The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Topics/Categories Filter?
Administrativa America Arts/Letters Bitcoin Comment Moderation Cryptocurrency Culture/Society Economics Germans Germany History Ideology Money Nation Of Hate New Dark Age Nietzsche Philosophy Poetry Race/Ethnicity Science 汪精衛 About The Author Aeneas Aeneid American Gangsterism American Inferiority Complex American Jealousy American War Guilt Andrew Anglin Anthropoid Livestock Antifeminism Antiquarianism Antiquity Applied Cryptography Aristocracy Art Athena Athena Parthenos Beyond Good And Evil Blasphemy Central Banking Central Banks China Christianity Classical Antiquity Collective Guilt Courtesy Cryptography Cultural Residues Currency Democracy Equal And Opposite Errors Fallacies Federal Reserve Feminism Fiat Money Foreign Policy Foresight Gambler’s Fallacy German Reconstruction German Superiority Goebbels Family Gold Goldbugs Hate Speech Helmut Goebbels Herrenmoral Human Livestock In Memoriam India Information Security Japan Jesus Letters To The Editor Love Luca Giordano Make Love And War Man And Woman Mass Surveillance Men And Women Michaelmas Mining Misogyny Moderation Monetary Policy Monetary Theory My Random God NSA Opsec Original Thinking PGP Posterity Praxis Privacy Prostitution Pseudomorphosis Racism Radicalism Random Numbers Reconstruction Revenge Robert Graves Rudyard Kipling Security Sklavenmoral Sound Money Subhas Chandra Bose Surveillance Capitalism Technics Technology Temporal Myopia The Dangerous Sex The Domestication Of Man The Female Of The Species The Free World The Sins Of The Fathers The Virtue Of Inequality The Will To Immortality Truth Tyche U.S. Federal Reserve United States Venus Wallets Wang Ching Wei Wang Jingwei War War Guilt Why Germans Are Hated Wisdom Women World War II WWII
Nothing found
 TeasersRaches' Political Proems

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
A general Proems thread for discussion of money, monetary theory, banking, etc.

Raches on Money

In another thread, discussion diverged into a tangent on money, monetary policy, central banking, the history thereof in various countries, and the application thereof in present-day American politics.  As I thereby observed, my own views “are rather nuanced:  As an admirer of Hitler’s régime (and of Schacht’s work at the Reichsbank), I obviously do not have an absolutist principle against fiat money—and as a Bitcoiner (and a bit of a goldbug), I obviously have no great love for the U.S. Federal Reserve scam.”

Fiat money and central banking are powerful tools.  Although some tools are more susceptible to abuse than others, categorically praising or condemning tools in absolutist terms is usually a mark of simplemindedness.

The tools at hand can be used to help revive an economy that is in such dire straits, the gold standard is not even a practical option for want of gold reserves; that was the case in Hitler’s Germany.  Or they can be abused to skim the cream off the top of an economy for the delectation of bankers and corrupt governments; that is the case of the U.S. Federal Reserve, a system that was substantially born into American law together with its twin, the Marxist progressive income tax.

The American implementations of central banking, fiat money, and the income tax work in tandem, as an integrated extractive system, to reduce the American livestock to slavery-by-another-name.  Indeed, the typical American now has far more real value extracted from him than a Roman household slave—and unlike the latter, the American can never hope to buy his emancipation, as some Roman slaves did after saving up their own money.  That the American people accept this is conclusive proof that they are natural born slaves—most likely with that tendency bred into their genetics.  —This is an observation of reality.  It is obviously not much of a libertarian argument, if I find Hitler’s central banking and taxation perfectly acceptable.

Gold is generally sound money; and moreover, the American government’s policy towards gold much reveals the nature of its tyranny.  When Roosevelt seized the American people’s gold bullion in 1934, the result should have been immediate armed revolution—if the American people were not natural born slaves, as aforesaid.  For the American government to forbid its people from owning gold for the next four decades shows the hollowness of America’s pretense at being a “free country”.  Oh, “the Land of the Free”—where the government can treat gold coins and bars as “contraband”!  And in substantial effect, the Nixon Shock did to other (ostensibly) sovereign governments what Roosevelt had done domestically.[1]

Bitcoin is sound money.  Its nature is frequently misunderstood; that is unsurprising, for it is the invention of a totally new form of money.  Its implementation is free speech:  The unrestricted, permissionless communication of financial information—which I argue must perforce be protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, thus subjecting any American regulation thereof to “strict scrutiny”.[2]  Its fundamental value derives from the financial consensus by which, as a new form of money, it facilitates economic activity which would otherwise be inconvenient, expensive, or totally impractical.  This is no mere theory:  I have seen productivity happen, which would not have happened but for Bitcoin and Bitcoin’s monetary characteristics.  And with a supply cap as a part of its consensus, Bitcoin is an excellent store of value.  In future Proems, I will elaborate on my theory of Bitcoin’s nature, its characteristics, and its value fundamentals, in addition to technical discussion.

But I do not idealize these forms of money as the best in all conceivable circumstances.  Indeed, I wish for something better.  Gold markets are susceptible to manipulation—much to the profit of Jewish bankers, as seen in history.  The scarcity which helps to make gold valuable can itself cause economic problems—which can be manipulated to feed into wars and revolutions, as also seen in history.  And Bitcoin suffers some of gold’s problems—in addition to the obvious problem that it depends on the existence of a technological, industrial society to support the Internet.  I do not idealize deflation; I actually dislike deflation, although I prefer it to the inflation which punishes savers.

Upon analyzing these problems, I have tried every which way I can imagine to design a Bitcoin-like new money with better economic characteristics.  I ultimately conclude that the ideal money requires a trustworthy government.  In the absence thereof, I much prefer goldbug economics and anarchic cypherpunk money.

By analogy, consider censorship.  Censorship, like central banking and fiat money, is a powerful tool.  I would willingly accept, and even prefer to live under the censorship régime of Reichsminister Dr. Goebbels.  If I did, then I may need to abstain from saying some things I want to say—for the greater good; that would be acceptable to me, if Dr. Goebbels shuts down the liars, mass-manipulators, and culture-distorters.  By the same light, I would accept fiat currency issued by a government which genuinely cares about the economic well-being of the people.  The same considerations apply to taxation, and to numerous other aspects of government.

Liberty and Authority

On a related note, I think that intelligent libertarians are closer to authoritarians than seen by those who see only the surface.  In America, much of what is now called “libertarianism” would have been called “conservatism”[3] eighty or a hundred years ago; that political heritage has been corrupted and distorted by pot-smoking hippies and raving lunatics, but it is still there beneath the surface.  And the deeper tendencies of a conservative may turn to what Professor Oliver called a “rational authoritarianism”; he himself was a liberty-oriented conservative, an admirer of Albert Jay Nock, before he turned to praise Adolf Hitler.  Adjusting some of his own terminology, I call the Oliverian political trajectory the “Cicero to Caesar Pipeline”—a much more refined, aristocratic version of the so-called “libertarian to alt-right pipeline”.

I myself am an authoritarian with some libertarian sympathies.[4]  I do not see any contradiction in that:  Just as my extreme long-term individual selfishness leads me to a worldview centered around connections to others, so do I realize that my deep desire for personal liberty can be manifested and defended only through a hierarchical, authoritarian group.  Amongst one’s own,—together with others, there is a freedom that can never be had by individual atoms floating in an anthropoid sea, each alone in the crowd—each a slave of the ochlocratic mass, in the universal slavery of each to all.  I diagonally cut the “libertarian-authoritarian spectrum” to shreds.

Although libertarianism, and also U.S. electoral politics, are not the primary topics hereof, these subjects will inevitably arise in a discussion of money and monetary policy.  I will therefore permit such discussion in the comments, as long as it more or less relates to money.

Whereupon I invite Unz Review commentators to talk about money. ®


Notes

[1] It also showed, yet again, that an American promise can never be trusted—a principle already well-known to anyone who had been paying attention.

[2] To my knowledge, this argument is original to me.  I hope to see others take it up.

[3] I did specify:  In America.  In Europe, “conservatism” has always had a different meaning, often related to monarchism.

[4] I do detest the stupider breed of libertarians, who tend to rant and rave and spout lists of quotes instead of presenting logical arguments; but that is a problem with many ideologies, not only libertarianism.  It is especially bad anywhere at the political fringes.

 
Reach out and get in touch with me—if you at least minimally qualify.

The Big Data Soul-Market

A thousand times, I would rather be her than a Gmail user.  She still has some private thoughts.  (Jean-Léon Gérôme, Marché romain aux esclaves, c. 1884.)

A criss-crossing dragnet of corporate mass-surveillance and intelligence agency mass-surveillance perpetually sucks up the essence of you.  Your soul is stolen, filed away in a data warehouse, and held at the mercy of those who may wish to examine it, buy it and sell it, use and abuse it.  The mass-violation is enormous—indescribable.  And you probably do not even realize that it is happening to you.

If you fail to resist this—if you fail to reject it—then you are a slave of the soul subsisting in a global panopticon.  Your life, your personal relationships, and your very thoughts are not your own:  They are property owned by others, stored in databases and managed by robots.  You are soulless anthropoid livestock that exists for the pleasure and profit of your owners—and at their mercy.  A slave-girl seized in war and sold at auction has more inviolable dignity than you.

I am the free, the proud, the inviolable—the untouchable.  My soul belongs to me. ®

The Mass-Rape of Souls

What is best called a “soul”, if we avoid any mystical propositions of immaterial beings that cannot be observed?

Your innermost thoughts, your dreams, your most secret fears and hopes.  Your fantasies—and your most private realities.  Your closest and most intimate connections with other people.  Your own perceptions from the cradle to the grave, looking outwards from inside yourself—and looking into yourself, from within.

Your psyche.

Nowadays, you ask Google Search the secret thoughts and questions that you would never reveal to your spouse, your clergy, or your psychiatrist.  If you lie awake at three in the morning with some hidden preoccupation, and you want to put your mind at ease, you ask Google for the answers.  If you heard of some erotic diversion that you would never admit to intrigue you, and which you perhaps may not ever intend to do, you ask Google to sate your idle curiosity.  Your medical condition, your financial plans, and most all else about you is revealed to Google by your queries.

Google Search is the most powerful psychological interrogation and profiling tool ever invented.  The record of your queries gives Google a record of your thoughts, almost as if by mind-reading.

If you use Gmail, then Google also has a complete record of your intimate communications and your inviolable personal relationships.  And the same principle applies in different degree to any unencrypted, insecure email.  —And the same principle applies to all unencrypted electronic communications.

Imagine someone out there having a transcript of all your discussions with your wife or husband, your parents, your children, your best friends…  Then, realize that someone does have that, more or less.

Now, consider your phone.  You carry it everywhere.  Around 2012, I put on my “evil hat”, imagined being the NSA, and asked myself what the most important ways would be to watch everybody all the time.  One of my top answers:  Location.  My conclusion as such was vindicated by the Snowden revelations in 2013.

I mused that in modern times, a stereotypical psychotic delusion is the belief that the government or space aliens has implanted a person with a tracking chip—in the manner of tracking cattle.  Whereas now, in reality, the anthropoid herds voluntarily carry the tracking devices—and they even pay for the privilege of carrying a device which is not only a location-tracker, but a network-controllable bugging device.  Your phone can unobtrusively capture audio—and nowadays, video; and it can be controlled by hackers, whether those hackers are called “intelligence”, “police“, or “criminals”.  It also hooks you up to a 24/7 propaganda stream via the Facebook app, the Twitter app, and the apps or websites for your favorite sources of “news” and other entertainment.

Without exaggeration, you are choosing to carry with you the v2.0 upgrade of an Orwellian telescreen—with location-tracking.

Now, let me not even get started on the state of privacy on the Web; I must reserve that for future commentary.

I must emphasize that plutocratic corporate mass-surveillance, “surveillance capitalism”, is of even greater concern to me than intelligence agency mass-surveillance.  Of course, I am worried about the NSA, et al.  But what is worse, much worse in practice, is the unbounded hunger of surveillance capitalists to tap, track, trace, data-mine, and manipulate Big Data for commercial gain.  The tyrants of corrupt governments are primarily interested in preventing threats to the state—and to that end, they have at their disposal raw power beyond the wildest fantasies of Stalin’s NKVD.  The Big Data surveillance capitalists have an insatiate lust to steal the soul of each and every individual on Earth, because “data is [sic] the new oil”.  And the latter feed the former, too.  Every which way, for those who seek privacy on ideological (or even religious) grounds, or for a simple desire for human dignity, corporations are the primary threat.

The Hidden War

Against the thieves of souls, who rob you of your privacy and violate every intimate detail of your life, there is a hidden war, a Crypto-War, in which the free and the proud must use every tool at their disposal.  And it is not a war of “left” versus “right”.

Those who duly appreciated Philip Giraldi’s recent article on Julian Assange will be unsurprised to find me going full cypherpunk here.  By historical analogy hereto:  Assange and Timothy C. May were basically on “the same side” about privacy and encryption, even though May was an elitist and Assange is an egalitarian believer in democracy.  Although I will assuredly beat good old T. C. May hands down for political incorrectness, the same principle hereby applies.

To Touch the Untouchable

I believe in praxis.  Ideology must be lived.  The political is personal.

Thus, synthesizing the thoughts that I have expressed, plus my dream of establishing an intellectual aristocracy, I reach the following conclusions:

1. If I represent hereby any truth, I must be hard to get.  (That blog post on “Truth Wisdom” was originally the beginning of this post.)

2. My private communications must be kept private, as always they are:  My soul is inviolable.

This is consistent with my general policy in life.  I always want to make new friends—but quality is more important than quantity; and I am not desperate for fan mail.  I always encrypt all of my electronic communications, absolutely without exception, to the maximal extent that is feasible.  I dearly appreciate eloquent epistolary exchanges with people who are not stupid and not lazy.

Wherefore to reach me, you must at least minimally qualify.  My criteria:  A modicum of knowledge, or a modicum of effort to attain new knowledge.  Also, as another selection filter, my contact information is buried at the bottom of an essay where only my regular readers will find it, unless I “deep link” to it from elsewhere.

(Note that this policy may change.  Depending how my blog goes, for practical reasons, I may need to put out an email address someday.  If so, I will edit this paragraph, and the relevant sections below; but I will leave the rest hereof for historical reference.  Of course, I will always minimize or refuse unencrypted personal contact.)

Raches versus Email

Being so selective cuts spam, and makes email tolerable to me.  Whereas email is so disruptive that some people altogether eschew it.  Most famously, Professor Knuth, the scholar of computer science, has an essay on his site titled “Knuth versus Email”:

I have been a happy man ever since January 1, 1990, when I no longer had an email address.  I’d used email since about 1975, and it seems to me that 15 years of email is plenty for one lifetime.

Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things.  But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things.  What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration.

[…]

`I don’t even have an e-mail address. I have reached an age where my main purpose is not to receive messages.' --- Umberto Eco, quoted in the New Yorker

A recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education provocatively entitled, “Is Email Making Professors Stupid?” (February 12, 2019) is inspired by Knuth; and it opines:  “Email has become a kind of digital water torture for the scholar struggling to think without interruption.”

If I did not so treasure the secret exchange of encrypted letters, I may agree with Knuth.  I do mean letters.  Outside quick memoranda, I treat writing an email in the same manner as I treat writing an old-fashioned letter.  It is a good mental model for enjoying all the good characteristics of email, without its disruptive effects.

The Rules of Secure Communication

In brief hereby—to be elaborated in future Proems:

1. Never send anything in unencrypted email that you would not snailmail on a postcard.  This is a very old rule on the Internet.  The fact that so many people have not learned it makes me pessimistic for the future of the world.

2. All nonpublic communications should be encrypted all the time—no exceptions.  If you distinguish between “really private stuff” and “eh, I’m not encrypting this”, that has three problems:  You flag to any observer the particular messages that may be “interesting”.  You misjudge between the two categories—inevitably; you cannot always predict what may be “interesting” in the future.  And you develop bad habits.  You need to set yourself up so that encryption is convenient, so you can use it for everything.

3. First contact is oft the most important to secure.

I do mean that I encrypt everything all the time.  If I want to send one of my friends a cute cat photo, I encrypt it.  If I want to discuss recipes for chocolate-chip cookies, I encrypt it.  This takes no effort.  I am properly set up so that encryption is automatic; once I have a correspondent’s key in my system, all that I need to do is to keep out a vigilant eye to make sure that the system continues doing what it is supposed to do.

Contact

For the above-stated reasons, this is how to contact me:

  1. Use the below PGP key, which does not include an email address, to encrypt a message to me.  If you do not know how to use PGP/GPG, this is your opportunity to learn.  Do some research—or just wait for me to blog an introduction to PGP, as I intend sometime to do.  Don’t avoid it; if you don’t invest the modest effort to get up and running with PGP, then you may later suffer from what I call Greenwald’s Regret.
  2. Leave the encrypted message in a comment on this thread, with no other text.  Comments that contain any unencrypted text may be published.  Just slap in a blob of ASCII-armored PGP-encrypted gibberish—that’s it!
  3. I will receive your message in my moderation queue.  It should not be published—but if it is by accident, the damage is limited:  It is encrypted.  You should always assume that anything entered in the comment form is not private.
  4. Inside your encrypted message, be sure to include your email address and your own PGP key, so that I can reply.  I will not reply without encryption.  As an exception to the above rules, you may include your PGP key separately from your message if you find it too inconvenient to put inside; however, this is not preferable.  (Those who use Protonmail may omit their keys, which I can easily obtain myself; but Protonmail is not preferred with me, although it is acceptable.  I can also fetch keys via WKD; but if I have any difficulty finding your key, I will not reply.  I will not search keyservers.)
  5. Be sure to check your spam folder.  If I reply, I may reply from an anonymous throwaway address that tends to get messages eaten by a robot.  Spies who solicit contact here to discover my email address will be sad to discover:  I use no-value throwaway addresses, and I change them more often than most people change their socks.
  6. If you fail to encrypt your message properly (so I can’t decrypt it), or my reply is lost in the mail, then unfortunately, I cannot do anything about that.
  7. Unencrypted comments may be published, even if they express a request not to publish.  To contact me privately, you MUST use encryption.  DO NOT say anything unencrypted here that you would be upset to see published to the whole world!

PGP Key

Last modified:  2021-10-11.  Subject to change; always check back here for the current key, unless or until I declare a key stable.  For usage, read the above instructions.

pub   ed25519/0xA93EEAE36F060709 2021-10-11 [SC] [expires: 2022-10-11]
      Key fingerprint = 4BFE 86C5 2A9C AB1D 93D7  CD2E A93E EAE3 6F06 0709
uid                   [ultimate] Raches (https://www.unz.com/proems/untouchable/#contact)
sub   cv25519/0x708430F2EB7B8585 2021-10-11 [E] [expires: 2022-10-11]

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
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=GVOt
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
 
One plays hard to get; the other is an eternal virgin.

Seducing Truth

Vorausgesetzt, daß die Wahrheit ein Weib ist—, wie?

As his setup for going Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche asks:  “Supposing that Truth is a woman—what then?”  In his own way, he then observes that, in substantial essence, philosophers are clueless, clumsy, cowardly beta-boys who do not know how to win a woman.

Thereupon, he, as an alpha-philologist, moves in on the philosophers’ turf to get the girl who has rejected them.  With casual contempt, he dismisses all of the luckless wannabes who have been trying and failing to bother her; thus does he demolish three millennia of Western philosophy.  Having gotten Truth alone, he takes her out on a date beyond good and evil.

This wooing of Fräulein Truth follows the course set in Nietzsche’s previous book, Thus Spake Zarathustra:

Courageous, unconcerned, scornful, coercive—so wisdom wisheth us; she is a woman, and ever loveth only a warrior.

That is one of the most famous Nietzsche quotes; but I think it is mostly misunderstood, reduced to a cheap platitude by the brain disease of liberalism.  What does it mean to be “mutig, unbekümmert, spöttisch, gewalttätig”?  I will speak boldly what none dares think, I don’t care what anyone says, I contemn my critics, and I will force my way—I don’t take “no” for an answer!  Some of my detractors in the comments here exemplify how modern society sees this.  Idly contemplating their impotent bile, I pause to wonder:  Can wisdom be had any other way?

Eternally Untouchable Virgin Wisdom

According to my esoteric interpretation of the Greeks, perhaps wisdom cannot be had at all.  She is untouchable.  Athena Parthenos, Athena the Virgin, is, in my opinion, very different from the Christian notion of a virgin goddess (or quasi-goddess, as the Virgin Mary).

Classicists may scream Gewalt![1] at my coercion of the exoteric canon, but I will be “unbekümmert”.  I see Athena as that hot girl with a cold attitude, whom you never dared to approach when you were a teenager.  She shoots men down in flames with an icy glance.  In this case, she truly is too good for you—and for everyone else:  An aristocrat of her sex, who stands apart even from her divine peers.  She is the archetype of the fate that oft[2] befalls extremely smart women, who face the choice between loneliness and “settling”.  A woman needs a man who can exceed her; for the Goddess of Wisdom, there is none, even amongst the gods.

Although Sex loves War, virgin Wisdom may only be known through War.  Wherefore Athena Parthenos is also Pallas.

Wisdom personified:  She is untouchable and unapproachable.  Have not the hubris to presume that you may ever know her intimately. ®


Notes

[1] German Gewalt—here, echoing the above “gewalttätig”—as distinct from the word’s bastardization as Yiddish gevalt.  My musing on these words will be a subject of future Proems.

[2] Either that, or the opposite extreme.  I have another theory about this; but I hereby omit it, lest I be accused of sockpuppetry.

 
The Dangerous Sex.

Judge This Book by Its Cover

The Female of the Species, by Rudyard Kipling

When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
’Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man’s timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn’t his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husband, each confirms the other’s tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger!  Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells.
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate!
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it!  Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

Sources

Originally written in 1911.  Reprinted hereby from The Years Between (London, 1919).  A copy with the cover; a clearer scan of the text.

The Dangerous Sex

This poem was, of course, a favorite of Professor Oliver’s.  I have no doubt that Nietzsche, too, would have loved it; by his lights, I think it would have been a moment of an Englishman escaping cultural mediocrity!

Kipling clearly wrote the above words to urge against women’s suffrage.  But the poem is a double-edged sword—and Kipling here recognized an essential truth, an ancient truth,[1] that has been buried beneath modern ideas.  Neither “the weaker sex”, nor peaceful angels (!), women in their inner natures are gloriously undomesticated and undomesticable.

Women are the dangerous sex.  The natural fanatics.  As religionists—“the religious sex”, as Professor Oliver fondly said.  The instinctive sex, with a nature “more natural than that of man”, as Nietzsche observed.  The furious sex:  Wiser men of wiser times perceived the Furies as female.  In personal affairs, the extremists of love and hate.  In politics—the natural radicals.

There is thus in womankind a source of power.  Contrary to the mythology of some quarters of the far right, the Jews did not invent feminism:  The modern ideology that we now call feminism was substantially invented by degenerate Aryan men in alliance with degenerate Aryan women.  But organized Jewry seized upon it,[2] for they recognized that an organized, countercultural women’s movement had the power to burn traditional society to the ground.  Against this, conservatives and traditionalists have perennially tried to put the genie back in the bottle.  Now, look to the results!

Perhaps if Ludovici’s incisive antifeminist works had been heeded, some workable semblance of traditional rôles and relations between the sexes could have been restored as recently as seventy years ago.  Now, such a prospect is as hopeless as it was in Germany in the 1920s to roll back all that had passed since the revolutions of 1848.[3]

At this late date, already in a New Dark Age, there is nothing left to conserve.  Cultural traditions have been so thoroughly annihilated, those alive today cannot imagine what a “traditional” lifestyle really meant—and even those who claim to recognize this tend to fall into the trap of equal and opposite errors.  The “inner experience”, the Weltanschauung of past cultural traditions no longer exists; and those alive today have no organic connection to it.  The clock cannot be turned back by even a paltry hundred years—let alone by millennia, as I myself quite frankly would prefer.

The answer is a new radicalism:  A new way inspired by the best of the past, and most of all by classical antiquity, to build a better future.  Only thus may the lies of modernity be torn out root and branch.

And such an historic enterprise needs the uncompromising, pitiless Law of the convictions of the dread and deadly Female of the Species. ®


Notes

[1] Observe that whereas ancient gods were fearsome warriors, many of the most terrifying rôles were reserved for divine women:  Nemesis—and the Erinyes, the literal Furies.  Tyche, oft called the Empress of the World, whose fickle whims set and reset the destinies of men and of nations.  Eris.  This list could be much extended…  Even the goddess of wisdom was combined with the goddess of war—and made an untouchable virgin, whom even the gods could not intimately approach; Athena Pallas embodies in philosophy and in the affairs of men what Artemis, the Huntress, personifies in Man’s contact with Nature.  And even the erotic Aphrodite loved war—both in the myth of her tryst with the god of war, and in her blessings of her warlike mortal son.

All of these goddesses were worshipped in a society so extremely patriarchal, its relations between the sexes are unimaginable to those worldview has been turned upside-down and inside-out by many centuries of Christianity.

[2] Cf. the insight at The Antichrist 24.

[3] 06e1abae1321f4cf9243102a83f3df2e1ff60ce6c222835d8854a9063b18d159

 
In large part, the Americans waged a war of jealousy and covetousness. America is a nation of gangsters.

In reply to a German-hating commentator, another commentator recently remarked:[1]

Your whole argument on Germans reminds me of a guy who answered someone who said that the accomplishments of Germany are “mindboggling”. This guy answered somewhat reluctantly, “They make good cars!” lol

As I have previously commented upon, and will blog more about in the future, the Americans bragged about how they looted the brains of the Germans—by unavoidable implication, the Germans’ superior brains.

Quoting ultra-mainstream, classy (for an American magazine) Harper’s, C. Lester Walker, “Secrets by the Thousands”, October 1946:[2]

Someone wrote to Wright Field recently, saying he understood this country had got together quite a collection of enemy war secrets, that many were now on public sale, and could he, please, be sent everything on German jet engines.  The Air Documents Division of the Army Air Forces answered:

“Sorry—but that would be fifty tons.”

Moreover, that fifty tons was just a small portion… […]

In Washington, the Office of Technical Services [] reports that tens of thousands of tons of material are involved.  It is estimated that over a million separate items must be handled, and that they, very likely, contain practically all the scientific, industrial, and military secrets of Nazi Germany.

One Washington official has called it “the greatest single source of this type of material in the world, the first orderly exploitation of an entire country’s brainpower.”

Read the whole article, weep—and be fired with wrath.  For the Americans to rob the Germans was an act that speaks for itself—for them to brag about so robbing the achievements that they themselves could never make was sick, sick, sick, as sick as it was for them to publish a photo of an American woman collecting a “Jap skull” in the manner of a serial-killer trophy, as “Photo of the Week” in so-called “LIFE” (!) magazine.  No wonder the Americans have such a fetish for lurid fantasies about Germans gassing Jews, stuffing Jews into ovens, melting down Jewish bodies and making them into soap:[3]  It is called psychological projection.

America has the culture of a gang of deranged criminals; no wonder the American people accept literally being ruled by gangsters as their so-called “government”.  And when Americans speak of “liberating” a country, as I recently remarked, they mean it in the sense that shoplifters speak of “liberating” goodies that they want—except that the Americans are orders of magnitude more violent criminals, and instead of only stealing material stuff, they steal achievements, they steal glory, they steal culture—they steal souls.  By comparison, how innocent were the old Vikings, who made merry by pillaging gold and women!

The Americans violently robbed the Germans of superior German science and technology.  The brain-leeching American pirates also took for themselves some of the best German scientists on offer you can’t refuse types of terms, used them to put on the moon an ugly American flag[4] (which should by right have been a Swastika flag), and then viciously persecuted one of them to please the Jews.

So, yes:  By the undeniable admission of their own acts, the Americans proclaimed to history that the Germans were incomparably superior to themselves.  Seething with jealous hatred, the Americans coveted German superiority:  They had to destroy it, and they also had to steal as much of it as they could.

Of course, echoing my recent quote of Professor Oliver, “I do not mean that individual Americans approve of all the work of Liberation.  In fact, I am sure that many individuals disapprove of such details as I have mentioned.  That may be unfortunate.”  Professor Oliver himself was a great American patriot—a proud Southerner whose heart was always in the South, although he spent most of his life in Illinois—and most of all, an honorable man:  A man of conscience, who came to express guilt and shame for his country. ®


Notes:

[1] Dr. Charles Fhandrich.  I consign his name to a footnote not to slight him, but because I do not want for his remarks to be misinterpreted out of context.  I hate out-of-context misquotes; and I am accordingly careful not to flip someone’s intended meaning upside-down with even an accidental cherry-pick.

[2] Other sources of this article:  Harper’s website (paywalled), Unz Archive (not publicly viewable at present), and the pertinent pages, pp. 329–336, in the Internet Archive’s copy of Harper’s Volume 193.  My thanks to Herr George Dietz, a most excellent American immigrant who settled in West Virginia, for having reprinted this article verbatim in Liberty Bell, March 1992, pp. 22–32, where it came to my attention.

[3] A small personal footnote:  When I first dared to dig into historical revisionism, I was shocked to learn that even Yad Vashem had disclaimed the “Jewish soap” tale.  Shocked—because it had been repeated to me so many times, as an established, indisputable, unquestionable fact that showed German character.

