On myopia and perspectivism

After Nietzsche became insane, his sister and a friend of the philosopher assembled some of his loose writings in a book she published. §481 of that book that Nietzsche never intended to publish, The Will to Power, contains this sentence: ‘In so far as the word “knowledge” has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable [emphasis in original]. Otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings—“perspectivism”.’

In other words, all ideations, even white nationalist ideations, take place from particular perspectives or points of view (POVs), and there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives, which judgment of value can be made by integrating different vantage points together.

The image reveals a difference of contextuality. Each perspective is subsumed into another and adds an overall objective measure: a meta-perspective.

If we illustrate perspectivism with the current paradigm in white nationalism, that Jewish subversion is the primary cause of the downfall of whites, this working hypothesis may be represented by the smallest circle. An exemplary case of this point of view is that of David Duke. (Incidentally, I liked very much his most recent podcast about the ongoing Syrian crisis: here.)

But Duke is myopic: he cannot see that the Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem (see the second circle encompassing the smallest one). Those nationalists who doubt the accuracy of this contextualisation should read the texts that support the encompassing claim: (1) Evropa Soberana’s Rome vs. Judea, (2) Jack Frost’s PDF and (3) the recently published Why Europeans Must Reject Christianity by Ferdinand Bardamu.

But the ‘Christian problem’ POV can also be subsumed into another circle: the Aryan problem, that we also have discussed on this site (listen e.g., to Arthur Kemp’s historical perspective) and so on: the Aryan problem can be subsumed into a larger circle, what Joseph Walsh recently called ‘the human problem’ in the comments section of this site.

But the ‘human problem’ is not the largest comprehensive vantage viewpoint or ‘circle’. In the last chapter of ¿Me Ayudarás?, which is basically an autobiographical book, I go further: the human problem can be subsumed into the larger understanding of the ‘animal problem’.

I tackle this larger problem, along with the even larger contextualisation than the animal problem—the ‘bio problem’ in other planets—with my principle of the four words: eliminar todo sufrimiento innecesario. But the point is that in order to take this most encompassing principle to the stars—the circle that encompasses all others: our meta-perspective—, presently we must concrete ourselves to solve the most immediate problem, the Jewish Problem. The stars, including the choice between us or A.I. en route for the Star Child (see the image chosen for my previous post, the last instalment of Bardamu’s essay) will come only if Aryans pass all the lesser tests.

My advice to solving the Jewish Problem is precisely to get rid of Christian ethics. It is the moral compass of contemporary whites what is driving Aryans toward the abyss, including the compass of most white nationalists.

So we are stuck in the second circle in this age of treason, which is why this site focuses on the Christian Problem. In the next few days, my humble contribution will be asking Bardamu if he would allow me to include his essay in the 2018 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support The West’s Darkest Hour.

Steiner’s critical review

Finally Day of Wrath (DOW) is available again for the general public. Today I also discovered that, last September, Charles Steiner had written a highly critical review of it, of which I’ll quote some excerpts:

Due to the evil in his family, the author of this book hates humanity. The evil in his family was child abuse, which happened to the author when he was an adolescent, more than forty years ago. The book does not detail the circumstances…

Steiner fails to mention the info in the Introduction, that DOW is a mere selection of chapters from my two thick volumes in Spanish Hojas Susurrantes and ¿Me Ayudarás? (the latter will be available by March or April).

…the author asserts on page 373 of this 377-paged harangue [Steiner refers to the out-of-print, pocketbook edition of DOW], adding elsewhere that ‘I know exactly no one with honor or true nobility of soul’

Steiner omits my previous phrase ‘Of Creole men, for example…’ implying that I know no Latin American male of noble soul, as everyone seems to be blue-pilled here.

The pessimism expressed in this book is similar to that which can be found in Arthur Schopenhauer’s World as Will and Representation

There’s a problem here. Steiner is talking about of the selection known as DOW as if it’s my last word. The end of ¿Me Ayudarás? could be interpreted as optimistic.

…or in David Benator’s Better to Never Have Been: The Harm of Never Coming Into Existence, Benatar’s most current work, The Human Predicament, or E.M. Cioran’s The Trouble With Being Born, with one large exception: the latter works are definitely better written, more literary and readable and are more concise and rely less on Wikipedia and online research.

