Traitors are worse than Jews

I find it increasingly exasperating to discuss with white nationalists, even with those who come regularly to comment on this blog.

A few seconds ago I had the following soliloquy remembering a taxi driver, a native Englishman, who took me to the train station in Essex, just outside of London, a few years ago. I asked him what he thought of the coloured immigrants in the area. He answered:

‘I love them!’

Now, what is worse: this native Englishman or the Jews of London?

It is obvious that the white is worse, as the traitor is worse than the enemy.

The monocausalists who leave their comments on this site are unable to see something so obvious. And don’t come up with the lame excuse that the poor Englishman was brainwashed by the Jewish media. Twenty years ago, when I lived in England for a year, I was shocked to see black men with English roses on the street. It was a time when I did not even know there was such a thing as white nationalism. I was a normie in many senses. But my instincts were noble.

If we take as a parameter of elemental nobility my sentiments when I was a normie twenty years ago, any Englishman—or white European or American male—who does not feel the same shock to see a subhuman walking with a white woman is a thousand times worse than any fucking kike you can mention. The traitor is worse than the enemy.

How is it possible that monos are so blind, so absolutely unable to see something so obvious?

Is it is because they suffer from the gravest sin of all: pride, and a sort of self-righteousness for their race? As I said in the epigraph of a recent entry: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in the Jude’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Published in: on May 22, 2018 at 11:12 am  Comments (41)  
Tags:

Mad like hell

I’m sorry, but since England was Swan’s Lake in terms of the beauty of the white woman (see my previous entry), what happened today has me on the verge of becoming a self-detonating vanguardist.

It is very rare for me to write four entries on the same day. I mean: no translations or citations, but my thoughts. But I’d like to answer what a friend who lives in England said today in another thread:

Yes, the underlying deficiencies—including the deficiency that enabled Jews to live among and exploit Aryans over and over again—were already present before the Jews existed but I’m fairly certain that without the Jews our race would not be facing the possibility of extinction at present.

It’s true what you say. Everyone who has read the masthead of this site knows that they were involved in the Hellstorm of the Ancient Word: a Christianization that for centuries destroyed our real culture. But I’d like to add something.

Throughout my reading of Esau’s Tears (a book that tells how, after the century of madman Napoleon, Jews were seizing the newspapers, the bank and education in Europe) I suffered horrors, always asking myself: ‘Holy shit: Why whites did nothing?’

Take into account that we are talking about the entire 19th century. Why since then, without any television, whites failed to react in an ultra-violent way (as my character commands)? Why the damned 19th-century bourgeois allowed the takeover by the Jewish quarter? What worms did they have in their heads even before TV?

What you say in the paragraph quoted above is very true. But it will always strike the natural-born killer that even without Hollywood whites behaved like lemmings (with the exception of Hitler, but that was already in the 20th century).

True: without Jews, whites would not be on the verge of extinction. But the fact that whites have been violating Newton’s law since Napoleon—to every action of Jewry thou shalt not oppose any sort of counter-reaction!—is what exasperates me extremely, to the point of daring to call them lobotomized eunuchs.

Published in: on May 19, 2018 at 8:03 pm  Comments (9)  
Tags:

The Story of Philosophy, 6

The Republic

The last words of Will Durant in the previous entry of this series: ‘Let us study The Republic’. But in this post I will not quote any passage from Durant’s book. I will give my opinion on this classic work that bequeathed us historical Greece.

In the first place, it must be recognised that the race of the ancient Greeks was of the Nordic type. In The Fair Race there are two articles on the subject, one written by a Spaniard and another by an American. Since then civilisation has metamorphosed so much, especially in axiology, technology and demography, that what Plato wrote could only be valid after the extermination of all non-whites, as William Pierce put it at the end of The Turner Diaries. Sorry, but the Greeks of the ancient world were physically beautiful, says the article of the mentioned Spaniard. Hence, in our technological times with a demographic explosion that, because of Christianity, reversed the beautiful values of the classical world, only in an ethnically cleansed Earth what the ancient Greek philosophers discussed could become germane again.

