Hamlet vs. Harold

Hamlet-1948

Harold Covington’s novel The Hill of the Ravens is dedicated “To those who shall come after: from the time of struggle, we greet you.”

According to the internal narrative of the story, The Hill of the Ravens is the fourth book of the Northwest Quintet, though it’s the first novel of the Quintet that Covington wrote.

The Ten Principles of National Socialist Thought on pages 187-89 are a gem, of which I’ll excerpt just a few lines:

I. National Socialism above all represents living truth in its purest form

III. No one must be allowed to spoil what Nature created down through aeons of racial evolution. Your highest purpose in life is to carry on that evolution toward a stronger, better, more beautiful mankind

VIII. Every aspect of life must be judged in relation to the survival and improvement of your race; anything hindering these attainments must be ruthlessly rooted out and destroyed

X. Where there is a will, there is a way. Everything falls before the man of indomitable will. Suffering and sacrifice are necessary. We are hardening ourselves for the most decisive struggle in all human history.

These noble principles for elemental racial preservation explain a dialogue on page 278: “‘You a Nazi sir?’ ‘I am’.”

As long as we cannot openly say in the West that we are Nazis, the West, and especially the US (“the fount and wellspring of all that is evil in our time”—page 110) will be suicidal.

Consider principle III, “Every aspect of life must be judged in relation to the survival and improvement of your race; anything hindering these attainments must be ruthlessly rooted out and destroyed.” Compare its living truth to what’s happening to whites.

Throughout the West white birthrates have suffered a catastrophic decline. During this same period, ours has become the most sex-obsessed society in history. As Roger Devlin has demonstrated, these two trends are related. This is what The Hill of the Ravens, page 103, says: “The whole history of our race and our culture tells us that when women of child-bearing age remain unmarried and babies aren’t being born, then that is a sign that something is gravely wrong.” Principle III explains why in the novel’s Day of the Rope right after the revolution, mixed couples, mostly white women and their beasts of pleasure are targeted for destruction.

But not only the blood mixers got what they deserved in Covington’s novel. The traitorous media is beautifully handled. Reporters and media personnel were declared enemy combatants and legitimate military targets. Once the traitors understood that they would be held personally responsible for the content of their reportage, all of a sudden they got restrained. “They would either see the Party’s point of view, or else they’d see me.”

This said, The Hill of the Ravens has a fatal flaw.

On page 253 envious Covington depicts William Pierce as a Fed informant (see full article on this subject: here). Since his younger years Covington has built a fame of defaming his comrades, starting with Ben Klassen.

I have read most of Covington’s Quintet about the creation of a White Republic and found most of it inspiring. But Covington’s character flaw strongly reminds me the epigraph that Laurence Oliver chose for the beginning of his 1948 adaptation of Hamlet:

So oft it chances in particular men
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
By the o’ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
Or by some habit grown too much; that these men–
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Their virtues else — be they as pure as grace,
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault.

Quotable quote

“It is not in the stars to hold our destiny
but in ourselves.”

—Shakespeare

Published in: on December 9, 2013 at 11:33 pm  Comments (1)  

Hollow-headed Britons

Recently I complained that the 1998 movie adaptation of Les Misérables committed an insult by using a nigger for the role of revolutionist Enjolras, who in Hugo’s novel is a good-looking white. Today I watched Richard II, a 2012 British television film based on William Shakespeare’s play of the same name, commissioned by BBC under the series title The Hollow Crown.

HollowCrowns-BaronRos

Was the 6th Baron de Ros a mulatto? Following the grotesque steps taken in the said adaptation of Les Misérables, Rupert Goold, the director of Richard II, chose Peter de Jersey as William de Ros: the sixth Baron de Ros (1370-1414), the brown sat flanked by two white actors in the photo.

To boot, was the Bishop of Carlisle a nigger? Adding insult to injury and not content with that, the director chose Lucian Msamati, a Zimbabwean actor, as the Bishop of Carlisle (bishop from 1397 to 1400): an even blacker and purer Negro!