This is incorrect, as the bibliography of the books and printed articles I read to write the two volumes in Spanish are listed even in DOW. Also, as I struggle a lot to write in a second language, and as Steiner has not read the original tomes in Spanish, he doesn’t know if my philosophy appears in poor style in the original language.

Literally, on every page of this fat, squat book there are grammatical errors, typographical errors, stylistic errors, and incomprehensible declarations that can only mystify because the author is not a native English writer and has trouble understanding basic English syntax.

See my previous post today, ‘Preaching in the white nationalist desert’. If I had more than one sponsor I’d have paid the expenses of a native English speaker to check the entire manuscript.

But this hard reviewer has picked my interest: Since I’ve now published about half of DOW here, does it really contain so many syntax errors (I cannot tell since it’s not my mother language)?

Why the author did not choose to use Grammarly software or a grammar checker, why he did not find a copy editor, even one who is a college student, I do not know.

I didn’t even know that grammar checkers existed! Also, in Mexico City where I live no native college student would have a much better English syntax than mine.

The book stands largely on the shoulders of two of the author’s mentors: Julian Jaynes, author of The Bicameral Mind and Lloyd DeMause, author of History of Childhood, among several others.

I rely far more on deMause than on Jaynes. But in DOW I also debunk deMause and, in the forthcoming ¿Me Ayudarás? I even added a David star after the Lloyd deMause✡ name. (His anti-Nazi POV is so extreme that some nationalists suspect he’s a crypto-Jew.)

Nonetheless, as has already been hinted at, however, the author has little patience or tolerance with evolution’s slow procession through time, the changes through history or promulgation of education toward a more civilized human being. He wants all forms of violence against children and animals eliminated, which means the extermination of millions of adult human beings.

Supposing you have Star-Child powers (cf. Kubrick’s 2001) what’s so wrong with the immediate extermination of the Neanderthals considering that thousands of animals are being tortured by humans this very second?

On page 12 is a black and white reproduction of Hitler contemplating the bust of Nietzsche. The author hints (incorrectly, I believe) that since Hitler tried to wipe out a subversive tribe so he wants to wipe out all those ‘subversives’ who do not serve his values for an idyllic society of empathic child and animal lovers.

I never hinted such a thing, only suggested that Hitlerism is not entirely incompatible with Nietzsche’s transvaluation of values.

In the middle of the book, there’s a huge chunk of data he dumps on the reader about ancient Mexico’s infanticidal traditions as well as a diatribe on later historians who either overlook these atrocities or pretend they don’t exist. He wants people to know the facts of the cruelties against children throughout the history of mankind, and he will tell you about them ad infinitum and repeatedly so as to force your consciousness to recognize the dark and savage history of men and women and the deceitful and psychopathic cooperation of historians who are willing to do the intellectual work to hide that history at the expense of their academic integrity and honesty.

Again, what’s wrong with that?

C.T. runs a website entitled ‘The West’s Darkest Hour’… No children or animals are in evidence there either. Clearly, like his book, a high-strung, self-involved, and volatile temperament rules the blog as well as the book under review here.

I’ll leave visitors to say that I’m high on drugs or something. But the reason I rarely post here on child abuse is precisely that we need, first, an all-white world so that in the future a perfected breed of Aryans will eliminate all unnecessary suffering of animals and children (my philosophy of ‘the four words’): something that the coloureds have no high incentives to do.

I feel that his website like his book is a fraud in that both are ruled by an emotional trope of pessimism based on his experience of child abuse and for which reasonings and facts, whether historical or moral, are later found to justify that stance instead of the other way around, and I’m embarrassed for having spent good money to purchase a book that really is not worth the money I gave, a book that he or an editor easily might convert into a powerful article at the author’s blog to be read for free if he or an editor took out all the repetitious, Wikipedia dump of material and merely summarized the contents.

Again we see Steiner’s slander that I based my research on Wikipedia. If I used a wiki debate in the chapter about Ark (a single chapter which I still have to add in my monthly series of DOW), it was because Ark’s flaming exchange in a Wikipedia talk page was the only debate about psychohistory I ever found on the Internet and the printed press.