The tragedy of the Aryans reminds me of the meaning of the One Ring in the tetralogy of Wagner, a symbol that Tolkien would pick up in his novel. It has been Aryan greed what blinded them to the fact that using non-whites as capital was suicide in the long term. That is the moral that emerges from the stories about the white race of William Pierce and Arthur Kemp. But even from the 19th century some Americans felt the danger, as shown in the paintings of Thomas Cole. A world with the destroyed Ring means, in many aspects, a return to the small cities: the subject matter not only for Plato but for Aristotle. For the latter, a Greek city should not exceed ten thousand inhabitants…

That is precisely the moral of my books in Spanish: after so many hells in ‘the Black Iron Age’ as I said as a teenager, I propose a return to the Shire so to speak. For the same reason, if there is something that hurts me when I see the sites of white nationalists, it is that they are cut off from their European past. I have spoken on this site about music, but not much about painting. The following is the oil canvas by Claude Le Lorrain (1600-1682) that appears at the top of my Facebook page:

On my most recent trip to London I saw some splendid canvases of Le Lorrain’s paintings in the National Gallery. Outside of London and the madding crowd, some English aristocrats of past centuries took Le Lorrain as a paradigm to mould their extensive lands, and even some buildings in the countryside. Some of this can even be seen in the movies of this century. In this very beautiful film of 2005 for example, when Mr Darcy declares his love to Elizabeth, I could not contain my admiration for that place: it seems to be taken from a canvas by my favourite painter (watch the last ten seconds of this YouTube clip)! Who of the contemporary racists has such contact with their visual past?

A true racist should reject any image of pop culture sold to us by American Jewry. But going back to Plato. Let us suppose, just suppose, that the white race will emerge alive from the coming apocalypse and that, in an Earth already without Orcs and (((Sauron))), they would reconstruct white civilization. In an unpopulated land and with only a few small cities, like the one seen in the painting above, the question would arise as to what kind of government is desirable. In this world, the survivor could be asked about Plato’s magnum opus, something like a second chance or a fresh start for the West. So let’s expose our views about the philosopher.

The first thing I could say is that the distortion that is taught in the academy about the classical world is such that we would have to change the title of The Republic for the simple fact that it is an invented title. The original in Greek was Politeia, whose translation would be ‘regime or government of the polis’, that is to say how to govern a small city-state. The title The Republic falsifies the mind of Plato already from the cover of the book we see in bookstores, inducing the popular notion that the author was an utopian. He was nothing of the sort. Politeia was the recipe of Plato to remedy the bad governments he saw in ancient Greece. His starting point had been the examination of the Greek cities of his time, not of a hazy future but the four regimes of Greece: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny.

Imagine a world à la Lorrain in which only whites inherit the Earth. The bookstores, this time with imprimaturs that do not admit anything from Semitic pens, would show Plato’s main work with the original title… But that does not mean that we should consider the disciple of Socrates a provider of laws, a new Lycurgus. At this stage of the historical game it is obvious that Plato did not see, nor could he see, the iniquity of the world; of men, of the Jewry that would invent Christianity, and the catastrophic industrial revolution.

For example, Plato does not speak of the need to keep Nordic blood pure, at least not with the lucidity the Nazis had. The closed polis of the Spartans complied more with the laws of nature than the open polis of the Athenians (in this Durant was fatally wrong). But not even the Spartans knew Pierce’s formula: to maintain an Aryan culture one must maintain the Aryan ethnicity: and that can only be done by exterminating or expelling all non-Aryans.

Plato’s missteps go further. Above I complained that the typical racist of today has no internal contact with the world of the great masters of painting. Another common ailment in those who have abandoned Christianity is that they keep infectious waste that puts the Aryans at a clear disadvantage compared to the Jewish quarter. One of these residues is the belief in post-mortem life. He who believes this doctrine will not fight as much in this life as the Jews are currently fighting, insofar as they believe they will have a second chance (either in the afterlife or reincarnated).