On a lesser note, several other actors in this first episode of Hollow Crown look not like Anglo-Saxon Aryans but like Mediterraneans, sand-niggers and some even resemble Semites. For example, the actor Ferdinand Kingsley who played “Bushy” in Richard II doesn’t look like a credible character of 14th century England, and the actor David Suchet, who interpreted the Duke of York, is indeed of Jewish descent.

hollow_crown_Henry-4I haven’t watched the last episode of Hollow Crown, but regarding the episode of the series about the reign of Henry IV, why these looks of King Henry that evoke the appearance of a Jew? Could it be because the producer, Sam Mendes, is the son of an English Jewess? Whatever the cause, Britons must be empty-headed to watch such rubbish in the name of Shakespeare!

Tomorrow I’ll see the last episode, this one about Henry V. If further treason is spotted I shall add a brief note. How I remember now my tender years when I watched movies about historical England in the elegant and large theaters of Mexico City with pure Anglo-Saxon actors…
 

P.S. of November 5th

Yes: they managed to use another fucking nigger to play the role of the Duke of York (1373-1415).

Published in: on November 4, 2013 at 10:21 pm  Comments (5)  
Tags:

A response to Armor

By John Martínez

What you say doesn’t invalidate my remark that people who are cowering in front of the anti-White dictatorship often misinterpret their own behavior as foolish sentimentality.

Immigrants are pouring into Western countries at the invitation of Western governments, and at the consternation of most White people. If White people had their say, for example, in a referendum, immigration would stop. So, if you would like to blame White people, you have to blame their lack of courage, not their foolish sentimentality.

Anti-White dictatorship?! I beg you pardon. Last time I checked every single Western European and Northern American government had been elected by popular, democratic vote. Who voted these governments into office and where do these politicians come from? From what you’re saying, one might get the impression that these politicians are aliens from outer space who came to Earth in order to abet the niggerization / arabization / mestization of these countries, or that it is extraterrestrials who are voting for these folks, instead of adult nationals who have had ample opportunity to see (and live with) the consequences of their stupid political choices for several decades now.

Look, I have all sympathy for the people of North Korea, for example. They certainly haven’t had any say in their government ever since the mid 50’s. Their country was kidnapped by a gang of sociopaths with the aid of a million-strong army. They are real victims. There is a real case to be made that they are not responsible for what is happening to them. But for you to refer to contemporary North American and Western Europeans as poor, oppressed folks, terrorized into cowardice by autocratic, unaccountable governments (as you take it for granted that that is the case) is disingenuous, with all due respect.

I said something to this effect on another thread and a reader, Roger, apparently an English European himself, agreed 100% with me.

Trying to argue that their stupidity and their cowardice is in fact just cowardice is beside the point. The point is that Western Whites are ultimately fully responsible for what is befalling them. And trying to exonerate them from their sin against both their ancestors and their future generations is to assure that nothing will be done about it.

white_people_are_crazy_thermos_food_jar

Whites have let the kikes in and have let them take control of their governments, finances, academia and press. Whites have allowed the inferior non White scum to colonize their societies. To blame “the elites” or “the political class” is a lame excuse because these segments of society are part and parcel of the said societies. Besides, the political class depends on votes to stay in power and what’s more, “the elites” can perfectly well be boycotted into poverty, since we are not talking about Ancient Regime aristocracy here. If stupid liberal Whites can boycott a restaurant chain because its owner said something that displeased gays (link) the reason why the treacherous elite stays where it is, is because Whites want it to be there.

To quote John Derbyshire (discussing the Jewish Question) in a context that twists the meaning of what he said (I despise his philosemitism with all my heart):

97 percent of the U.S. population [and the European one, for that matter] ended up dancing to the tune of the other three percent. If that is true, the only thing to say is the one Shakespeare’s Bianca would have said: “The more fool they.”*

If Whites can mobilize for idiotic causes like homosexual “marriage”, “human rights”, “wymyn’s rights”, “global warming” and at the same time they don’t organize to tackle real issues like Third World immigration it is because they don’t want to. They are not interested. If they are not aware of the JQ, it is because they are not interested. And if they keep voting for treacherous politicians who have [messed] their asses it is because they don’t mind it. So let them live with the consequences. At the end of the day, you have to sleep on the bed you made, right?


___________________

* In Act 5, Scene 2 of The Taming of the Shrew by William Shakespeare there’s a line, “The more fool you for betting on my loyalty.”