[4] Obiter dictum, I remark that the famous C.S.A. battle flag is much more aesthetic than the U.S.A. flag.

 
—And why they should be loved.

Of Good and Evil, Love and Hate

When I was a child, I had my first experience with Communism.  I did not yet know it.

It was a popular fashion amongst ejucaters[a] to assign shared projects with shared grades to pairs of students.  Of course, the smartest kid must be paired with the stupidest kid.  Equality!  The smart one shall not be heard to complain:  That would be “arrogant” and “not compassionate”, and it may even be a symptom of psychological problems.

This is, of course, no different than tying an Olympic athlete to a congenitally deformed cripple, making them run a three-legged race, and then preaching to the athlete that he had better understand:  He is no better than his fellow human being.

Up or Down

When faced with something superior to yourself, there are only two options:  Look up to it, or try to pull it down to your level.  As a believer in the virtue of inequality, I am not ashamed to admit that in some important ways, some people are better than I am.  For example, Olympic gymnasts are stronger, more agile, and in many cases, also more beautiful.

These people are bodily so superior to me, they may as well be of a higher species.

Racists like to point out that Aryans were building moon rockets, at a time when some tribes of Congoids in Africa still had not yet figured out how to use wheels for transportation.  I am a racist—and I am a fancier of human breeds, in the manner of a dog fancier or a cat fancier.

As such, I recognize that the Germans were one of the finest human breeds that has ever existed.  In most every realm of achievement, in art, science, and technology, they had few competitors as a nation that produced historic greatness.  To acknowledge this is no different than to see that Europe generally has much higher achievements than Sub-Saharan Africa.  And the Germans were beautiful people—collectively, generally.  For one with an eye for beauty, it is impossible not to notice that Hitler-era Germany had an abundance of human beauty, in both sexes.

Admire them—or be jealous of them.  Either-or.

To the Bad, Good is Evil

The Germans, those “evil” Nazis, were attacked for being too good.  Nietzsche will explain that:  Good, according to the morality of the best, is called “evil”, according to the morality of the worst.[b]  The Germans had such great goodness, their “evil” must be defiled, defaced, defamed, and destroyed.

And so it came to pass that the Americans, a nation of hate half-founded by the runaway dregs of Europe, did even worse to the Germans than they had to America’s foundational other half:  The Southern gentlemen and ladies, whose antebellum cultural superiority was an affront to crude fanatics who descended from the Puritans.  The culturally aristocratic South, a young country which was maturing to be almost European in outlook, had to be broken, violated, and cast down into the mud.

Take the so-called “Reconstruction”, Second “Reconstruction”, Third “Reconstruction”, and more “Reconstruction”—exponentiate those horrors inflicted on the American Southerners—and you may thus approximate what is, quite fittingly, sometimes called the “German Reconstruction”.

By American Diktat,[c] in a country that is still under military occupation to this day, this:

Germans.

…was and is being forcibly “Reconstructed” into this:

Official advertising of a “Familie Deutschland” campaign, by the “German” Federal Government (2001).  Photograph by Herlinde Koelbl for the “German” Federal Press Office (Bundespresseamt).  Source of information on a graphic that took some effort to identify: See Figure 1 (Abb. 1) and the accompanying text under heading, “Fotografien in der erziehungswissenschaftlichen Forschung”, in this article.

No viler and more jealous hatred has been seen in this world since the time when Roman Christians desecrated temples, smashed statues, and burnt books they deemed “pagan”.

When the great Norwegian author Knut Hamsun visited America in the 1880s, he concluded, “Instead of founding an intellectual elite, America has established a mulatto studfarm”.  What have the Americans established in Germany—and in all of Europe?

On the nature of the Second World War

Although I am a proud, unapologetic racist, I am not a racial reductionist.[d]  To deny the importance of race is to lose all else that is important—but to reduce all to race is to lose all else, too.  It is another instance of equal and opposite errors.

By any reasonable definition, the German National Socialists were racists.  But they were not racial reductionists.  That is why they could form with the Japanese not only an alliance, but a cross-cultural friendship.  Two aristocratic nations of different races could recognize each other, and deal with each other inter pares collectively as aristocrats always have individually.  Nobility knows its own.

White racialists should perpend the above juxtaposition of photos, and realize that that is the result of the Japanese loss:  The loss of Germany and her allies.  The historical logic is ineluctable:  To save the Aryan race, to save Aryan Europe, it was good and necessary to support warfare by non-Aryans against the racially Aryan Americans.  Similar considerations apply to the Axis plan to support Subhas Chandra Bose, which would have knocked out what the Anglophile Hitler had previously called the “pivot” (orig. “Angelpunkt”) of the British Empire—to destroy the global structure of what had been seen as “white supremacy”.  Although judging by his looks and his behavior, Bose himself was of substantial Aryan stock, his army would have consisted largely of dark men killing whites of Albion with Japanese weapons.  And if all of this had saved the cause of Germany and her allies, it would have saved the Aryan race!

New “Europeans”.  Proximate cause:  Germany and her allies lost the War.

Except insofar as it was a war of Jews against Aryans, the Second World War was not a race war:  It was a war between aristocracy and degenerate democracy, between the Herrenmoral and the Sklavenmoral, between the native spirit of Europe and the Judaeo-Christian spirit—between vitality and decadence.  The nations of caste and culture[e] were attacked by the spiritual-Chāndāla alliance of Judaeophilic Capitalist Americans and Judaeo-Soviet Communist Bolsheviks, who thereafter divided between themselves all Europe as spoils.  The Jews mastered the decadents of the white race, worst of all the Americans, just as the Jews always master decadent movements; as Nietzsche observed,[f] the Jews themselves are the opposite of decadents, but they use decadents as their source of power, a weapon against those who say Yea to life.

The German revival led by Hitler was a radical repudiation of decadence, and one of the greatest Yeas to life that this world has ever seen.  And for this, the Germans are hated.


I conclude this thought with an excerpt of someone else’s article; indeed, it may be said that all I wrote above was merely a preface to the following.  The predictions at the end, which I hereby omit, understandably failed to foresee the collapse of the Soviet Union as a political entity; this does not tarnish the author’s appraisal of the recent past, with which I wholly agree. ®


Why Germans are Hated

 By Revilo P. Oliver
 Liberty Bell, November 1989, pp. 10–11.

I recently talked with a Rumanian who had been a young man in 1944 when the Germans, after their catastrophic defeat in Russia, had to retreat from a country they could no longer defend against the Americans’ Soviet allies.

In the hurried retreat, there was some inevitable disorganization and some units of the German Army became separated from their commissary.  The hungry men dispersed and in small groups went to the homes of the peasants and asked to be fed.  The peasants, although they disliked the occupation of their country by foreign troops, prepared food for the Germans, who, after a meal on peasant fare, scrupulously paid for it, and with courteous words of thanks in German went on their way.

Now wasn’t that just awful?  The Germans, who didn’t love Sheenies, obviously had not assimilated Jewish ethics and the Jewish Weltanschauung Is it any wonder that the democratic Americans help their Jewish government hunt down those dreadful War Criminals?  In fact, a nation that behaves like that should be exterminated, shouldn’t it?  If not exterminated by the method proposed by Kaufman in his once popular Germany Must Perish (1941)[1] then exterminated in some other way, perhaps by miscegenation.

After the Germans retreated, the Americans’ Army of Liberation moved in.  It is properly called the Americans’ army because it was equipped and financed from the United States, which was a great industrial nation at that time.  Furthermore, it was in the service of a régime that had been imposed on Russia chiefly by the United States, was then carrying out the plans of the foul and diseased monster that then ruled the United States from its lair in the White House, and was able to invade Rumania only because the United States and its puppets were attacking Germany in a war of total barbarism.  It was a relatively unimportant detail that the hordes invading Rumania were almost entirely composed of hybrids of Slavic and Mongol blood with a dose of Tartar thrown in for seasoning.

The Liberators moved through the countryside that was the home of my informant, who somehow managed to survive the Liberation.  The invaders took the women out and gang-raped them, forcing the fathers, husbands, and sons to watch the merriment.  When tired of intensive rape, they usually shot the women or cut them up a bit and left them to bleed to death, and then machine-gunned the men.  Ah, that’s more like it!  No wonder the Americans are proud of their success in promoting democracy throughout the world.

To be sure, Russian generals and colonels, full of Judaeo-Soviet culture, did not behave as did their men.  They selected the best houses in a town, magnanimously gave the owners two hours to get out, and occupied the premises.  If they felt.a need for amusement and recreation, the most attractive females of the town were dragged in to show their gratitude for the glorious Liberation.  When the Russian officers moved on, the owners, if they had not been killed in the meantime, could resume possession of what had been their home, which had been completely stripped of every portable object, including even the doorknobs.  The empty shell, however, would protect them from rain, although there was no way to replace the broken windows.

Such were the blessings of Freedom that the Americans bestowed on Rumania.  Is it any wonder that they are proud of their achievement and humbly grateful to the Master Race that taught them how to work for One World?

Of course, I do not mean that individual Americans approve of all the work of Liberation.  In fact, I am sure that many individuals disapprove of such details as I have mentioned.  That may be unfortunate.


Notes

[a] An Oliverism, to distinguish the ejucaters from genuine educators.

[b] See Beyond Good and Evil 260; and The Genealogy of Morals, passim.

[c] To avoid, on the one hand, some potentially unsupportable conspiracy theories floating around on the German Internet—and on the other, complicated German legal arguments beyond my competence to assess—I will simply note that Germany is, in fact, still under military occupation by a hostile foreign enemy that entered as self-declared “conquerors”, is ruled by a government that was instituted strictly under that same enemy’s control, was initially occupied with explicit declarations that the occupation would continue “for a hundred years, or forever” if necessary to conform the occupied to the occupier’s expectations, and is still held under an “enemy state” threat by that same foreign enemy.  These are indisputable, well-known facts, not “conspiracy theories”.  Anyone who claims that the American occupation army in Germany is there in “friendship” to “protect” the Germans is either too stupid to be worth talking to, or a malicious liar; and it is the nadir of naïvety to fancy that the Germans have any significant long-range control of their government, in any matter that the Americans consider important to the American global-international agenda.  The usual American propaganda trick of establishing an American puppet-state in a country under military occupation, then having its stooges “agree” to a permanent “friendly” American military presence, is so transparently dishonest and hypocritical a ploy as could only be conceived in the brain of an American.  Mutatis mutandis, I likewise dismiss anyone who claims that the current “Iraqi” government is fully sovereign and independent of America—although judging by its behavior, the “Iraqi” government is somewhat more Iraqi than the “German” government is German.

I will return to this subject in future Proems.

[d] Here, I may depart from some of my primary influences.  My evaluation at this section is closer to being Nietzschean, although I oft criticize Nietzsche for ascribing insufficient import to race, than Oliverian.  I follow no party line; I am an independent thinker.

[e] Cf. the famous passage in The Genealogy of Morals I.11, at which in giving examples of his archetypal Blond Beast “aristocratic races”, Nietzsche includes the Japanese nobility (and also, the Arabic nobility) together with the Roman nobility, the German nobility, the Homeric heroes, and the Scandinavian Vikings.

[f] The Antichrist 24.

[1] A reprint of this classic of Jewish thought is available from Liberty Bell Publications, \$4.00 + postage.  [Footnote is historical. —Raches.]

 
In memoriam.

“They are too good for the world that will comé after us.” — Frau Magda Goebbels.

Helmut Goebbels

2. Oktober 46 – 1. Mai 56 (JdF)


“Helga, Hilde, Helmut, Holde, Hedda, and Heide symbolize to me all of the millions of Germans who died in the War and its aftermath.  I wish that I could memorialize the dead each individually.  I take these six as their special representatives.” — Raches.

They all died the same day.  Therefore, I also give them individual, and collectively symbolic memorials on their respective birthdays.

I do this every year.  —And now, I have a blog.

Memory is important.  May Helmut Goebbels, his family, his nation, the brilliance of their lives, and the tragedy of their deaths be remembered forever.

Candle lit. ®

 

Hate against the Nations of the Free World

According to Time.com, the following photo was published in Life magazine, May 22, 1944.  The caption visible in the image reads, “Arizona war worker writes her Navy boyfriend a thank-you note for the Jap skull he sent her” (click to enlarge).

How must divine retribution repay the Americans?  Perhaps with pyramids of American skulls piled to the heavens, for such a sight as would sate the primaeval bloodlusts of Hulagu, Tamerlane, or even Americans.  Should the Americans be heard to complain?

According to Time.com, that photo was “taken by Ralph Crane (later a staff photographer for LIFE)”, and was featured as “Life’s” (!) “Picture of the Week” (!!) with this accompanying text:

When he said good bye two years ago to Natalie Nickerson, 20, a war worker of Phoenix, Ariz., a big, handsome Navy lieutenant promised her a Jap.  Last week Natalie received a human skull, autographed by her lieutenant and 13 friends, and inscribed:  “This is a good Jap—a dead one picked up on the New Guinea beach.”  Natalie, surprised at the gift, named it Tojo.  The armed forces disapprove strongly of this sort of thing.

The Life editorial staff tried thereby a disclaimer, and made only a worse admission.  If armed forces “disapprove strongly” of their soldiers’ activities, that is why they have something called discipline—including courts martial.  On disciplinary grounds alone, to say nothing of how the too-merciful Führer condemned such savagery as undeutsch, any hypothetical German soldier who sent enemy skulls home as psycho serial-killer trophies would have learned the meaning of “Nazi” discipline.  Whereas the Americans pseudo-judicially murdered top-ranking German and Japanese military commanders for real or imaginary failures to keep discipline amongst their low-level soldiers.  What did American General Douglas MacArthur, who in 1944 was the Americans’ Supreme Commander in the Southwest Pacific Area, deserve for this highly publicized skull-collecting—according to the standards which were imposed under MacArthur’s authority on Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita?[1]

War is Peace.  Freedom is Slavery.  Death is LIFE.  By American standards, what should I call a “good American”?


America is a nation of hate.  Its culture and its genetics are irreparably, incorrigibly suffused with the hatreds and jealousies of degenerate, low-class religious fanatics, who fled in patricidal hatred from the order and culture of Europe.  Their fratricidal scions then murdered, defiled, and enslaved their better brothers to the South—primarily Americans who journeyed to the New World for better reasons, the Americans who were essentially European in outlook—the brothers who were growing up to be too much like Daddy.  With hate thus a hegemony in America, the Americans then invaded Europe twice, destroyed the European fatherland, and commenced the long-term mass-homicidal spree which has made America the most despised nation on Earth.

Now, let us see the images of a nation of peace, love, and friendship between nations and races.