Jews do not masturbate their minds with unearthly hopes: one of their enormous advantages before us. But to be fair to Christianity I must say that even before Christianity Plato already masturbated his mind, and the minds of his male pupils, with such fantasies: what I have called in this series the root of the baobab. In fact, Plato finishes his great work sermonizing us: if we stick to what he says and believe in the immortal soul, we will be happy:

Thus, Glaucon, the tale has been saved, and will be our salvation, if we believe that the soul is immortal, and hold fast to the heavenly way of Justice and Knowledge. So shall we pass undefiled over the river of Forgetfulness, and be dear to ourselves and to the Gods, and have a crown of reward and happiness both in this world and also in the millennial pilgrimage of the other.

As I observed in a previous entry, during the savage destruction of most of the books of the classical world by the Judeo-Christians, it survived a work that many consider a precursor of the Christian doctrine of the human soul. The Republic, to use the falsified title, is anachronistic in many other ways. In addition to his post-mortem masturbations, what is the point of praising Plato when he did not oppose the incipient miscegenation of Athens with the greatest possible vehemence?

Unlike every rabbi who practices intuitive eugenics, Plato did not even leave offspring. He was not a husband or father. In his case, no good genes passed to the next generation (where his sperm ended, I dare not speculate). Moreover, he believed that in his republic women could perform the same functions of the male, even the highest. Compare the feminism of this philosopher of 2,400 years ago with what the Orthodox Jews of New York teach today: they educate their women to behave like little red riding hoods!

Whoever complies with the laws of Nature survives and who violates them perishes. At present the Jews fulfil them and the Aryans violate them. The white race will not be saved unless it makes a destructive criticism of much of what passes for ‘wisdom of the West’, starting with the Greeks.

Beam on the Aryan problem!

Louis Beam said: ‘The real problem is you… that has given this land to the enemy… There is no such thing as Jewish domination. There is only white submissiveness. Refuse to submit and there is no longer domination’.

Published in: on April 25, 2018 at 1:38 pm  Comments (22)  
Tags:

On white sins

It is true that this site focuses on the Christian problem. But that does not mean that I believe that Christian ethics is the sole sin in white decline. Our focus is due to the fact that no Alt-Right site is exposing such sin as a factor to be studied.

There are other cardinal sins. Recently for example Tom Sunic said: ‘Both the early liberals C. Montesquieu and later A. Smith wrote that “merchant ignores all borders.” This is how the West was designed by the world improvers in the wake of WWII’.

In other words, in addition to Christian ethics being a pig is a major factor in the downfall of whites!

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.

Über cuck: Alexander the Great

I have been in friendly discussion with a correspondent from New York about my criticism of monocausalism. Like some white nationalists, he’s a proponent of reductionism. I’ll illustrate his point with an anecdote.

Yesterday an erudite criollo that speaks fluent Latin and also reads in Greek visited my house. As he was a professor of Hispanic literature at Harvard, he’s fairly knowledgeable of the history of the Americas.

He informed me about something I was unaware of: the ‘prueba de sangre’ (for a wiki article on the subject see: here) that the New Spaniards performed on those suspected of being crypto-Jews. What I ignored is that it was far tougher than the Nuremberg laws, as no less than eight generations in the past were investigated to make sure that the guy in question would not behave subversively in New Spain (now Mexico).

However, even with such stringent controls, the New Spaniards committed ethnosuicide through the miscegenation approved by the Pope himself. My New Yorker correspondent still believes that it is possible to salvage the single-cause hypothesis (Jewish subversion as the primary factor of white decline) as he sees Christianity as a form of Jewish psyop for whites.

I appreciate and respect his point, but the sad truth is that even before Christian takeover after Constantine, so well explained in the masthead of this site by the Spaniard Evropa Soberana, very powerful Aryans suffered from ethno-suicidal behaviour. In ‘Costin Alamariu Is Damn Right About The Alt-Right’ the author includes a quote of Alexander the Great that proves my point: side by side with the JP we have an Aryan Problem.

Alexander was one of the most startling universalist figures of his day. His Oath from 324 BC, as recorded by Eratosthenes and others, reads:

‘From now on, let all mortals live as one people, in fellowship, for the good of all. See the whole world as your homeland, with laws common to all, where the best will govern regardless of their race. Unlike the narrow-minded, I make no distinction between Greeks and Barbarians. The origin of citizens, or the race into which they were born, is of no concern to me. I have only one criterion by which to distinguish their virtue. For me, any good foreigner is a Greek and any bad Greek is worse than a barbarian’.