Published in: on June 14, 2013 at 10:00 am  Comments (41)  
Tags:

On Kenneth Clark’s “Civilisation”

Kenneth Clark may have been clueless about the fact that race matters. Yet, that our rot goes much deeper than what white nationalists realize is all too obvious once we leave, for a while, the ghetto of nationalism and take a look at the classics, just as Clark showed us through his 1969 TV series Civilisation.

Compared to the other famous series, Clark’s was unsurpassed in the sense that, as I have implied elsewhere, only genuine art—not science—has a chance to fulfill David Lane’s fourteen words.

By “art” I mean an evolved sense of beauty which is almost completely absent in today’s nationalists. Most of them are quite a product of Jewish modernity whether with their music, lifestyles or Hollywood tastes, to a much greater degree than what they think. For nationalism to succeed an evolved sense of female beauty has to be the starting point to see the divine nature of the white race. In Clark’s own words, “For all these reasons I think it is permissible to associate the cult of ideal love with the ravishing beauty and delicacy that one finds in the madonnas of the thirteenth century. Were there ever more delicate creatures than the ladies on Gothic ivories? How gross, compared to them, are the great beauties of other woman-worshiping epochs.”

Below, links to excerpts of most of the chapters of the 1969 series, where Clark followed the ups and downs of our civilisation historically:

“The Skin of our Teeth”

“The Great Thaw”

“Romance and Reality”

“Man—the Measure of all Things”

“The Hero as Artist”

“Protest and Communication”

“Grandeur and Obedience”

“The Light of Experience”

“Heroic Materialism”

Civilisation’s “Protest and Communication”

For an introduction to these series, see here.

Below, some indented excerpts of “Protest and Communication,” the sixth chapter of Civilisation by Kenneth Clark, after which I offer my comments.

Ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages:

The dazzling summit of human achievement represented by Michelangelo, Raphael and Leonardo da Vinci lasted for less than twenty years. It was followed (except in Venice) by a time of uneasiness often ending in disaster. For the first time since the great thaw civilised values were questioned and defied, and for some years it looked as if the footholds won by the Renaissance—the discovery of the individual, the belief in human genius, the sense of harmony between man and his surroundings—had been lost. Yet this was an inevitable process, and out of the confusion and brutality of sixteenth-century Europe, man emerged with new faculties and expanded powers of thought and expression.

In this room in the castle of Würzburg are the carvings of Tilman Riemenschneider, one—perhaps the best—of many German carvers in the late Gothic style. The Church was rich in fifteenth-century Germany, and the landowners were rich, and the merchants of the Hanseatic League were rich; and so, from Bergen right down to Bavaria, sculptors were kept busy doing huge, elaborate shrines and altars and monuments like the famous group of St George in the old church at Stockholm: a supreme example of late Gothic craftsman deploying his fancy and his almost irritating skill of hand.

The Riemenschneider figures show very clearly the character of the northern man at the end of the fifteenth century.

First of all, a serious personal piety—a quality quite different from the bland conventional piety that one finds, say, in a Perugino. And then a serious approach to life itself. These men (although of course they were unswerving Catholics) were not to be fobbed off by forms and ceremonies. They believed that there was such a thing as truth, and they wanted to get at it. What they heard from Papal legates, who did a lot of travelling in Germany at this time, did not convince them that there was the same desire for truth in Rome, and they had a rough, raw-boned peasant tenacity of purpose. Many of these earnest men would have heard about the numerous councils that had tried throughout the fifteenth century to reform the organisation of the Church. These grave northern men wanted something more substantial.

So far so good. But these faces reveal a more dangerous characteristic, a vein of hysteria. The fifteenth century had been the century of revivalism—religious movements on the fringe of the Catholic Church. They had, in fact, begun in the late fourteenth century, when the followers of John Huss almost succeeded in wiping out the courtly civilisation of Bohemia. Even in Italy Savonarola had persuaded his hearers to make a bonfire of their so-called vanities, including pictures by Botticelli: a heavy price to pay for religious conviction.

The Germans were much more easily excited. Comparisons are sometimes an over-simplification; but I think it is fair to compare one of the most famous portraits, Dürer’s Oswald Krell, with Raphael’s portrait of a cardinal in the Prado [above]. The cardinal is not only a man of the highest culture but balanced and self-contained. Oswald Krell is on the verge of hysteria.