Here is some Nazi propaganda, in which a Jap—by American standards, not a “good Jap”—teaches her blonde Nazi German Nazi friend how to use those artful little sticks that perennially bemuse and befuddle Westerners:

Framegrab by Raches, from the scene starting around 01:04:44 in Die Tochter des Samurai (Japanese release title: “新しき土”, ‘The New Earth’), a joint production of J.O. Studio (Germany) and Towa Shoji G.K. (Japan), 1937.  Left:  “Mitsuko Yamato”, played by Setsuko Hara (原 節子).  Right:  “Gerda Storm”, played by Ruth Eweler.

According to the IMDB,[2] this blonde was not so lucky as Death-magazine skull-fetishist Miss “Natalie”:  Fräulein Eweler died October 1, 1947[3] at the age of 31, in “at this time notoriously underserved Berlin”, for reasons “not known”.  With a shudder, I do not wish to speculate on the prospects for a beautiful blonde film star in Berlin in 1945–47.  Well, she was a Nazi German Nazi with a brother in the SS; she must have deserved it.  She was evil—so evil that she played a starring rôle in a respectful, affectionate positive portrayal of foreign culture to Europeans.  Instead, she should have turned her movie-friend into a “good Jap”, and collected her skull like Miss Natalie Nickerson.  The racist, fascist Fräulein Eweler was a Nazi, totally against the American way of “LIFE”!

As I have said before, Adolf Hitler was the leader of the free world.  And National-Socialist Germany, the free and independent Germany, was also the great builder of a nondestructive harmony amongst races and nations:  Interracial friendship without deracination, international peace without international Bolshevism, the respectful building of cross-cultural bridges without the countercultural mass-destruction of so-called “multiculturalism”.

Thus, no matter what race I myself may be, no matter whence I hail, I dearly wish that I had been born into a world in which Germany and her friends had won the War—instead of the US-USSR Alliance of Hate.

Ultra-Nazi propaganda presented side-by-side in four languages, bearing the distinctive signature of Reichsminister Dr. Goebbels himself, in which the evil Dr. Goebbels proclaimed that the 1936 Berlin Olympics were “a real Festivity of Peace”, “in world history [] an event full of happiness and peace”, “a new epoch of true peace in all those fields of activity which join nations together.”  (This is just a teaser; I may someday return to this subject in these pages.)

Of course, the Americans, those Great Masters of the Big Lie, will accuse the Germans of having done what the Americans actually did:  Preach “peace” as a falsehood, while rampaging through the world with murderous bloodlust and grand-scale massacres.  America, the Nation of Hate, is also the nation of hypocrisy, chutzpah, and the trick of accusing one’s own victims of the crimes that one commits against them.

Thus the Germans, who foremost dared to love themselves, love their race, and love their traditions, are accused of “hate” by those who preach love while practicing hatred:  Americans, for whom hate is practically a national religion.  And the Germans are frequently accused of having contracted a military alliance of mere convenience—by those who cannot imagine taking an interest in other peoples’ cultures without a two-faced, underhanded, do-gooding meddler’s cultural imperialism.

The Germans’ sincere overtures of friendship to other civilized peoples were reciprocated.  East and West joined in cultural harmony…

Source:  A now-disappeared image in a forum thread.  See below.  My objective hereby is not so much to teach, other than to taunt ignorant Americans:  I seek to learn.

…as they joined politically and military in an Anti-Comintern Pact.  “Comintern” was the Bolsheviks’ own abbreviation for Communist International.  As what were then the most powerful of the free nations, Germany and Japan united militarily in common defense of their own freedoms.

And the Axis of freedom went much farther than that.  Amidst China’s multi-way civil war, both Germany and Japan reached out in friendship to the Chinese leader who had been most successful in fighting off British influence—a free and independent Chinese leader, whom the Maoist and American “history” books insult as a “puppet”.

Far from being a “puppet”, Wang Jingwei was, at the time, the only credible Chinese leader who both (1) was under neither Soviet nor American influence, and (2) governed any significant amount of Chinese territory.

Wang Jingwei (汪精衛; 1883–1944), Republic of China, receives German diplomats in 1941.  Via Wikimedia Commons.

Germany, Japan, and Wang’s China also allied with the great Indian Nationalist leader, whom Indians still revere to this day—he whom, despite deep philosophic differences, Mahatma Ghandi called “the Prince of (Indian) Patriotism”:  Subhas Chandra Bose.  The plan was for the Japanese to train and to arm an Indian National Army in Singapore, so that Bose could invade his own country from the outside, overthrow British rule, and join free India with free China and free Japan in a pan-Asian power bloc.  With this Eastern bulwark aligned with Aryan Europe under German leadership, the free world would have been saved from the tyranny of Soviet-American globalist-internationalist conquest.

L-R: Hideki Tojo (Japan), Wang Jingwei (China), Subhas Chandra Bose (India).  1943.  Via Wikimedia Commons, allegedly from an interesting Indian Nationalist-looking blog that seems to have disappeared.

It was a beautiful world that could and should have been.  That world was destroyed by the Jews’ Janissaries:  The Americans, who can no more pass off the guilt of their own crimes on the Jews they made their masters, than a goy hitman can pass off all blame to his Jewish boss who ordered a murder.

The Future of the Free World

The free world led by Germany is lost.  Corruption and tyranny now rule the world.  We are now in a New Dark Age.

For my part, I do not hate any race except for Jews, Americans, and rhymes with triggers.  I wish to extended my hand in peace and friendship to the decent peoples of this world, in the hope that a new free world may be built in the future.

In no particular order of precedence (and without hereby opining on the tragic tensions between some of these peoples), I respectfully invite to Proems Japanese, Chinese, Hindu traditionalists who have watched their culture destroyed by American-led Western liberal influence even after “Independence”, Arabs who respect Europeans’ right to their homelands as much as I respect Iraq and Palestine, Iranians, Afghans, and of course, Europeans who wish to restore European blood, honor, and territorial sovereignty—Russians who will understand that my War-born wrath is directed primarily at the Soviet government, which was imposed on Russia by Americans and dominated by Jews—and dissident individual Americans who agree with that greatest of American patriots, Professor Revilo P. Oliver:

The German writer correctly describes the aggression against the Southern states as “one of the most dreadful wars in the history of the world,” and he is almost always right about the recent past, when the Americans, mentally rotted with the deadly virus of Christian righteousness, permitted themselves to be made the judges and policemen of the world for their Yiddish masters…

Such was our folly. Our guilt is undeniable.  It cannot be palliated.  We made the Yids our masters, and it was our power that consummated the Suicide of the West.  And it is only natural that Europeans now take satisfaction in the decay and coming dissolution of the contrivers of their ruin.

[Liberty Bell, February 1992, p. 7.]

In this article, I have shamelessly copied Japanese and Chinese names I cannot read—not from pretentiousness, but in the hope of attracting search hits.

I have only a fragmentary knowledge of some important perspectives on this history, which are hidden from me by very difficult language barriers.  It would be my pleasure to discuss these subjects with those who have native knowledge, obscure information, and different perspectives.  And I have somewhere[4] scans of relevant historical texts, seemingly rare, which I downloaded from long-disappeared websites, which I have no realistic hope of even minimally understanding anytime soon; if or when I can find those, I should like to share them with people of the nations whence they came, and ask their opinions.

And culturally and politically, I seek to bring together the good and aristocratic peoples, and urge unity against the American monstrosity of hate, greed, and megalomania that has all but destroyed the whole world.

I come in wrath.  Welcome in peace to my Proems. ®


This article took on a life of its own, after it grew out of a tangent in a forthcoming future article about how the hate-filled Americans waged feminist-democratic Christian jihad against the national goddess of Imperial Japan’s masculine warrior-culture.  Now, consider that to be the second part hereof.


Notes

[1] See Chapter 8 of F.J.P. Veale’s Advance to Barbarism (Devin-Adair, New York, 1968), and the United States Supreme Court dissents of Mr. Justice Murphy, In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 26 (1946), and of Mr. Justice Rutledge, id. at 41.

[2] Beware that at the time of this writing, the IMDB page for this movie states a grossly misleading plot synopsis.

[3] By coincidence or by destiny, 74 years ago today, as I complete and publish this article.  In memoriam—for all Germans who died in the War and its aftermath.

[4] On a misplaced backup disk, unfortunately not accessible at present.  I will search for this.

 
Gambler’s Fallacy is too oft preached by FAQs, help guides, wallet UIs, and people who should know better.

A Doc Bug that Hurts Usability

A common canard in Bitcoinland:  “Blocks take about 10 minutes.”  This is wrong—factually wrong; and it is a practical problem, not an exercise in pedantry.  The distinct statement, “blocks take 10 minutes on average”, is strictly correct in a mathematical sense; but in practice, it is no less misleading.

When people are told this misinformation, they reasonably expect that they can predict when the next block will arrive—and that it will take “about ten minutes”.  The resultant confusion is bad for users, and it’s bad for Bitcoin.

“TL;DR” for people who just want to send and receive money:  The majority of your transactions will confirm faster than 10 minutes; sometimes, your confirmations will be slower; and there is no way to predict this.

Abstract for the technical readership:  You are promoting a form of Gambler’s Fallacy.  Stop it.  Just stop it.

N.b. that the principles herein set forth may be adjusted and applied, mutatis mutandis, to any cryptocurrency which shamelessly rips off flatteringly imitates Bitcoin’s block generation algorithm.

Bitcoin Block Generation Times and Gambler’s Fallacy

Imagine a gambler playing a simple game with a six-sided die.  Each roll of the die picks a uniformly distributed random integer between 1 and 6, inclusive.  On average, no matter which number the gambler bets (and no matter if he changes his lucky number from bet to bet), he will get a “hit” once out of every 6 rolls.  However, it is fallacious for him to act according to the expectation that he is “due” for a “hit” after “about six rolls”.

This is classic Gambler’s Fallacy—the same fallacy that Bitcoin FAQs, user guides, and wallet UIs are preaching, when they train users to expect confirmation to come due in “about 10 minutes”.

The Practical, Nontechnical Explanation

Foremost, let us look at this from the perspective most useful to those who ask, “When will my transaction confirm?”  To that end, let us first get our definitions straight—without being overly technical.

A liberal, altogether too-charitable reading of the phrase “about 10 minutes”, or “approximately 10 minutes”, is that it means “most blocks will happen within 10 minutes ±10%”—i.e., between 9 minutes and 11 minutes.  To claim that the figure needs more wiggle room than a whopping ±10% would be to declare, “I am waving my hands with no idea what I’m talking about.”

According to the maths briefly described below, only about 7.4% of block times fall within that range.  This means that about 92.6% of blocks violate user expectations, when people are told that blocks take “about 10 minutes”.  Indeed, 59.3% of blocks will take less than 9 minutes—and 33.3% will take more than 11 minutes.  For people who are just trying to send and receive money in real-world scenarios, the “about ten minutes” guidance is worse than useless.

More importantly—and in practice, to Bitcoin’s favor—the median block time is about 7 minutes.  The figure of 10 minutes is based on the mean—and the mean is practically meaningless for nontechnical explanations, because the block times follow a probability distribution that violates normal human intuitions.

Looking at the fastest quartile, we find that 25% of blocks take less than 3 minutes.  Those blocks are not surprisingly fast.  It is expected that half of all blocks will take less than about 7 minutes, and half of those will take less than about 3 minutes.

On the other hand, there is the slowest quartile.  25% of blocks take more than almost 14 minutes.  This is expected.  The slowest 10% of blocks will take more than about 23 minutes.  5% of blocks will take more than about 30 minutes.  1% of blocks will take more than about 46 minutes.  0.1% of blocks will take more than about 69 minutes.  And 0.01% of blocks will take more than about 92 minutes; at about 144 blocks per day, that means that, on average, we will see such a slow block once every few months.

The good news:  About 10% of blocks will occur within about one minute!

Although the majority of blocks take less than ten minutes, the long tail of very “slow” blocks drags the average, i.e. the mean, up to ten minutes.  But this “average” is worse than useless for those who are simply wondering when their transactions will be confirmed.

The best answer to that question:  It is unpredictable.  It will probably be pretty fast—but it may be slow, if you are unlucky.  Although it seems like a vague answer, it is much better to tell the truth than to set expectations wrongly.

The “average time of 10 minutes” is, and only is, a mathematical average across a large number of blocks.  Users who do not know the underlying maths should ignore that average.

“From when?”

Astute readers will note that I just stated a bunch of times, without stating when the times start.

The answer:  Whenever you choose to start counting.  Just like that classic roll of a die, Bitcoin block generation is a memoryless system.  The probability of the timing of the next block applies from any arbitrary point in time—not only from the creation of the last block.

It does not matter if the last block happened one minute ago, ten minutes ago, or an hour ago.  Starting from now, whenever “now” may be, the average time to the next block is 10 minutes—the median time to the next block is about 7 minutes—there is a 1% chance that the next block will take more than 46 minutes—and there is a 25% chance that the next block will arrive within less than 3 minutes.

This is all counterintuitive; for my random god, the son of Tyche, recks aught of the intuitions of mere mortals.  (The link is a teaser as to a forthcoming future essay; it does not yet work, as of the publication hereof.)

The Maths

Bitcoin block generation (“mining”) is a pseudorandom process, which behaves a Poisson process:  Block arrival times follow the exponential distribution.

As a model of real-world behavior, this is an idealized abstraction.  It ignores hashrate variability.[1]  In practice, however, it is a close approximation for how Bitcoin actually behaves; variance in hashrate usually seems to have an almost negligible effect.  (Verifying this empirically is left as an exercise to the reader.)

Accordingly, given the rate parameter \(\lambda = \frac{1}{10\ minutes}\), Bitcoin block arrival times have the probability density function:

\[\lambda e^{-\lambda x}\]

…and the cumulative distribution function:

\[1\ -\ e^{-\lambda x}\]

…and the quantile:

\[-\frac{\ln(1\ -\ p)}{\lambda}\]

With these and other bits of MATHS!!! from any textbook, you can calculate all of the above-stated numbers, and many other useful numbers besides.  For example, to estimate the maximum time that the fastest 10% of blocks will take, plug this into your handy desktop calculator:[2]

\[-\frac{\ln(1\ -\ 0.1)}{0.1} \quad \approx 1.0536\dots\]

The median block time:

\[\frac{\ln(2)}{0.1} \quad \approx 6.9315\dots\]

75% of blocks will occur within this time—thus implying that 25% will take longer:

\[\frac{\ln(4)}{0.1} \quad \approx 13.8629\dots\]

The percentage of blocks that will actually occur between 0 and 10 minutes from now, starting at any arbitrary moment:

\[1\ -\ e^{-0.1 \times 10} \quad \approx 0.63212 \quad \approx 63\%\]

STOP HURTING THE KITTENS, YOU BASTARDS: STOP IT RIGHT NOW!

