Robb broke his word. Afterwards, both Robb and Catelyn are finished off by Frey men and die. Immediately afterwards the credits appear: the only episode I remember they don’t play any music.

Published in: on March 24, 2021 at 2:47 pm  Comments Off on The Rains of Castamere  

The bear and the maiden fair

‘The Bear and the Maiden Fair’ is the seventh episode of the third season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 27th episode of the series overall. The episode was written by George R. R. Martin, the feminist author of the A Song of Ice and Fire novels on which the series is based, and was directed by a woman, Michelle MacLaren.

The group of wildlings just crossed the Wall and we heard the first bad message from Ygritte’s mouth: ‘You know nothing, Jon Snow’. Unlike others on the expedition, Ygritte just crossed the Wall for the first time in her life. It’s she who hasn’t seen the world, not even a single stone building, since north of the Wall there are only huts. A moment before Ygritte didn’t understand why the southern armies need drums and those who fly the banners. But although she is ignorant, her mocking gestures suggest that Jon, who was raised in a castle south of the Wall, is the ignorant one.

Then we see, in the Riverlands, a love scene between Robb and non-white buttocks. The female director dared to show off Robb’s wife’s buttocks in a presumably aesthetic shot in King Robb’s candle-lit military tent. The camera changes places and we see a shot from above of the naked woman, who is face down, once more showing us her buttocks.

Rob: (Sigh) ‘If you don’t put some clothes on, I can’t promise I won’t attack you [sexually] again’.

These scenes make me want to see what will happen to the bicolour couple in episode 29, where the accounts are settled. But for the moment the director shows us a long scene and then Robb says, looking at the map of his military strategy although distracted by the exposed buttocks of his wife: ‘How am I supposed to sit here planning a war when you’re over there, looking like that [naked face down]?’

The woman seems unconcerned about the war. She writes a letter to her mom and asks the king when he will take her to her hometown. But as always: the failure doesn’t come from women like this director, but from writers like Martin and the culture that allowed Jews and women to come to Hollywood. Then non-white buttocks tells him that she is pregnant and Robb is surprised. ‘You’re my queen’ says the idiot (in later seasons we’ll see that Jon uses the exact same phrase with Dany).

It is embarrassing to quote the dialogues between non-white buttocks and her husband. Instead of preparing for battle, Robb finds himself in the middle of a long honeymoon with his non-white wife. The mere fact of taking her to the military camp is insanity, and it isn’t surprising in a later episode that Roose Bolton confessed that Robb’s ignoring him when Roose was his military adviser contributed to betraying him to the Lannisters. One more shot from the ceiling filmed by the female director shows this woman’s buttocks again before Robb, already dressed, pounces on her again.

We then see a surreal dialogue between Ygritte and the warg Orell, probably the most important element of the wildling expedition south of the Wall due to his out-of-body abilities. The surreal thing is that, as I have already said, in the real world an outsider like Jon would never have access to the buttocks of a beautiful woman from a tribe. But except Orell, here the ‘tribe’ is behaving with Jon’s relationship with Ygritte as if tribal mores were those of Murka: an astronomical projection of present feminism to a medieval era that never existed.

So here we have a double bad message in a script written by Martin himself and directed by a liberated woman: a cute woman going to war as if she were a common soldier, and with all the sexual freedoms of a contemporary Western woman, including freedom of choosing an outsider instead of a member of her tribe, like Orell. The stupidity of Game of Thrones fans not to report these things is limitless. But in the darkest hour of the West these things are the bread and butter.

Another bad message is that Murka’s central values—social justice warring—are projected back to a fantastic medieval era. Dany arrives with her mulatto army and her two white guardians outside Yunkai, where there are 200,000 slaves. Jorah advises her not to invade the walled city as that campaign won’t bring her closer to the Iron Throne, which is where Dany wants to go. The girl responds to her counsellor that she has 200,000 reasons to take it.

Naturally, in medieval times no one fought wars in which a king could lose half his army just to free the slaves of a distant and exotic culture. But here we got a SJW queen! I have barely read A Song of Ice and Fire but the fact that these novels have become bestsellers speaks ill of the readers. Let’s just imagine what the West would be like if, instead of Martin’s novels, they had William Pierce’s first novel as their biggest bestseller. But the bad messages don’t end there.

In King’s Landing we see an absurd discussion between Tyron and his whore, which would be sad even to cite because in this TV series men are infinitely more idiots than they have been in the historical past (although not in the present). All I can say is that if I were Tyrion I would have already sent Shae to Volantis: her hometown where, by the way, Robb’s wife also comes from. Yes, non-white buttocks and Shae have something else in common besides their hometown: they’re light-brown skinned.

As if those bad messages weren’t enough, in the Riverlands Arya escapes from the cave in front of the entire Brotherhood, and although they run after her they don’t reach her, which suggests that the girl runs faster than the soldiers. Then we see another anti-male scene, although here the message is more than direct. Before castrating Theon (remember that Ramsay has him in a torture chamber), he puts two stunning young women in the chamber, both telling him that they want to see his penis. Then the attractive women get naked and things happen before the castration.

Another feminist scene: Jon tells Ygritte that a deer she wants to hunt with her bow is too far away but Ygritte hunts it. The scene is somewhat reminiscent of that scene from the first episode of the first season, in which Arya hits a perfect target with her bow after her older brother, Bran, terribly missed the target. Reality reversals are ubiquitous in this series.

Then Ygritte continues to taunt Jon, even though she confessed to Orell that she loved Jon. An absurd love: as absurd as Robb’s with Talisa and Tyrion with Shae. Seeing these romantic scenes filmed by a woman, produced by Jews and written by a traitorous white man only humiliates the male viewer. But these idiots play romantic music when Ygritte kisses Jon on his mouth.

‘The Bear and the Maiden Fair’ ends with another unreal scene between a man and a woman. Jaime Lannister throws himself into the ring where Locke had planned to kill Brienne with a huge bear, as if in real life the heir to Casterly Rock, the ancient stronghold of House Lannister, could dare to risk his life to save a woman. The whole scene exudes unreality, and it was this scene that gave the episode its title.

Published in: on March 22, 2021 at 2:30 pm  Comments Off on The bear and the maiden fair