Wuthering Heights

How would we have felt if, as children, our father returned home with a boy of an alien ethnic group and forced it into our bedroom as a new “brother”? How would we have felt if, after resenting this betrayal and picking on the unfortunate intruder—as children usually do—, our father sends us, not the intruder, to a boarding school?

Forget every film you have seen to date: because that’s how the real Wuthering Heights novel began.

In his travels Mr. Earnshaw finds a homeless boy. Once more, forget every Hollywood image because the skin of this boy was similar to that of “a little lascar.” Mr. Earnshaw decides to adopt him and name him “Heathcliff.” Brontë describes Heathcliff as “dark-skinned gypsy in aspect.” Naturally, Mr. Earnshaw’s legitimate son, Hindley, finds himself robbed of his father’s affections and becomes bitterly jealous of the little lascar. (The poor intruder was not even a half-bro or an illegitimate child of Mr. Earnshaw with a gypsy woman.)

Every single critic of the novel, even the most conservative, seems to have missed the racial aspect of this drama.

I would go so far as to suggest that, once the ethno-state is established Wuthering Heights will be picked as one of the classics to symbolically convey the tragedy of pushing, against the legitimate heir’s will, an illegal alien that after some time hostilely takes over the entire family estate and starts hunting down key Anglo-Saxon characters in a life dedicated to revenge (such is Wuthering Heights’ plot—gypsies are so good at that…).

Furthermore, the real Wuthering Heights is no love story at all. The 1939 adaptation with Lawrence Oliver is as detached from the original story as, say, Disney’s Pinocchio from the original, and far more sinister, Carlo Collodi tale. Catherine and the gypsy are the polar opposite of heroine and hero. The first Catherine is precisely an early embodiment of the contemporary out-group altruism that has been destroying the West since we committed the blunder of empowering women.

The drama of the novel only ends when—after the deaths of Mr. Earnshaw, Catherine Earnshaw, Isabella Linton, Edgar Linton, Hindley Earnshaw and Linton Heathcliff, the son of the gypsy who dies as a result of the abuse perpetrated by his father—Heathcliff finally dies and the second Catherine can, at last, reclaim a life together with her first cousin: the survivors.

Only pure whites survive at the end of the drama.

And how come no one has done such obvious reading of this classic of English literature, that the tragedy only ends when the gypsy dies?

Wuthering Heights ought to be presented to European-descended peoples as the perfect metaphor of what Europeans have been self-inflicting in the last decades: importing millions of hostile “gypsies” to displace the native “Hindleys.” In fact, in the novel Mr. Earnshaw, whose Christian, altruistic fondness for the gypsy boy would cause havoc, reminds me the proverb “a dog that wags its tail for strangers and barks at its own people.”

Mr. Earnshaw, whose altruistic fondness for the gypsy boy would cause havoc, reminds me what these Swedes are doing not with a single family, but with their entire nation: a deranged Christian sense of compassion à la St Francis transmuted into secular, runaway liberalism.

The drama of Wuthering Heights was located, of course, in the Yorkshire manor. But presently this is happening by means of non-white immigration into every white heartland; Sweden, just one of the most notorious examples.

Reread Brontë’s novel to understand the Swedes!

The Jewish Question revisited

Note of September 2017:
The first half of this post,
“Wuthering Heights,”
has been relocated: here.

 

In a recent radio podcast Mark Weber, a revisionist historian and current director of the Institute for Historical Review, said (ellipsis omitted between unquoted sentences):

Americans pride themselves of not having an ideology (“We are not fooled by fascism, communism or Nazism or any other ‘isms’”). Well, in fact, America does have an ideology. It has a kind of core idea and a core narrative of itself that is widely accepted by Americans, whether they call themselves conservatives or liberals. And it is so engrained in the American mentality that it is not often expressed very openly.

The core of the American ideology is in the birth certificate, as it were, of the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence. You all know that the Declaration of Independence lays out, I think, what Americans assume about what this country stands for, what it really means and in cases of doubt we turn back to it: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And to this end “Governments are instituted.”

Now that’s an essential kind of belief that Americans more of less accept. Liberals emphasize much more than conservatives the equality part of that. And conservatives tend to emphasize the point of individual life, liberty and the pursue of happiness. That is a very core kind of thing and with that there is a kind of narrative of American history.

The narrative of American history is that although it’s true that we didn’t have real equality when America was founded that is what we are aiming for: that’s our goal [emphasis in Weber’s voice]. And it is true that our founding fathers did not practice it well. But we are all trying to practice it. We are trying to reach that goal, that goal of real equality.

In his speech Weber also said that in keeping with that goal, in the past Americans decided that distinctions between Christians and non-Christians were not very important and stopped discriminating against the latter. Also, in keeping with the very same principle of non-discrimination, according to Weber the equality between women and men was enshrined. And the same could be said about how Jews and blacks got fantastically empowered in the US.