No sword!

This is a postscript to my two previous entries. Next, the translation of two different passages of the book whose syntax I find myself reviewing:

Remember that [my father] baptised his cantata La Espada [The Sword]. Now that I have buried my mind into the texts of white nationalists, I could not help remembering when I read something that, rephrasing Dominique Venner, Michael O’Meara wrote: ‘The European of history is best seen as a warrior bearing a sword, symbol of his will’, and he added that the Hellenes made their debut in history by refusing to be slaves. Nothing can contrast this old European Aryan with the Shakespearean evasion that has sealed the character of my father. [page 116, a reference to the 1948 Hamlet film epigraph after minute 1:45]

The above quote was taken from a section, ‘Caballero sin espada’ (knight without a sword) in reference to a dream while sleeping that plagued my father’s youth, when he dreamt himself fighting an obscure force without a sword. The following is taken from page 11 of the Introduction:

The objective of my writings, in which I include what I write in my private blog Hojas Eliminadas, would be to show that the evil that afflicts the white man is exactly the same that destroyed my tree and the morals of my beloved family… If I could unravel the evil that destroyed me, I will probably unravel the evil that destroys the white race around the world, including the mass migration of people of colour into the West that I witnessed on my last trip to the United Kingdom. In other words, the evil I saw in my parents, acquaintances, psychiatrists and the evil I see in Westerners who commit ethnic suicide could be, ultimately, two sides of the same coin. There is no qualitative difference between my father’s ‘comfy’ mind and that of millions of Europeans, Americans and Australians. In times of bread for all and all kinds of circuses, the passivity of Westerners [no sword] before the elites ran parallel to the sociopathic passivity of my father before my [disturbed] mother. I confess that, in my [winter] soliloquy to warm my feet and hands, I told myself that those millions of white males were exactly like my father. For decades I had imagined that people outside my family were better, or in other words, less depraved; less destructive or less crazy. The truth is that those who are allowing their beautiful race to die out (note in the image of Missa Hercules[1] that the female above the young Greek is no longer Aryan) are as wicked as my father was. I do not think they are any less bad than the central character of my two volumes. What I could not understand in the Internet forums of those who complain about Aryan decline, we can ponder by reducing a complex problem—the character of millions of Westerners—to a problem that I am able to address: the character of my father. That deserves to venture into a new literary genre.

________________________

[1] This is a reference to a previous passage from the Preface where I reproduced this image: something related to the tragedy of the transition from the Classical World to the Christian world. As a teenager, I often listened to the music of this mass by Josquin Des Prés: an LP record that my father very much appreciated.

Of course, in-context the above-translated paragraphs are more comprehensible.

Published in: on March 12, 2018 at 12:20 pm  Comments (16)  
Tags: ,

Kriminalgeschichte, 36

Editor’s note: After reading the stories of the white race of Pierce and Kemp, it is obvious that, once the ‘Aryan problem’ is understood, the most practical thing is to exterminate the conquered non-whites instead of using them.

The Aryan problem consists of seeing as capital (slaves) a lower species of humans whose biology allows them to de-code the Aryan DNA and produce fertile mongrels if crossbreeding with them. Since sexual lust is natural among whites, this was precisely how the Roman Empire declined and fell.

In this section we see what Deschner says about the son of Constantine who inherited the empire. Like his father, he forbade Jews from any activity involving slaves: ‘That’s when the Jews’ dedication to financial activities began’. The Christian Constantius practised scorched-earth policies against his Germanic neighbours but not against the Semites at home! In our days the Jewish dominion of the financial sector has its roots in the non-exterminationist, misconceived policies of the Roman emperors. Deschner wrote:

______ 卐 ______

 
Constantius and his Christian-style government

(Bust of Constantius II.) Not content with these perfidious massacres, the ‘religiosissimus imperator’ undertook continuous wars against the Alamanni, the Sarmatians, the Persians and other nations; always very cautious, slow but conscientious, always preparing the campaigns thoroughly, from Mesopotamia to the Rhine. He used to leave only a scorched earth behind him.