As you can see, the figure of “about 10 minutes” is worse than useless for setting real-world expectations as to the confirmation time of any particular transaction.

Beware, lest thou be damned!  This kitten’s tears shall bring down the wrath of the gods on thy Gambler’s Fallacy.

Thus remember, every time you repeat the “about 10 minutes” canard, you commit a cryptological sin that makes kittens cry.  In turn, crying kittens make Raches very angry.  Don’t do it.  I am protective of the poor, dear kittens. ®


Notes

[1] I also hereby ignore the potential argument that in absolutely ideal, unrealistic conditions, the Bitcoin block generation process could be theoretically characterized as a discrete-time process, not a continuous-time process.  This potential objection is not only overly pedantic, but fallaciously so, to the point of hypercorrection.  I will therefore consign the argument to a footnote, and otherwise ignore it.

[2] Engineers who may lambaste me for sloppiness with my notation of units:  I am not as bad as most.  I will hug you, then slap you and tell you to shut up.  Those who really want to understand this should work through in detail exactly where the units fit, where the parameters with units cancel each other out, etc.

 
Wouldst thou slay me?

Although Because it’s racist for me to rhyme, I must quote Nietzsche, The Gay Science, “‘Jest, Ruse and Revenge’. A Prelude in Rhyme”, #31:

Der verkappte Heilige

Daß dein Glück uns nicht bedrücke,
Legst du um dich Teufelstücke,
Teufelswitz und Teufelskleid.
Doch umsonst!  Aus deinem Blicke
Blickt hervor die Heiligkeit!

The Disguised Saint

Lest we for thy bliss should slay thee,
In devil’s wiles thou dost array thee,
Devil’s wit and devil’s dress.
But in vain!  Thy looks betray thee
And proclaim thy holiness!

Thank you, Herr Professor Dr. Nietzsche. ®

 
• Category: Arts/Letters • Tags: Nietzsche, Philosophy, Poetry 
Art reveals the Original Sin of liberalism: Christianity.

Luca Giordano, Aeneas and Turnus.

As I have said, all that is good in Christianity is a residue of native European culture

Luca Giordano, St. Michael.

…which Christianity only corrupted.  Observe that Michael is depicted as androgynous, as is traditional for Christian angels and archangels.  I wish to be delicate here, because I actually like St. Michael as an almost European hero character.  Out of respect for a fine holday, I will just leave it at this:  Whence do you suppose the repudiation of sexual dimorphism arises, but cultural Christianity?  Compare the above with the below—apples to apples, in paintings by the same artist:  The feminine softness of Venus got rolled into the masculine hero, whereas Satan looks as masculine as Aeneas.

Luca Giordano, Aeneas defeating Turnus (as previously seen in Proems).

Each picture is worth a myriad of words.  I will save the words for another day. ®

 
A temporal measure of vision.

In reply to a thoughtful comment by TG, Resartus remarked:

The ironic thing about the whole issue…
The people pushing it, won’t be around to see it finish…

The people fighting it, want better for their children and beyond…
The originators, can hardly be seen as anything but hating the same….

That invokes the question of malice or incompetence—the latter being, in this case, temporal myopia.

I have a model that categorizes people by their magnitude of foresight:

• \(Order\ of\ 10^{\leq 0}\ years:\)  Young child.  Next birthday is a major milestone, if one even sees so far.  An infant grows from seeing forward only to the next moment, then to the next day, then to the next week, then to the next month—then, to being all grown up next birthday…  Developmental maturation is a process of lengthening foresight—just as the domestication of man is largely a process of keeping people generally in a state of arrested development, and of modern democratic ideas making men effeminate through a perverse cultural form of the neoteny that makes women so adorably cute.

• \(Order\ of\ 10^{1}\ years:\)  Mediocre, but at least minimally responsible adult.  Can keep ordinary commitments.  May even succeed in raising a family.  Maybe.

• \(Order\ of\ 10^{2}\ years:\)  Competent statesman.  I said statesman, to distinguish from “politician” in a modern sense.  If you cannot or will not set a priority on the likely impact of your policies on people’s great-grandkids—at the very least; preferably, their grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren—then you should be absolutely debarred from any significant office of government.  It is the baseline for serious consideration of posterity.  N.b. that democracy excludes competence, and enforces the temporal myopia of election cycles, paying favors to campaign donors, etc.

• \(Order\ of\ 10^{\geq 3}\ years:\)  Philosopher of historic significance.

Note that these are orders of magnitude, as a rough but useful scale for a taxonomy.

Note also that this scale refers only to serious, realistic thinking about the future.  Any child can talk about times a hundred or a thousand or a million billion years from now, without comprehension.  Liberals are wont to chatter about “progress” and “the future”, even as they reject such good and necessary forward-looking measures as eugenics.  Christians sometimes speak of posterity—even as they preach a dogma that unavoidably destroys realistic long-term thinking, by turning people’s eyes away from this Earth to an illusory Heaven.  When they gabble about “eternity”, of course, they know not whereof they speak.

Now, perpend an unalterable fact of life in this world that brings screams of “elitism” from populists and other democrats:  Societies are, always have been, and always will be ruled by a ruling class.  This fact is so obvious that I am ashamed to say it outright.  In the modern age, to say it is as childlike as stating the nature of the emperor’s democratic clothes.

There is much available evidence that the ruling class has lost itself—lost control:  As a plutocratic class, they are trapped by the rules, the illusions, and the unavoidable myopia of plutocracy.

On the other hand, there is evidence of a thoughtful long-term strategy for causing exactly this state of affairs.  But even this is shortsighted, insofar as one way or another, the death of the victim must cause the death of the vampire.

Overall, a rational strategy for your survival is to get power into the hands of people who (1) think seriously on the order of centuries, at least—and, (2) are not actively malicious, and are preferably even benevolent, towards whatever posterity a “genetic roll of the dice” has made you care about—perhaps even your own. ®

 
• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: Foresight, Posterity, Temporal Myopia 

The Domestication of Man

I should record this somewhere—I never told anybody:

When I was young, I began to write a book entitled, The Domestication of Man.  My thesis was that there is a world-controlling conspiracy to turn humans into a species of domesticated animal.  This conclusion was entirely original and independent by me.

It was based almost exclusively on observations made within my own lifetime, based on common knowledge and mainstream, more or less popular sources of information.  At the time, I had almost negligible historical knowledge—what would nowadays be called a “Wikipedia level”—and even less philosophical knowledge.  Outside of some libertarian stuff and the like, most of which was relatively tame, I had had no contact with “alternative media”.

I did not clearly identify the conspirators—and unlike stereotypical “conspiracy theorists”, I did not pretend to have such knowledge as I properly knew I did not.  I saw governments, corporations, banks, Wall Street, the media, academia, and the culture all converging on the singular object of turning humans into bipedal cud-chewing cattle, placid and safe, vapid and mindless—but unlike cud-chewing quadrupeds, totally soulless.  The results of all trends were and are foreseeable to anyone of sufficiently high intelligence; if nobody were to benefit, it would all just be reasonless mass self-destruction; from thus applying cui bono? type of logic, it seemed obvious to me that there must be someone pulling the strings.  I did not know who; and I did not reach beyond some vague guesswork about bankers, stock market magnates, media moguls, scheming Utopian intellectuals, and “power behind the throne” types around corrupt politicians.

I identified the Jews as their victims—for of course, the Jews are always everybody’s victims!  Those poor, innocent Jews!

When I was a child, the Jewish people whom I knew were nerdy “smart kid” intellectual types—Jewishly passive and scrawny and ugly—with sweet dispositions, and dark eyes that would light up if someone was willing to talk to them about mathematical games, books of intellectual puzzles, and such other pleasures.  I myself was too aloof[1] to have real friends, in a world that I already felt[2] was quite wrong for me; but one of the closest things that I had to a friend was a Jewish boy who had an IQ of 148, the face of a dog, and the personality of a doormat.  His obsession with comic-book characters bored me, but I much enjoyed what he showed me in his prized books of puzzles and riddles.

Of course, he was the object of much cruelty.  Once, when he was bullied, ridiculed, and humiliated by a teacher in front of the class, I suddenly stood up on a chair and denounced the teacher.  This shocked everybody who had believed I was a teacher’s pet—including the teacher.  Polite, orderly, obedient me—a natural born goose-stepper.[3]  I have always acted on instinct.  I have always had an instinct for justice, and been aggrieved by injustice.  The room went dead silent.  Then, the teacher apologized to the kid.  After class, she thanked me and hugged me—which I hated, for thou shalt not invade my personal space.

As a young adult, of course, I thought that the Jews must be the principal targets of the human domestication program.  Later on, I added onto the idea by positing that militant Zionism was a process of undomesticating the Jews.

Now, of course, I view German National Socialism as Hitler’s orderly untaming of the Nietzschean blonde Bestie—a new synthesis of civilization with natural instincts, for an aristocratic race.

Imagery from a German propaganda film, as reused in an American anti-German propaganda film.  (A subject to which I will return…)  Empirical evidence for Nietzsche’s proposition that what the master-morality deems “good”, the slave-morality deems “evil”.  Also, evidence for my proposition that Americans are natural born slaves—full domesticated anthropoid livestock—ovine Christians.  Inductive proof:  If Americans were free spirits and proud souls, then this anti-German propaganda would have backfired by inspiring admiration for the Germans.  I myself don’t look like this, but I admire those who do; and I think that they should be proud of themselves just the way they are, instead of destroying themselves to please their inferiors.

Years later, I realized that I had independently invented my own half-baked, immature, incoherent version of Nietzsche—based on premises that I had never fully examined, riddled with implicit contradictions, and accordingly laced with nonsense about “natural rights”—plus a pretty good conspiracy theory.  It is one of several personal reasons why I have a great fondness for Nietzsche, despite disagreeing with some of his conclusions.

I didn’t get much actual writing done; I spent much more time thinking about what I should write.  I would take solace alone in the woods, as I was wont to do, and quietly contemplate the problem of domesticated humans—because of “natural rights”; oh, how I now cringe.

I did mention that I was young.


The Domestication of the Romans

My occasion for mention of the foregoing:  BlackFlag raised something that needs more attention.

Peter Frost suggests that perhaps the Roman population had been domesticated which made them maybe more receptive to the Christian mindset. It explains why they couldn’t raise the measly troops to repel the Goths. Compare the fighting spirit they had back in the Punic Wars where they suffered massive casualties but kept coming back with fresh armies. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491000800306

Same thing happening now with Europeans being receptive to the suicidal woke mindset. Burnham said liberalism was the rationalization of civilizational decline (like a mother’s soothing meaningless words to her dying child). Goes with what WD Hamilton said about domesticated populations needing fresh hero genes. We know this domestication has been occurring (e.g. capital punishment in the Middle Ages). So the problem is not Christianity per se.

Citation and abstract from Frost:

[Frost, P. (2010).  “The Roman State and Genetic Pacification”.  Evolutionary Psychology 2010 8(3).  doi:10.1177/147470491000800306]

Abstract

Over the last 10,000 years, the human genome has changed at an accelerating rate.  The change seems to reflect adaptations to new social environments, including the rise of the State and its monopoly on violence.  State societies punish young men who act violently on their own initiative.  In contrast, non-State societies usually reward such behavior with success, including reproductive success.  Thus, given the moderate to high heritability of male aggressiveness, the State tends to remove violent predispositions from the gene pool while favoring tendencies toward peacefulness and submission.  This perspective is applied here to the Roman state, specifically its long-term effort to pacify the general population.  By imperial times, this effort had succeeded so well that the Romans saw themselves as being inherently less violent than the “barbarians” beyond their borders.  By creating a pacified and submissive population, the empire also became conducive to the spread of Christianity—a religion of peace and submission.  In sum, the Roman state imposed a behavioral change that would over time alter the mix of genotypes, thus facilitating a subsequent ideological change.

BlackFlag, I agree that there must be multiple causes for the decline which, itself, has multiple aspects:  Cultural, racial, civilizational.  In analyzing a complex system, I am generally suspicious of any proposal of a single, simple, absolute explanation for absolutely everything.  I focus on Christianity as a major cause—I say that it is a primary cause, inextricably entwined with other causes.  Genetics and culture form a feedback loop; evolutionary psychology and, more broadly, sociobiology are good approaches thereto.

In that feedback loop, an important variable is immigrationDr. Frost seems to glance by this point:

Pacification and the shift to a new ideological environment

To maintain control, Rome had to preserve its martial values while instilling pacifism and submissiveness in its new subjects.  This social contradiction would eventually become unsustainable.

First, the conquered assimilated into Roman society.  Many became citizens and, as such, enjoyed certain rights and protections.  Second, the State no longer had to be so violent with its subjects. […the rest of this paragraph addresses only “Second”…]

Third, […discussion of behavior, with citations to references…]  A new kind of Roman was emerging, one less interested in violence and more submissive to authority.  In fact, the new Romans were coming to see arrogant, aggressive conduct as wrong, even wicked.  Yet this was how the Gods themselves behaved.  Increasingly, people looked elsewhere for spiritual comfort.

Into this new behavioral environment came Christianity.  […]

I remark obiter that those who see my “arrogant, aggressive conduct as wrong, even wicked” are observing a trait that I have intentionally refined through introspective self-programming:  A feature, not a bug.  NACK, #WONTFIX—not to be patched by Christian whining about the “virtue” of humility, better called self-humiliation:  Mortification of the soul to match mortification of the flesh.  Those who have such a fetish may offer themselves as slaves to me—whereupon perhaps, if it suits my whims, I may design to grace their disgrace them by humiliating their humility.

Anyway, how did all those assimilated new “Romans’” genetics differ generically from those of the old Romans?  —In what degree did heritable traits from the new “Roman” citizens contribute to acceptance of Christianity—and thus, in turn, to further genetic decline of the Romans?

Are people now so race-blind that Dr. Frost, whom I see has incisively criticized evolutionary psychology’s blind spots at The Unz Review, glances by genetic pollution from immigration to focus only on the interaction of culture, behavioral selection, and genetics?

I should dig through my notes, and find references on the thesis that population replacement (especially in the upper classes) was a major factor in Roman decline—something more than “Oliver said so”, which he did.  For another comparison, he also said something that I found startling about the replacement of the French nobility by the time of the French Revolution.  I oughtn’t have been so surprised:  The supplanting of la noblesse d’épée by la noblesse de robe is well-known, although people tend to regard it as merely a cultural phenomenon without asking about genetics.