The social engineering that has transformed the West in general and America in particular has at its core this idea of equality and its corollary, the principle of non-discrimination as the most unquestioned, inviolable axioms of our moral universe. For example, Weber also noted that nowadays no conservative would ever dream of taking away the women’s right to vote. On the contrary: the equality commandment has now metastasized beyond unthinkable limits for our grandparents and, Weber pointed out, many are now saying: “Well, the next bastion is to make sure that gay people are equal too,” always in an endless pursuing of an amplifying spiral for an ever more encompassing equality.

This is a narrative “not only for liberals but of conservatives too,” who “may resist in one point but once it’s in place [women’s rights/affirmative action/Jews controlling the MSM] they don’t object it.” To boot, in the academia and in the mainstream media, including the film industry, this spiraling axiology is been made retroactive, and presently the world of my beloved grandmas is increasingly demonized precisely because even conservatives accept the narrative. Just compare this suicidal ethos that both liberals and conservatives subscribe with what I say in the manifesto: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that men and cultures are created un-equal, and that only an ethno-state will save our race from extinction.”

Christianity and Secular Christianity are based on the inversion of the most vital values. An ethnostate, by definition, would not only revoke the non-discriminatory principle but transvaluate it. Discrimination would be, again, considered the most basic, commonsensical ruling principle of our society. Hence the Nietzschean call for an Umwertung aller Werte, or transvaluation of Christian values back to Greco-Roman values: the only way to place, again, axiology upright.

After listening to Weber’s speech several times, I found it impossible not to think in my recent posts where both Christianity and what we are now calling Secular Christianity are harshly criticized. Which brings me to the Jewish Question and, specifically, to my debate with the monocausalists about whether or not the Jewish problem is the only causative factor of Western malaise.

Five months ago Michael O’Meara published what has been perhaps the most controversial article at Counter-Currents, “White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism”, of which O’Meara commented in the discussion thread:

“I’m certain most people read my piece with a good deal of negative emotion. But re-read my piece without emotion and look at what I actually try to say.”

As to Jewish monocausalism is concerned, in the threaded discussion O’Meara said that he could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that, say, Catholicism and Protestantism “were more influential in legalizing the formal de-Europeanization of the American people.” This, of course, reminds me Hitler’s criticism of Christianity. Readers of his table talks are always amazed by the fact that those who knew Hitler intimately often listened harsher words from the Führer’s lips directed against Christianity than against Judaism itself. See for example my latest post quoting Hitler’s private talks here.

Uncle Adolf had a point. For instance, it would be nonsense to say that Mr. Earnshaw loved Heathcliff and altruistically punished his eldest son “as a result of Jewish influence in early Victorian England” (even Kevin MacDonald would agree with me that that sort of behavior, however fictional, would qualify as “altruistic punishment”). And the same could be said about Catherine’s lasting infatuation with the dark-skinned gypsy. Both attitudes symbolize the westerners’ fondness for the “New Jesus,” what I am starting to call Secular Christianity. Or at least they symbolize what they are failing to do: an outright, revolutionary repudiation of the intruders and the traitorous elites. This is what Hindley intended in his early teens before his father irreparably damaged the emotional state of his most natural, legit heir by means of a series of altruistic punishments that ended in that the gypsy inherited the entire estate of Wuthering Heights. (Reread Brontë’s novel. The plot moved me to constantly swear, in exasperating soliloquies, against the deranged altruists of the Yorkshire.)

Yes: it is time for westerners to give up their self-destructive philo-Semitism. But Christianity and its secular incarnation that mandates us to love these later-day “gypsies” as the First Commandment must be torn to pieces too. Perhaps it’s suitable to end this post with the opening words of chapter 56, “Old and New Tables” of Thus Spake Zarathustra:

Here do I sit and wait, old broken tables around me and also new half-written tables. When cometh mine hour?

Umwertung aller Werte!

The real Wuthering Heights

I have received a couple of warm compliments, both by email and within the thread, about one of my comments in The Occidental Observer’s most recent article on Sweden. It’s reproduced below:

wuthering-heights

The commenters above have missed the main point: Independently of what that silly Jewess said, why are the Swedes marching passively like the blond Eloi to be sacrificed by the invading Morlocks?

Why?? As I said in the other thread, in their nations even Muslims of lower IQ (cf. Phil Rushton’s research) seem to be immune to the Jews’ mental tricks.

My tentative response is: As Jason said in the other thread (and as I have elaborated in my articles criticizing Christian moral grammar), the Swedes and other whites are basically “religious ideologues, having replaced self-flagellation and lifelong chastity with anti-white activism and political correctness.”

What is happening throughout the West strongly reminds me Mr. Earnshaw’s deranged altruism in Wuthering Heights.

Just replace “Mr. Earnshaw” with “Western elites,” and the “White people” with “Hindley”—Mr. Earnshaw’s legitimate son—, and you will see how this classic has depicted our current woes in truly prophetic ways:

Note of September 2017:
The rest of this entry has been relocated: here.

Published in: on May 14, 2011 at 11:17 pm  Comments (4)