That politician of whispering and cabinet, in whose court an extraordinary accumulation of bishops met, had very intimate relations with religion. ‘The first ruler who considered himself enthroned by the grace of God’ (Seeck), and who liked to be called officially lord of the whole earth and ‘my eternity’ (aeternitatem meam), was convinced of being an instrument appointed by the Most High and enjoyed the special protection of an angel, whose vague and vaporous contours he even thought he saw sometimes, floating in the air. He practiced chastity with more conviction than his brother, the fan of the ephebes.

This emperor favoured the Christian priests even more than his father, and confirmed, enlarged and multiplied the privileges granted.

If Constantine had dispensed them from the artisanal contribution, Constantius forgave them the territorial contribution and the tax for the use of mail. In the year 355, he ordered that the bishops could not be tried by the common courts, ‘to avoid false testimonies promoted by the fanatical spirits’. And not only did he exempt them from common services, but their wives and children as well as their servants of both sexes would be exempt in perpetuity from all kinds of taxes and benefits on behalf of the State. However, and this is typical of all ecclesiastical history, such concessions only served to make the clergy claim even more privileges.

Constantius, who was not baptized until the end of his life, as his father had done (and in that case, too, being the Arian officiant Eudocium of Antioch), was an Arian Christian. Father Athanasius, his main adversary, includes him in the large list of great Biblical sinners: he calls him perjurer, unjust, irresponsible and worse than the pagan emperors, leader of the impious, accomplice of bandits and Antichrist. ‘There is hardly room for insults worse than those lavished by Athanasius’ (Hagel).

Like his father, Constantius used Christianity as an instrument of his politics and not the other way around. Therefore, as soon as he saw himself as the sole emperor, his first concern was the unity of the Church, although unlike his father, he preferred to look for it in the Arian patriarchs. Hence he banished one after another of numerous Catholic patriarchs, including Athanasius, Paul of Constantinople and Hilary de Poitiers.

Others, like Pope Liberius and Hosius of Corduba, suffered the weight of his authority: ‘My will must be law for the Church’, he explained to those gathered in Milan in 355. ‘You will obey, or you will be banished’. At the same time persecution continued against the Donatists of Africa that Constantine did not initiate, and even proceeded against a sect of Arianism, that of the Anomoeans, seventy of whose bishops are said to have been exiled by his order.

With the Jews, Constantius was even more brutal than his father. A law of the year 339, which calls them a ‘nefarious sect’ and calls ‘markets’ their places of assembly, prohibits under pain of death at the stake to make it difficult for any Jew to pretend to convert to Christianity.

Now, even if the Jews were authorized to become Christians, the Christian who converted to Judaism faced the ‘deserved punishment’, according to the emperor, of confiscation of all his property. He forbade marriages between Christians and Jews; in particular, he persecuted the entry of women into the Hebrew communities with the death penalty.

The Jews could not buy slaves, even if they were pagans, under penalty of confiscation of property, or death penalty if they dared to circumcise them. Consequently, he forbade them any economic activity whose exploitation necessitated the employment of slaves; surely, that’s when the Jews’ dedication to financial activities began, which made them even more hated. The repression was severe, especially with the Jews of Palestine, after an insurrection that was bloody crushed.

The attitude of Constantius against the pagans was also very hard, probably instigated by the Christian party.

WDH Radio Show – Episode 6

Conversation with Joseph Walsh

— Listen to it here! —
 

This was an informal chat of two days ago with Joseph Walsh that I found suitable for Episode 6.

If you forgive my broken English, the first subject we discussed is the imprisonment of nationalist Britons a few days ago for thoughtcrime (see also here and here).

Then we talked about the coming financial collapse: something that, among white advocates, very few are paying due attention (see e.g., yesterday’s Rebel Yell article here).

Aryan ethno-suicide is discussed as more serious than the JP, in the context of Christian ethics.

Near the end of the recording we approached the subject of a paradigm shift by 2070 A.D. (“the Jesus era is over!”).