Aside, n.b. that I am not advocating an immigration restrictionist policy for America.  I disclaim that position for various reasons, including the reality that frankly, Building The Wall, etc., would be like taking an aspirin when you have late-stage cancer.  But my concurrence from the opposite direction with pro-immigrant Ron Unz about some of these types of issues is far afield of this topic—a subject that I should address in the future.  Hereby, it will suffice to note that (1) white Americans will be lucky if Mr. Unz gets his way, because the realistic alternatives for them are all much worse; (2) in the manner of setting aside a native-habitat reserve for endangered gorillas, I vehemently advocate a race-based immigration restrictionist policy for Europe—a very different case altogether, and one where it may not yet be too late.

I look forward to seeing what the Unz Review commentariat thinks of all this. ®


Notes

[1] I.e., instinctively aristocratic.

[2] Cf. Nietzsche, The Gay Science, I.10, “A Species of Atavism.”

[3] It is a generic Sklavenmoral error to confuse hierarchical, aristocratic yielding to higher authority with dog-like slavish submissiveness.  This error is frequently committed in both directions.

Men who obey an acknowledged authority with military precision are misperceived as submissive, self-abasing—or even as mindless robots—the clownish, stupid type of Hollwood Nazi.  On the flipside, meek little mass-men suddenly get uppity when told that they should obey their betters:  They, who preach humility, take all hierarchy as an insulting humiliation.  It is the democratic conceit of the low.

On the same grounds, feminists will mischaracterize me as a misogynist when I say that wives must obey their husbands.  What I really mean is that a woman should be married if she swoons over a godlike man, a superior being upon whose altar she shall lay herself as a sacrifice, body and soul:  He whose name shall be her name, whose voice shall be her creed, whose will she shall obey as a divine commandment.  My romantic hyperbole as such is not too much of an exaggeration of how women actually used to perceive men—before modern times, when, after so many centuries of Christian brainwashing and ill breeding, men democratically degenerated into a species of domestic livestock.

Women who find themselves erroneously attached to domesticated Christian doormats should take their money, which would anyway just go to Jesus—i.e., to salvation-salesmen—and wipe their feet on the way out.

 
—and feminism. And feminism is also misogyny.

This is the head of a holy statue of Aphrodite, as desecrated by degenerate Christian blasphemers:

Aphrodite, the Goddess of Sex, was sometimes respectfully called by the epithet of Ἀφροδίτη Ἑταίρα, Aphrodite Hetaera, ‘Aphrodite the Courtesan’—or even called Ἀφροδίτη Πόρνη, Aphrodite Porne, ‘Aphrodite the Prostitute’ (e.g., Ath. XIII.31).  The Greek root πόρνη gives us the English word pornography, via French, < πορνογράφος, πορνεία ‘prostitution’ + γράφω ‘I depict’.

Andrew Anglin, a Christian par excellence, is an exemplary specimen of the Christian worldview and the Christian spirit:

[Andrew Anglin. “Further Proof That Women are Disgusting Sex Perverts Who Must be Sanctioned by the State”. (Archive.) Daily Stormer, September 6, 2017.]

All things women are involved in involve some kind of gross sexual perversion.


Even having been recently punished for her perverted ways, the woman sneaks down to the basement to her stash of electronic sex toys.

The biggest lie in the universe is that women are sexually innocent. They are biologically evolved to promote this image of themselves, specifically to hide the fact that they are twisted sex perverts, the lot of them. What’s more, men are evolved to be blind to this sexual sickness in women, because at one point in history it was beneficial for men to not have to think about just how sick these bitches actually are.

The entire existence of the human female revolves around sexual derangement.

The only thing that can control this is a strong state, or legalized beatings.


Even having been recently punished for her perverted ways, the woman peeks out the window to see if there is some twisted sex act she might engage in.

Christianity is the first and greatest Jewish controlled-opposition movement; in that aspect, it has thoroughly duped Mr. Anglin, and all Christian “antisemites”.  And considering Christianity in itself, Christian “antisemitism” is the final consequence of Judaism—not in a way that the Christians would like to admit; cf. Nietzsche’s The Antichrist, #24.

And the above juxtaposition of imagery is perfectly logical.  Christianity inherited from Judaism the misogyny best symbolized by the recycling of Adam’s rib, and exponentiates it through the Christian notion that said rib transmitted to all mankind the stain of Original Sin.  Even the Jews are not so hateful!  The Christians closed the trap in the moment they declared that the only sinless woman was conceived without sexual pleasure (!), and remained anatomically a virgin even after she gave birth (!!).  (N.b. that Protestants generally retain the latter doctrine—whilst increasing their misogyny from their obsession with the Jewish Bible, and by rejecting natively European “pagan” elements that the Catholics had absorbed.)  By iron logic, that line of thought leads here:

What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an unescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colors!

Christians who may claim that I chose a bad representative of their cult should perpend that that quote from the Malleus Maleficarum is the distilled essence of the creed first propounded a millennium earlier by Augustine, et al.—and even earlier in substantial parts of the Christian scriptures.  Do you really want to incite me to go about proving that the Fathers of the Church were Andrew Anglin in vulgar Latin, who essentially viewed women as evil witches?

Anyway, in evaluating not the minutia of theological abstractions, but people’s basic outlooks, methinks the above juxtaposition of pictures said more than the proverbial thousand words.

Equal and Opposite Errors

Ancient Greece was a strict family-values society, which regarded Hera, the goddess of marital fidelity, as the Queen of the Gods.  People whose minds have been rotted by over sixteen centuries of Christianity cannot comprehend a Weltanschauung so alien to them.  How could the highly cultured, conservative Greeks worship one of their other major goddesses by, in effect, respectfully calling her a whore?

Furthermore, Greek society was aristocratic, hierarchical, masculine, and patriarchal.  That last word, like the word “misogyny”, has been so distorted by feminists as to evoke misunderstandings; in effect, feminists use both words to mean “disagrees with feminists”.  I mean both words in their respective proper senses.  Misogyny is hatred of women—a crime committed by the feminists, who hate healthy, feminine women.  And as I will explain presently, patriarchy is not “oppression”.

The flipside of the Christians, their mirror image of equal and opposite errors, consists of the feminists, the left-wing “neopagan” hippies, and that pseudoscholarly fantasist Robert Graves and his disciples.  They would all suffer nervous breakdowns, if ever they were honestly to contemplate the attested goddesses of classical antiquity, rather than play make-believe about the times then and before.

Contrast the Homeric Weltanschauung.  The words that I have declared are “the ‘בראשית’ of Western literature”:  “μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ”—‘wrath, o goddess sing’.  Although that wrath is said to bring grief, it is the wrath of a great hero—a manly hero—and it is celebrated accordingly.  The story quickly finds a promise by a “blue-eyed” goddess, Athena Pallas, to Achilles, that he would be compensated for the wrongful seizure of his rightful war prize Briseis (Hom. Il. I.188 ff.), whom he had seized first fair and square.  This is followed by Achilles’ mother, a minor goddess, appealing to the King of the Olympian Gods to avenge her son for the same said injustice (Id., I.493 ff.).  Philologists should perpend the history of the word “rape”:  Its antecedents had subtly, but decisively different cultural implications compared to modern usage.

Equal and opposite errors make it difficult, and even dangerous to discuss these issues in public.  If you hail the goddesses of antiquity, hoi polloi will associate you with Graves’ feminist delusions of “Goddess religion”.  If you speak honestly of Aphrodite, hoi polloi will mistake you for a third-wave “sex-positive” feminist and/or a dirty Jew pervert.  If you dare to mention some of the politically incorrect facts about the rôles of women in the ancient world, hoi polloi will associate you with Anglin’s misogynist Christian delusions, and bin you as criminal-minded scum who wants to rape and beat women.  Every which way, I can only take it as proof that, as Nietzsche observed, “Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.”

These errors are systematic and endemic.  Cf. the infinite stupidity with which the Wikipravda perplexes itself over the Aryan Hindu Laws of Manu:  “Manusmriti offers an inconsistent and internally conflicting perspective on women’s rights.”  No, honey:  There only thing “inconsistent and internally conflicting” is you, who view other cultures through the distorted lens of your own Christianized worldview, the cultural residues of which produced the mental disease of feminism.

Christian Cultural Schizophrenia

For one who was born and raised in the modern world, the mind of antiquity is indeed alien.  So-called “Western culuture” does not have continuity between the Graeco-Roman world and the world of today.  For “Western culture” of today is a pseudomorphosis, the distortion of European culture by Christianity—by a death-cult which arose as proletarian agitation by the dregs of Jewish society, took the essential structure of a Judaized Zoroastrianism, rose to power amongst the decadent urban liberal classes, and devolved into a sui generis cult of hate which defies rational description.

To the extent that anything good came of “Christian” culture, it arose from the natively European cultural substrate on which Christianity was overlaid.  Observe that medieval Christian art was barely above the level of African tribal “art”—and that starting with the Renaissance, all of the best art was Graeco-Roman in form; much of it took as its subjects the gods and goddesses now called by the Christian slur-word “pagan”, and even nominally Christian art was Christian in name only.  Observe that much of the greatest “Christian” literature is essentially anti-Christian—an implicit, perhaps even a racially subconscious rebellion against Christianity; e.g., in Milton’s Paradise Lost, Satan has the soul of an ancient hero, corrupted in form into a Christian antihero and thus, a Christian villain.  Therein at the (in)famous I.253, is Milton making the character of a villain?  —Or is he expressing, perhaps subconsciously, his own tortured inner rebellion against the Christian Hell on Earth of his culture?

A mind not to be changed by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less than he
Whom thunder hath made greater?  Here at least
We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice,
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

Ever since the days when Roman Christians smashed sacred statues (always a liberal obsession!), desecrated authentically Roman temples, scraped irreplaceable writings from vellum to replace them with drivel about Jesus (if they didn’t simply burn or trash them), showed the true meaning of Christian lovingkindness by scraping the living flesh from Hypatia’s body with oyster shells, Holohoaxed themselves into fits of righteousness with made-up stories about Christian martyrs, created prolific forgeries to support their lies (innumerable examples range from fake letters from Pontius Pilate, to fake correspondence between Seneca and Paul, et cetera, ad maximam nauseam), and otherwise behaved as the cultural inferiors of primaeval savages, European Christianity grew into a schizophrenic cultural mongrel of incompatible elements:  The truly Christian elements—which, with maybe one exception that is not hereby relevant, are despicable in total, without even the slightest hint of redeeming value—mixed with the Graeco-Roman and Germanic elements—which came before Christianity, which largely arise from racial instincts, and which are corrupted, distorted, suppressed, and in the long term, annihilated by Christianity.  Europeans are thus so muddled and befuddled that they cannot properly understand themselves in the present, let alone understand their distant ancestors.

Moreover, most of the ancient world is irretrievably lost—and as I have just noted, much of the destruction was deliberate.  The Christians memory-holed the world that came before them.  Contrary to popular misperceptions, all that we have now is a painstaking scholarly reconstruction from almost negligible remains.  The veracity of that reconstruction depends on the honesty of the scholars; verisimilitude is all too easy a substitute.  Whereas Professor Oliver frequently remarked, “Lying for the Lord is a normal exercise in piety.”

Westerners today tend to have the illusion—nay, the delusion—of cultural closeness with a world which is alien to their minds after more than sixteen centuries of intensive Christian brainwashing—which was almost entirely blotted out of existence—the remains of which are distorted through the Judaeo-Christian Pravda.

Apropos the subject hereof, Westerners cannot comprehend the deep respect, and even reverence with which ancient Western men treated the women whom they also tended to treat as possessable property.  Also, they cannot understand the following.

Make Love and War!

The aforementioned Athena Pallas was a war-goddess, whom one may expect to be harsh.  Lest you suppose that the winsome winner of the Golden Apple be any different in her attitude towards relationships, flip forward through the Graeco-Roman myths to find the most-beautiful Goddess of Sex, divine patroness of hetaerae and of prostitutes, blessing her mortal son to win himself a wife and a kingdom the old-fashioned way:  By waging war, killing his rival, and claiming the princess as his bride (Verg. A. VII–XII).

In the Iliad, Aphrodite personally intervened on the battlefield to protect her mortal son Aeneas.  In the Aeneid, Venus (= Aphrodite) seduced her husband Vulcan (= Hephaestus) (VIII.370–406), whom she had cuckolded with Aeneas’ mortal father, to make the armour that her bastard son needed so that he could better indulge his toxic masculine aggression.  Charms are her arms!  “Sensit laeta dolis et formae conscia coniunx.”  After trading amour for armour, of course, she must present the product of her husband’s hard labour to not-his-son:

Here, my son, my husband made this.  LOL.  Now, go forth and conquer to get the girl.  (Venus Presenting Aeneas with Armour Forged by Vulcan (1748), by Pompeo Batoni (1708–1787).  Liechtenstein, The Princely Collections, Inv.-No. GE163.  (I believe that this image is in the public domain in the United States, where The Unz Review is hosted.))

I have hereby moved from ancient art to post-Renaissance, pre-modern art, to show that the classical Weltanschauung did begin to revive from the Renaissance.  The revival was quite imperfect; it was undermined by the Christian fanaticism caused by the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Counter-Reformation, and the Wars of Religion; and it has been killed off by “modern ideas”.  But for awhile, the spirit of classical antiquity did begin to rise anew.

Now, let’s see what happens when the Goddess of Sex gives her blessing to toxic masculinity:

The Goddess of Sex loves violence. #ToxicMasculinity (Aeneas defeating Turnus (1688), by Luca Giordano (1634–1705).  Museo Nacional del Prado.)

Since the dear princess Lavinia would pretty much just have to marry the man who won this fight, that seems to be Venus’ idea of proper matchmaking.

Venus the Prostitute must have enjoyed quoting Nietzsche:

Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.  [Thus Spake Zarathustra, “Old and Young Women”.]

According to the Romans’ foundational myths, the founder of Rome was descended from Venus via Aeneas, and was the son of Mars, the God of War—Mars, whom they worshipped as the patron god of Rome.

The same patterns are woven throughout the whole fabric of classical antiquity.

Contrary to the Jew-Freudian, Cultural Marxist Big Lie, a healthy, non-degenerate release of sexual repressions increases aggressiveness.  The organism is enervated by either of the equal and opposite errors of repression or perversion.

Contrary to the Christian moralists, it is not eroticism qua eroticism, but the misdirection thereof which ruins the individual and subverts society.

And contrary to the Cultural Marxist influenced hippies, from the Iliad to the Aeneid, the slogan of worshippers of Aphrodite-Venus must be:  “Make Love and War!”

Nietzsche the Atavism

In modern times, Nietzsche was the first philosopher to identify and attack fundamentally the general type of equal and opposite errors that I hereby examine.

Professor Nietzsche was a university Chair of Classical Philology.  He did most of his philosophical work after he retired.  His profound scholarship in the antiquities, which I can only envy, went beyond treating the subject as an abstract story—as something that was merely read in a book.  He understood the people of that world—his “inner experience” aligned with theirs; by the philosophy that he expressed, he himself became what he called “a species of atavism” [note 2 at link].  And thereupon, he turned his eyes not to the past, but to the future.