Those staring eyes, that look of self-conscious introspection, that uneasiness, marvellously conveyed by Dürer through the uneasiness of the planes in the modelling—how German it is.

Four pages later Clark devotes several pages to Erasmus of Rotterdam, whom Bronowski praised even more in The Ascent of Man. I have quoted Clark at length on the German character because I believe that Nietzsche was spot on in blaming Luther and Protestant hysteria for the restoration of Christianity when Christendom was falling apart in the times of the Renaissance popes. But in the next entry I will try to convey some of my antichristian thinking by taking the Catholic Erasmus to task. Meanwhile let’s continue with Clark’s views:

In 1506 Erasmus went to Italy. He was in Bologna at the exact time of Julius II’s famous quarrel with Michelangelo; he was in Rome when Raphael began work on the Papal apartments. But none of this seems to have made any impression on him. His chief interest was in the publication of his works by the famous Venetian printer and pioneer of finely printed popular editions, Aldus Manutius. Whereas in the last chapter I was concerned with the enlargement of man’s spirit through the visual image, in this one I am chiefly concerned with the extension of his mind through the word. And this was made possible by the invention of printing.

Printing, of course, had been invented long before the time of Erasmus. Gutenberg’s Bible was printed in 1455. But the first printed books were large, sumptuous and expensive. It took preachers and persuaders almost thirty years to recognise what a formidable new instrument had come into their hands, just as it took politicians twenty years to recognise the value of television. The first man to take advantage of the printing press was Erasmus. He poured out pamphlets and anthologies and introductions; and so in a few years did everyone who had views on anything.

This should remind us of our own age! Take heed of the elucidating excerpts from a 2009 interview of James Bowery by Jim Giles.

Bowery said: “We are essentially living under a theocracy. I call it Holocaustianity but other people call it political correctness. It’s essentially a canon of morals that have taken over Christianity, and the primary sins of this religion involve ‘racism’ which is an undefined word, and anti-Semitism (sexism is certainly down their list; it is like a venial sin, not a mortal sin). So people have been indoctrinated in this by the media and the academia. The government has passed legislation about these morals to make them violation of law. So people [in the 21st century] are essentially in a medieval mindset, living in a theocracy. It’s just that it is not operating under that name… Right now people are essentially in a State where there cannot be a Protestant Reformation. You can’t have other religions than this State religion of political correctness” (39:40).

And later during the interview Bowery added: “Let me go back to my point about the theocracy, and the dissolution of the theocracy in Europe. The Gutenberg press created a situation in which the monopoly of the Church on the written word was broken. A large portion of what the Church was about was media control. So through the media control they could indoctrinate the populations and maintain, you know, a revenue stream. The Gutenberg press broke that. Now all of a sudden you get lots of other voices. As I said, I have been working in this Internet stuff since the early days” (1:29:42).

And that is altogether crucial for our cause. Bowery concludes: “I knew this time was coming. The Internet is the new Gutenberg press. And the theocracy is being taken apart because its control of the media is being taken apart. And we are getting a new Protestant Reformation and following on the heels of that, people are going to say: ‘Look: We have our own beliefs… This is the way things should be.’ Even the Jesuits just couldn’t stand up to that. I don’t think the Jews can’t either.” (1:31:35).

That’s exactly why Erasmus was so notable, as the nationalist Internet bloggers will be equally notable from the standpoint of a latter-day Clark in the coming ethno-state, once the current theocracy falls apart.

Both Erasmus and Luther were involved in important translations of the Bible that shaked the medieval worldview. Although in the next episode Clark spoke highly about Counterreformation art, after the last indented quotation he said: “Whatever else he may have been, Luther was a hero; and after all the doubts and hesitations of the humanists, and the hovering flight of Erasmus, it is with a real sense of emotional relief that we hear Luther say: ‘Here I stand.’” However, at the same time Clark was also dismayed that the Protestants smashed the colored glasses of beautiful Catholic churches, and that artistic images of the Virgin were decapitated.

But it had to happen if civilisation was not to wither, or petrify. And ultimately a new civilisation was created—but it was a civilisation not of the image, but of the word.

But even the Protestant reaction had to be triumphed over, this time by secularism.

It is refreshing to see, in the closing remarks of the episode, Clark praising Montaigne as “completely sceptical about the Christian religion” and of Shakespeare as “the first great poet without a religious belief.”