I have in my personal library the books that allowed me to do the research on child sacrifice: the bulk of DOW. If the Wikipedia articles on the subject resemble DOW data it’s because I was heavily involved in writing them as can be easily ascertained by checking up the diffs of, say, the Wikipedia article ‘Infanticide’ that I edited ten years ago, adding about a hundred of academic references—and not the other way around: that I based my research on the wiki! (I also contributed a lot to edit some Wikipedia articles on Mesoamerica.)

As a writer, C.T. has something I’m calling ‘narrative voice authority’ when he writes, and while I don’t know quite how he pulls it off, it is this voice that convinced me to keep reading despite the many serious flaws within this book. It is a skill that hypnotizes the reader temporarily to believe that what he has to say is more than his mere opinion, and that what he has to say is, in fact, knowledge, when there is no knowledge presented at all…

No knowledge presented? What about what constitutes most of DOW: the exposé of the sadism and serial killing in Pre-Columbian America, the exact opposite of what is being taught in the academia today?

The warning is: if parents don’t honor their children and teach them well, at least one of them will grow up to be an unhealed adult who will force unsuspecting adult readers to read an angry, vitriolic harangue with an almanac full of facts and attitude all aimed against the offending parental predator and others like him or her, a harangue authored by the abused child who hadn’t been lucky enough to have good parents. The work of Alice Miller needs improvement while also forging ahead so as to avoid the views and attitudes expressed in this volume by someone who was terribly, foully hurt.

The fact that I am hurt like hell does not invalidate my point—just as the hatred of an hypothetical survivor who witnessed the ritual sacrifice of his dearest sister in Tenochtitlan does not invalidate his craving for the Aztec world to be destroyed by the Europeans. See the Quetzalcoatl pic I chose for my book keeping in mind the latest instalment of DOW in this site.

Whatever its syntactic flaws, which must be quite a few, DOW is only an invitation to read my extended work in Spanish. One thing that Steiner got right is that I’ll need either money or a native English proof-reader to check the inaccuracies of my Spanish-English translations. For the moment I can only hope that the series ‘Apocalypse for whites’, that I am translating, do not look so bad for the native speaker…

Published in: on January 4, 2018 at 5:41 pm  Comments (19)  

Jesus’ slaves

Further to my ‘Yin empire’ (pay special attention to the discussion with Joseph Walsh in the comments section of that post).
I cannot afford that luxury (cf. Walsh’s second comment in that thread), as whites are the only ones capable of making that my religion of the 4 words flies in the future. If they go extinct, the animals will be condemned to the continuing torture in the slaughterhouses and in the labs—precisely what the Nazis tried to prevent.

Instead, what I’ve started to care less are the classics of literature and philosophy, the ‘Wisdom of the West’ as Bertrand Russell put it. If none of the supposedly greatest writers and philosophers wrote about the importance of race, or the need to understand that the coloured races were a potential threat to Aryans, how can I have interest in a ‘wisdom’ that presently has proven so unwise?

The greatest paradox of history is that the compassion of whites is counter-productive, as it’s all too clear with what I said above about the fate of animals if they go extinct.

Recently I’ve thought about the left-right hemispheric segregation of brain function in the context of the political terms left and right. Let’s compare our political biases with left-handed or right-handed people always remembering that, in most people, as the left side of the brain controls speaking right-handedness predominates; and vice versa for left-handed people.

Could if be that leftists—predominately women but presently the feminized males of the West that are slaves of the Jesus archetype—are thinking predominately with the right hemisphere and we predominately with the left one? The trouble I see not only with normies but even with compassionate Alt-Righters is that emotional thinking predominates in counter-productive, even ethno-suicidal ways.

Take the Spartan example as a paradigm. Why women should never, ever be empowered in society is illustrated with the example of a defective baby in ancient Hellas. If Spartan women had the right to let him or her live, eugenics would have been impossible in her society. A Spartan husband on the other hand could handle the situation more coldly, even though he also suffered when sentencing his child to die.

Women think with their emotions. The feminized male in today’s West is totally incapable of thinking coldly; of using properly the left hemisphere of his brain to control the emotions of the right one. He is really living under the archetype of a lefty, androgynous Jesus: including the secular humanists and even, with a few exceptions, the white nationalists.

Only the pains of a societal collapse would make them awaken from the Empire of the Yin.

Published in: on September 22, 2017 at 12:27 pm  Comments (12)  
Tags: ,

Day of Wrath, 1

In philosophy the concept of alienation appears in the work of German philosophers. Entfremdung for example means “estrangement.” For Hegel alienation and estrangement refer to the moment of beginning to advance in oneself.