I am not a Nietzschean—to assume as much is almost as fallacious as would be interpreting my occasional quotations of Seneca, and my homages to Arria the Elder, as making of me a Stoic.  (Life is complicated:  Cicero was an Academic, not really a Stoic himself.)  I diverge much from Nietzsche, including in the instant essay.  I know Nietzsche’s writings well enough to suspect that he would probably disagree with some significant parts of what I have said here—possibly including the manner in which I quoted him in the preceding section; about that, I am not sure.

This is not to disclaim Nietzsche, whom I account as one of my major influences.  Rather, I explain this because I know Christian chutzpah.  The way that Christian argumentation stereotypically works, the Christians will knee-jerk dismiss what I have said as a “Nietzschean screed”—and then, they will turn around and blame Nietzsche for ideas that I did not learn from him, and even for ideas that are originally mine.

Nietzsche’s greatest influence influence on this essay is in itself hereby illustrative:  He inspired me to radical re-examination of the culturally alien antiquities.

When I first read Beyond Good and Evil, I was perplexed at #239–239.  In close juxtaposition, Nietzsche declares that women should be treated as “confinable property”—then turns around and accuses early feminists of “an almost masculine stupidity”—whereupon he extols women’s power:  “…the most powerful and influential women in the world (and lastly, the mother of Napoleon) had just to thank their force of will—and not their schoolmasters—for their power and ascendancy over men.  That which inspires respect in woman, and often enough fear also, is her nature, which is more ‘natural’ than that of man…”  Moreover, practically within the same breath, he says that women should fear men, and men should fear women.

How can this be?  One moment, he sounds like Anglin—the next, he may as well be from the Women’s Studies Department.  —Or so it may seem, to those who read superficially.

The key to the puzzle:  Nietzsche effectually rejected not only Christianity, but the whole Christian worldview, including all cultural residues thereof.  I learned the idea of Christian cultural residues from Professor Oliver.  Thereupon, I realized just how much I, who first rejected the Christian religion as a young child, still had within myself many cultural elements of Christianity.  By an introspective process of examining my own deepest assumptions, I believe that I have succeeded in ruthlessly extirpating from myself every last trace of Christianity.  It was, in effect, the process of curing myself of a mental disease.

The Diagonal Line of the Sexes

Thereupon, I understand that there is no contradiction between a patriarchal, authoritarian, masculine society, and cherishing womankind to the degree of worshipping goddesses who personify stereotypically feminine characteristics.  For healthy men love women!  Healthy men—strong men even have a taste for the female characteristics which cause men problems…

Too sweet fruits—these the warrior liketh not.  Therefore liketh he woman;—bitter is even the sweetest woman.  [Id.]

…and for those who are too weak to smile at that, my best advice is to ask your favorite local liberal how to convert to homosexuality.  Women are a joy unto the strong.  When they reject or even ruin weak-willed men, the result is eugenic; and since there obviously aren’t enough strong men to go around, the logical solution is that women should advocate polygamy in the manner of the ancient Aryan Hindus.  What man worth being called a man would be able to resist that proposition?

—Well.  Now that Christians, feminists, and other liberals all hate me, that frees me up to make a proposal for those who do not fit that description.

If you want a stable, orderly society in which human behavior matches the natural requirements of life on this Earth, then a radical re-evaluation is required.  Reject modern ideas.  Restore the natural balance of the sexes—not an illusory harmony, but the mutually beneficial antagonism which makes them work together because they work against each other.

If and when the sexes work together, it is a diagonal alliance that joins mutual interests and mutual desires across vast, sometimes seemingly irreconcilable differences.  In effect, it is a delicate dance; and in any dance, someone needs to lead.

When men are leaders worth following, which modern men are not, women love to follow men’s lead in their little dance, in their similar-but-very-different counterpart to how masculine religions worship goddesses together with their gods.  The result is patriarchy—I mean real patriarchy in the ancient sense, not feminist “patriarchal oppression”.  Alack, modern men are a mess; and the modern problems between the sexes are more or less all men’s fault.  Until men take responsibility for that and shape themselves up, they need to understand that women need to fend for themselves.

In the instant essay, I have barely even mentioned the manly Greek gods.  There is a reason for that:  Modern men are in no way godlike.  Women respond most to the heroic in man—not the “macho”:  The heroic.  Modernity is the effacement of the heroic in man.

Moreover, recognize that just as the social and family order symbolized to the Greeks by Hera is wise, good, and necessary, so are the feminine characteristics archetypally symbolized by Athena, the ever-virgin goddess of war and wisdom—by Aphrodite, who needs here no further description—and by others, even including such fearsome deities as Tyche, she whose fickle whims may set your destiny by a roll of the dice, and by Nemesis, who shall have her revenge.

And when you study the antiquities, immerse yourself not in words on a page, but in the inner experiences thus represented—not to live in a dead past, but to rebirth its best characteristics for a better future. ®

 
An innovative approach to comment moderation.

The Unz Review is a serious publication.  That is a part of what has attracted me to read it, and now to write for it:  This is a webzine run with traditional publishing standards, by a man who has experience with the publication of a classy print magazine; it not some sloppy blog.  Mr. Unz does here in practice some of what I have imagined, when I have fancied running my own website—and he does some of it better than I imagined.

Indeed, what first drew me to comment was my desire to get a feel for how his system works.  I wanted to learn.  I expected to make a few comments, then stop.  My “20. Juli” comment was intended to be my finale.

Now, I can give back with some of my own ideas.  For my new blog at The Unz Review, I hereby introduce my model for the handling of comments:  Think of them as “Letters to the Editor”.

In the good old days, when a perspicacious reader wanted to remark on an article, the commentary took the form of a letter, neatly typed and or handwritten with adequate penmanship, addressed to the editor.  In respectable publications with good editors, the “Letters to the Editor” section was often a treasure trove of insightful commentary—sometimes even discussions which continued across issues, with letters replying to other letters.  For example, the letters section of Liberty Bell sometimes carried running discussions and debates between ordinary subscribers.

The “comment” form on a web article has the advantages of speed, and of much lesser limitations on available space for print.  If commentators treat it as a form for submitting a letter to the editor, that will raise the quality of discussion.  I will treat comments accordingly, when I receive them in the The Unz Review’s comment moderation interface.

Most of all, that means keeping standards for quality.  A comment that says only, “You rock!” is really no better than one that says, “You suck!”  I want for my blog articles to be read—and I want to do my commentators the favor of making their discussions readable, thus making it more likely that they will be read.  As a longtime lurker in such discussions myself, I hate to sift through nigh illegible gibberish in search of nuggets of gold:  That is an editorial job, which should have been done by the moderator!

It also means keeping comments reasonably on-topic.  Discussions may meander a bit; but they should not go wildly off-topic.  Completely irrelevant, or otherwise fallacious ad hominem attacks are categorically off-topic—with the exception that hate speech against me has its own topic, where it is on-topic.  By that, I mean real hate speech—not the Defamation League’s notion of “hate speech”.

And it means enforcing the courtesy that is the basis for civil society.  Mind your manners!  Of course, some courtesies are reserved for peers.  If I condescend to you, I am clearly demonstrating that you are not my peer—whereas if I treat you as a peer, and you dishonor me, you may expect for me to grace you with the rhetorical equivalent of a duelist’s coup de grâce.

In the application of all these general rules, there is a spectrum.  I intend to keep things fairly casual, for most items; but on articles that I consider to be at a higher level, I will be downright fascist in judging the publishable quality of responses.

Nota bene:  There is hereby only “the spirit of the law”, which I shall apply in my sound discretion.  Rules-lawyers who want to argue about the letter of the law will find that—well, there isn’t any.  Consider that to be my protest against legalistic, quasi-Talmudic “People of the Book” attitude, plus the stupid idea of “a nation of laws and not men”.  I will freely make exceptions, as I see fit.  I will sometimes violate my own rules, for reasons of higher wisdom and higher policy; and I will laugh at anyone who accuses me of hypocrisy.  And I frankly admit that I will probably make some mistakes.  I set forth hereby a theory that I have not yet put to practice; as I gain empirical experience, adjustments will surely be needed.

My aim hereby is to cultivate good discussions, not so much to be an active daily participant.  After having produced almost 200,000 words of commentary in less than two months, I must refocus my efforts on this “blog”.  For a thing should be done right, or not at all:  Before, I did commentary the Raches way—now, I must write my Proems.  If I see a comment that I think warrants substantial reply, whether positive or negative, I will usually just set it aside, with little or no remark, until the mood strikes me to make it the subject of a blog post.  This will be better for those comments’ authors, too, insofar as it will give their discussion with me much more prominence.

On Criticism

I see criticism of myself and of my ideas as generally falling into three categories:

1. Intelligent criticism.  I don’t want to censor that; and I obviously couldn’t, even if I wanted to, because the critics would just speak up elsewhere.  Censoring intelligent criticism comes off as an evasive dodge, from someone who cannot answer.

Although I actually do not enjoy debate—not at all—I have an aptitude for it; and since I can answer critics squarely, I should do so.  I probably will not do so in the comments—well, not much, for the reason stated above, inter alia.

2. Hateful personal attacks.  For example, when Jonathan Revusky told me to shove a gun up my arse and pull the trigger.  And he is not just some random troll:  He is a former UR author, with his own idiotic conspiracy site and apparently, at least a few of his own deranged followers.  In a single comment, he torched his own credibility and inadvertently boosted mine.  I want to frame that comment, and hang it up somewhere!  How many authors can evoke such intense hatred, so quickly?

So that I can gloat over the impotent rage of my haters, without letting spiteful nonsense clog ordinary threads, I may occasionally let an off-topic personal attack; and I may accord it a canned response:

Moderator hat on:  This comment is off-topic.  Off-topic personal attacks, fallacious ad hominem arguments, and genuine hate speech against me have their own topic—just for you, sweetie.  Further off-topic comments may be censored, because I am figuratively-literally more mercilessly authoritarian than Hitler. ®

If this platform offers such a feature, I may instead move such comments at my discretion.

3. Spammish floods of repetitive diatribes, especially but not limited to personal attacks.  I will censor those as I see fit.  They drag down the quality of discussion.  In the worst case, multiple trolls (whether sockpuppets or buddies brigading) deliberately attempt to degrade and derail discussions.

Welcome, Commentators!

Without further ado, or any attempt at a special segue or dénouement, I declare the comments open; and from this point, I will open them for most of my articles.  Later, as this develops, I will retroactively open comments for some of my initial articles. ®

 
Take your best shot at me, ad hominem—or ad feminam, if you prefer.

Mood music:  Listen whilst you read.  Let’s keep it classy.


People are known by the company they keep.  On the same grounds, they who stand bravely for good and right on controversial issues may be measured by the hatred they evoke from their enemies.

To cultivate a high-quality discussion on my Proems, I lay down the law with a moderation policy that is assuredly more “Nazi” than literally-Hitler.  Thereupon, I will soon start to open comments.  However, as a self-described philological hate-speech intellectual terrorist” and “literary hyper-troll”, I do not want to miss the hate mail!

I am an observer of human nature; and amidst a world gone mad, I collect every scrap of rudeness and stupidity.  I will therefore keep a topic exclusively devoted to off-topic personal attacks and insults against me.

Do you hate me?  Take your best shot!  Hereby in this thread, and in future installments of “Hate Speech” on Proems, the only limitations here for anti-Raches ad hominem attacks shall be the laws applicable to The Unz Review, sanity checks against spam and flooding, and the extremely lenient moderation policy that Mr. Unz generally sets for his site.  (As a believer in private territory, and a very firm believer in hierarchy, I know that this is his site, not mine; although I could exercise my free speech to criticize Mr. Unz’s policies if I were to dislike them, I cannot peremptorily countermand the man whose name is in the banner at the top.)  Also, I will not permit this topic to be used unjustifiably to attack others.  This topic is about me.

I am rich in haters.  Some have cursed me out; some have armchair-psychoanalyzed me; many have hurled false accusations at me, and spun conspiracy theories about my motives, my alleged associates, and my identity.  Here, I will merely pick a few examples of haters whom I found exemplary of all that I am against.

I reject the concept of brotherly love, and I damn Christianity as a religion of hate.  In reply to my such commentary, “obwandiyag” and “WorkingClass” proved my point by showing their Christian “love”, the love of those who preach most about “brotherhood”:

@Raches

I hope you are poor someday. I hope you are sick. I hope you lose your loved ones and your friends and everything that is dear to you.

So that I can not give a shit about you.

Thanks: WorkingClass

Troll: Raches

Replies: @Raches

Ask Nietzsche to explain the genealogy of those morals.  Wishing extreme personal harm not only on me, but on “[my] loved ones and [my] friends and everything that is dear to [me]”:  An it be not “hate speech”, what is?  That revelation of the inner nature of Christian apologists exceeded the hate-benchmark previously set by a Moon Landing Denier and “redpill” addict, Jonathan Revusky—the emphasis is Adon Revusky’s:

@Raches

Dude, why don’t you avail yourself of your Second Amendment rights, get a gun, and blow your brains out? Even a WW2 surplus Carcano rifle would do the job.

Just shove it up your ass and pull the trigger.

Troll: Raches

As a right-to-die absolutist (and one who, incidentally, rejects any notion of a so-called “right to life”), I do not get my glands exercised by such a proposition.  Adon Revusky, I will file your kindly advice in “taken under advisement”.

So as for overall hatefulness:  They who achieve the nadir of worst-in-class hate speech, or were at least runners-up down.  Now, let’s have a show of hands:  How many of you readers agree with all that hate against me?  I want to know who you are.  Stand up and be counted!

For the special prize in pitiable attempts to insult my intelligence, Yevardian leads the way:

@Raches

[…internal quote hereby trimmed by Raches.]  All modern “liberalism” and “progressivism” are only cultural residues of Christianity…  Christian egalitarianism, Christian jealousy, Christian hatred for anything beautiful, strong, healthy, and superior, and Christian love for all that is ugly, sick, lowly, inferior, irrational, debased, diseased, deformed, and degenerate. ®

Troll: Raches

Replies: @Raches

Yevardian’s social-media churchboy meme was an unimpressive Ersatz for an argument, as I pointed out while providing another image as a visual hint.  The hint went straight over his head; and he subsequently attempted to blame me for his meming (!), in a comment which, besides reflecting a severe distortion of Western culture and religion, speaks as if Nietzsche were eminently discreditable—an attitude that says more about Yevardian than about Nietzsche or me; and he thereby chalked up my argument to Nietzsche.