Such is my feeling of estrangement, or distance from Spanish speakers, that I stopped blogging in my native language when I realized that people did not leave intelligent comments in my racial blog or my anti-psychiatric blog. In the huge Spanish-speaking metropolis where I live it goes even worse: I do not love a single human being, I just loved my pet.

So in 2009 I started to comment on the forums in English. But it was not long before I began to feel, once again, distanced. In the comments section of Counter Currents for example, Andrew Hamilton once told me that my thinking was unfolding very rapidly. From a normie who knew nothing of the Jewish question, I passed relatively quickly to bicausalism A, then crossed the line to bicausalism B: something that most white nationalists do not like.

To rephrase what Francisco de Quevedo said about time I could say: humankind and I are two. This is probably because when I discovered the racialist sites, the fearsome spider-robot had already unplugged me from the cable that went from my neck to the Matrix. I mean that, unlike the wisdom accepted in white nationalism, the psychical implications of human childrearing is the most powerful taboo of humanity. Awakening to the Jewish question and the transvaluation of values à la Turner’s Diaries was easy compared to the central taboo of human societies. These latter awakenings—race, Jewish issue and fighting for an ethnic state—were easier than what the robot-spider did, like unplugging the secondary wires that went into Neo’s arms and back.

I think the primary unplug of my nape is what makes me feel an Other compared to humans, especially for the implications of that specific unplugging. What are these implications? Even now, ten years after I finished the first book on the subject, regular visitors of this site have no idea where I come from, nor have they realized what it means to be completely awake in the real world.

In the past, I have translated those texts of my book that give an idea of the trauma model of mental disorders: the model that blames abusive parents instead of the brain of their victims. Those translations, which on the way refute psychiatric pseudoscience, did not make a dent in my readers because what causes the disorders does not interest them. To them I tell you: if you are not unplugged from the central cable, you can never be drained out of the Matrix and see the real world with clean and clear eyes.

But the trauma model is only a prelude to understanding the development of human empathy from prehistory to the contemporary West. And an intrapsychic leap from what I call Neanderthalism to an elevated psychoclass evolves into the 4 words and days of true wrath…

I won’t even try to explain these obscure aphorisms in a blog entry. Rather I will add, again, the chapters translated into English that on this site were only available as PDFs. But first I would like to point out that the first two articles of Day of Wrath can already be read, once again, without printing the PDFs:

Dies Irae

Why psychiatry is a false science

If life allows, the following week I will publish here the corrected Introduction. Those interested in the whole book can request it: here.

Impeachment of Man, 2

Excerpted from Chapter II: Pessimistic Pantheism

Unlike the previous entry in which I quote magnificent passages from the book of Savitri Devi, here I will not quote passages from the second chapter, “Pessimistic Pantheism.” I just want to say that in this chapter my disagreements begin with Devi, whose real name was Maximiani Portas (for example, Portas speaks of the Hindu religion as the most beautiful of living religions).

To be fair with Portas I must say that in Impeachment of Man this brilliant woman saw some of the great contradictions of Eastern thought. For example, she pointed to the “deep-rooted belief” among the people of India “that the creatures’ suffering in this world is nothing but the unavoidable result of their own bad deeds” in past lives, hence the title of pessimistic pantheism of the chapter. Despite her admiration for a religion that does not kill wandering cows, in this second chapter she also wrote of this “indifference to suffering, which amazes any foreigner lover of animals who happens to have read something of the Hindu Scriptures.”

Having said that, the criticism Portas makes of the Indians’ indifference to suffering animals falls short compared to my radical way of seeing the world. So radical in fact that with my ten books it seems that I wish to found a new religion. Although it is out of place in this entry to convey why I abhor old religions, I can say that whoever assumes the priesthood of the four words (and its corollary, the 14 words) must abandon all faith in otherworldly lives.

In a mere blog entry I won’t expand on this point: it is the subject of my tenth and last book that, if I am allowed to live, I’ll translate into English.

If I find myself writing about Impeachment of Man it is precisely because in the book I started to write recently I could not miss the only pamphlet of an admirer of Hitler who had, as a very high commandment, the welfare of animals.

Published in: on April 27, 2017 at 12:22 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: , ,