To label everyone who has ever been influenced by Nietzsche as a Nietzschean is as absurd as to call everyone who has ever been influenced by Aristotle an Aristotlean, or everyone who has ever quoted Seneca a Stoic.  And although I frankly admit to having cribbed that particular argument to a degree that I nearly risk a charge of plagiarism, Professor Nietzsche was not the classical philologist who propounded this particular argument, in this particular form, about the law of cultural residues (see note 1), and the metaphor of Christianity as racial “AIDS”.  Protip for Yevardian:  “AIDS” did not yet exist in Nietzsche’s time.

The current award for attempts to belittle me goes to an admitted sockpuppet who called himself “Dr. Fasci, America’s Doctor”, who did tantamount to telling me ad feminam to shut up and get back in the kitchen:

@Raches

Now I’m just a simple minded country physician, but when I see your screen name I can only picture this:

Busy whipping up another trifle.

Thanks: Raches

Replies: @Raches

Discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me; and when my personal space is invaded, I find it objectionable.  I therefore took Dr. Fasci’s suggestion, and whipped up a recipe to feed him his own little anatomical micro-banana with some orchiectomy beans…

Awesome!  Literally awesome:  I inspire awe, in the sense of fear.  […]  I am imagined as a hot girl, with an allicient waist-to-hip hourglass signal that she yearns to be injected with good genes—i.e., not yours.

She looks as if she is about to give you a real case of “penis envy”, as Revenge® for your invasion of her personal space.  The banana is symbolic.  It is a practical application of eugenics, but without Hitler’s mercy.

If I can jab Miss Iris till she swallows her tongue, then I can needle you to eat your own prick.  ’Tis surely a trifle.

…and, for me, a nice Chianti.


ANL.gov: “Forty-nine scientists, led by Enrico Fermi, were present in a converted squash court at the University of Chicago’s abandoned Stagg Field on Dec. 2, 1942, when Chicago Pile 1, the world’s first nuclear reactor went critical.  To celebrate their success, Eugene Wigner opened a bottle of Chianti he had purchased months before in anticipation of the event.  The group silently sipped Chianti from paper cups, then passed the bottle around and signed the straw wrapping.”

—Well, have at it!  Let fools be known for follies.  With those unshining examples to set the mood, my dear haters, tell me what you really think of me.  I support “hate speech”, so go ahead and speechify on how much you hate me. ®

 
I have always proudly declared that I am an authoritarian.

I will soon set forth my comment moderation policy, and start to open comments.  By way of preparation for this great moment in history, I hereby give a visual sneak peek at what to expect.

The Unz Review is a respectable publication.  On August 5, 2021, I encouraged Mr. Unz to consider a moderation policy that would conserve the free discussion of a controversial topic, whilst cracking down on those who lack “the manners to dine at [his] table without throwing the silverware.”  Now, I am proud to have been granted an office here; and I intend to keep it in good order.  Wipe your feet and wash your hands before you enter, and mind your manners.

Reichsminister Dr. Goebbels in his office in 1937.  Background: Karle Hanke; right: Walter Funk. (Bild 183-H29353)

The Unz Review is a wholesome site.  Let’s keep it that way, by avoiding degenerate rudeness.

Kampf um’s Dritte Reich: Eine Historische Bilderfolge (Cigaretten-Bilderdienst, 1933), p. 71.

The Unz Review is an erudite publication.  We must stop the decay of the academy.

Ladies are welcome here.  Behave accordingly.

Art by Wolfgang Willrich, 1939.

Also, I took a name that evokes an Hitlerian prayer to the Goddess of Revenge.  It may be unwise to troll me. ®

 
A Note on the Meaning of Life

What is a living creature’s most fundamental motivation in life?

On the deepest level, what differentiates a healthy creature from a sick creature?

My most basic premises:  Earthly creatures are mortal.  A healthy creature wishes, above all, to defeat Death:  And in so doing, he or she is willing to risk life, and even to sacrifice it.

I am possessed of a fundamentally reproductive Weltanschauung.  My morality, my politics, my philosophy of history, my views on race and culture—all things rise in some way from, or are deeply entwined with, my views of life, death, continuation beyond death, and the Will to Immortality.

Some Other Answers

In various ways, many have posited that the fundamental motive is a Will to Survive.  Such a will obviously exists; but it provides for unsatisfactory philosophical explanations.  No matter how the philosophers (and philosophasters) may twist and turn about, they cannot explain away the equally obvious fact that healthy creatures may, and often do sacrifice their own survival.  Worst of all, as usual, are the utilitarian rationalizations.

Nietzsche posited a Will to Power:  The will of a healthy organism to expend its superabundant energy, and thus, the need of that will for resistance to overcome.  This is also correct—much more subtly, less obviously; and Nietzsche thereby repudiated the longstanding, widespread error of assuming that creatures try to conserve their energies.  Sloth is not an indulgence in pleasure, but a sickness.  Only a sick creature could find pleasure in lassitude, enervation, listlessness, and langour—for Dr. Nietzsche’s philological pleasure, I will use the use of language to show how nice are all the philosophasters and Christian moralists who, being themselves sick and weak, could fancy that a healthy creature would try to avoid the expenditure of energy.  However, the explanation is still unsatisfactory.

Rachesian Teleology

I say thus:

Every healthy creature desires to be immortal:  To conquer Death, or to cheat it—one way or another, to live forever.

To this end, Nature gives to each creature a capacity for reproduction.  If a creature creates another in its own image, then passes away, then it has not truly died.  Observe that healthy animals will oftentimes risk life and limb for a mere chance to produce offspring.

To so say is retrospectively obvious:  Everyone knows it, but no one puts it exactly that way—much less considers the implications.  If followed to its logical end, this line of thought produces moral and cultural conclusions about race, family, society, and the individual.  Some National Socialists and similar thinkers have expressed similar ideas; but to my knowledge, none have approached or expressed this idea in the same way as I have.

Although I usually abhor any form of human exceptionalism, here, man has indubitably gained an advantage over every other creature:  Memory.  Achilles has passed into myth:  Is he not immortal as a god?  According to his myth, it was said that either he would live a long life, then be forgotten—or die young, and be remembered in glory forever.  Do I hereby state an original thesis, or am I merely seeing through the eyes of Homeric heroes?

All non-degenerate peoples of higher races keep sacred the memories of their ancestors, who are thus remembered spiritually as they are remembered bodily.  Cf. the parallel between Roman ancestor-worship and Chinese ancestor-worship, as drawn by William S. Haas in The Destiny of the Mind: East and West (MacMillan, New York, 1956), pp. 72f.  The Jews have elaborate traditions rituals for remembering their beloved dead, even if they do not apotheoize them as the Romans and the Chinese did.  Only very low races and Christians forget their ancestors.

A great man may reproduce himself on a grand scale memetically, instead of—or, one would hope, in addition to his genetic continuation.  Most men, and almost all women, cannot achieve the historic stature of immortal glory.  They must content themselves with the same reproductive immortality available to all living creatures—and hope on a more modest level to be remembered by their families.

Death and Extinction—Suicidality and Racial Suicide

The death of the individual is inevitable, for all mortals.  It pales in comparison to a much deeper, more horrifying type of death.

Failure to obtain a continuation on this Earth beyond death causes extinction—existential death.

Suicide is not necessarily wrong; and it is often right:  “Nihil melius aeterna lex fecit…”  It pales in comparison to a much deeper, more horrifying type of suicide.

An animal that becomes depressed will sometimes stop eating, thus forfeiting its own survival.  This is not infrequently observed with wild animals who are confined to a menagerie; cf. Nietzsche’s observations about “The ‘Improvers’ of Mankind” in Twilight of the Idols.

How sick must an animal be to desire not only death, but the total and ultimate annihilation of extinction!  That is a wish not for an exit from life, but for nonexistence.

How sick must a race be, if, by the majority thereof, it collectively desires nonexistence!  Cf. Liberty Bell, May 1992, pp. 14f., where, after pages of summarizing much evidence of Aryan racial inferiority with the objectivity of a truly Aryan scholar, Professor Oliver says:

Throughout the world, Aryans are showing unmistakable symptoms of either imbecility or a latent death-wish.  The cause is not certain.  One can speculate about the consequences of more than two centuries of dysgenic breeding and legislation.  If the Jewish biologist, Dr. Alfred Nossig, is right, much may be attributed to Yiddish poisoning of Aryan blood-lines.  One could adapt Robert Ardrey’s hypothesis about the mountain gorillas, that species have a collective subconscious that governs their conduct and becomes aware when a species has become biologically obsolete.  The most likely primary cause, in my opinion, is Christianity, a religion that is the negation of life, and is a kind of racial “AIDS,” which, over two millennia, progressively sapped and finally destroyed our race’s immune system, i.e., its consciousness of its racial identity.

As I draw an analogy between suicide and the racial failure to reproduce, so, too, do I declare that miscegenation is a racial form of self-mutilation.  People whose minds are wired to self-hatred sometimes cut or burn themselves—or if they are Christians, they may self-flagellate themselves bloody, or mortify their flesh by wearing spiked chains that cause open sores.  How much worse is it for a creature to desire to reproduce not in its own image—first, and literally, not in its image.  Every healthy creature desires, at the least, to produce offspring that look like itself.

To illustrate with an infamous example:  When Heidi Klum, who made her career literally from her hereditary image, desired and bore offspring that look totally alien to her, she did to herself—and to her ancestors—and to her descendants, forever—a mutilation tantamount to cutting off her nose to spite her face—but with effects lasting far beyond herself, far beyond her mortal lifetime as an individual.

The Faith of Earthly Immortality

Your Heaven is here on Earth—or your Hell is here on Earth—or else, you meet the extirpation of your soul with your loss of Earthly Immortality.  Your continuation in living bodies and living memories must be unto you the most sacred achievement that you can attain—towards which all other achievements are directed.

For this reason, the most selfish of all individuals faces a paradox:  The ultimate selfishness requires altruism, for to command through others one’s own continuing immortality in generations yet unborn.  The individual alone shall die:  Through others, the individual may become as the gods.

In that sense, I am radically selfish.


The foregoing note abstracts in a short, aphoristic format the thesis of an unpublished essay that I wrote some years ago—with the addition of Nietzsche and Oliver, to support and to refine ideas that I had developed independently—plus the reference to Haas, whose book I found via the review reprinted in America’s Decline.  I call Dr. Oliver my professor, for studying his work and following the leads he gives can provide quite an education.

The essay is on a backup disk somewhere, and is not accessible to me at this time.  If I can obtain the text that I wrote before, perhaps I may polish and publish it; or I may write a better philosophical essay from scratch—or perhaps I may simply learn to do this aphoristically, in bits and pieces, as Nietzsche did.  It worked for him—and it is convenient for the so-called “blog” format.


To Achilles, and to my trinity of philological warriors:  Dr. Nietzsche, Dr. Goebbels, and Dr. Oliver.  Eternal is your immortal glory.  —And to myself, as is all of my work.  May I be immortalized as the prophet of the Will to Immortality:  The same Will which manifests in both my creative energies, and my reproductive instincts. ®

 
Wherefore am I become Raches?

Readers usually want biographical information about the author, so as to add some “human interest”. Thus, amidst the twilight of a New Dark Age, I hereby formally introduce myself to a world gone mad.

By historical mandate, and by Destiny, this is become my family:

I am become what I am, from my striving objectively to detach myself from my own life experiences, to cross seemingly impassible chasms in space and time and culture, and then subjectively to immerse myself in the worldviews of worlds that have been lost and destroyed. They are so alien to the modern democratic world, and are so commonly distorted through the lens of its mentality, that I despair of finding anyone with whom I can discuss such matters intelligently.

I must first ruthlessly dispel the illusion—the delusion that modern times be superior to the past. We, the damned, live now as maggots eating the bloated corpse of a dead civilization. We cover its stench with the perfume of gadgets, gizmos, and cheap entertainments: High-tech panem et circenses, distractions, and substitutes for the quality of human beings.

’Tis an age when people who are ever sicker, weaker, and stupider have the conceit to fancy themselves ever healthier, stronger, and smarter. Black is made white, and white, black—lies are called truth, and truth, lies—health is diagnosed as sickness, and sickness is praised as health—freedom is slavery, and slavery, freedom—crime is the lawlooters brag not only of looting, but of stealing superior achievements from their betters—malice wears the mask of virtue, love is called hate, and hate is worshipped as love. ’Tis an age when the best are persecuted for being good, when the worst are praised for being bad, when treason to lords is ennobled and enthroned as king, when treason to ancestors is apotheosized as the sacrilegious faith of sacred degeneracy.

Modernity is nihilism: The Modern Age is the epochal Utopia of Hell on Earth. In such an age, those who are properly the most humanistic must, humanitatis, appear inhuman: For even “humanism” has come to mean hatred of humanity, as manifest in the Christian and “liberal” do-gooders who most loudly preach about “love for all humanity”.

I condemn and contemn this modern world: The world which annihilated the world that I desire and desiderate.

Wherefore I am become Raches: My name is born of revenge.

When even the Wheel of Fortune has been shattered, I must pray for retributive justice. My hymns and my odes are the arms of an intellectual guerrilla. I do Gain-of-Function research on memetic viruses in my clandestine mindlab, to make philological weapons. I live by the Spenglerian aphorism, “Optimism is cowardice,” to cure myself of the malignancy of hope: Hope, that most poisonous ill from the bottom of Pandora’s Box. I must live for justice—for the justice of the Furies!—for the honor of the dead, and for to protect whatever beauty and goodness may remain in this world.

And in a world of psychotics who first denied the most basic and obvious facts of race and heredity, who then logically continued by “scientifically” repudiating the theory of sexual dimorphism, and who denounce any orderly grouping of related human beings in their own societies, what identity can I claim but that of a lost soul, perforce the offspring of Revenge? Insofar as you, dear reader, are concerned, I have no race, no sex, no nation, no clan—no identity but what is wrought by the writ of my words. And I am not whatever “people” may commonly assume me to be.

I am not an advocate of the notion of Aryan racial superiority: To the contrary, I am that race’s harshest critic. For whatever reason, I seek to salvage some remnant of the race which murdered and enslaved the best of its own kind, abdicated its empires, and, to the detriment of all others, gave away its global supremacy to the Jews. The Jews would have nothing today, if Aryans had not anointed them as the masters of the Earth; and for that, Aryans cannot escape responsibility. Moreover, Aryans are the only race so low, so submissive, so despicable as eagerly to invite others to eat and excrete on themselves and their children. Aryans are proud to be prey animals: Domesticated anthropoid livestock who exist for the benefit of nobler beings, such as rhymes with triggers. When I say that I wish to conserve my Aryans as Dr. Dian Fossey cared to conserve her gorillas, the only problem with the analogy is that, by the empirical evidence of what they are today, Aryans are racially inferior to gorillas. I apologize to gorillas for the racist insult.

I am not an advocate of “majority rights”, but to the contrary. As of today, as almost everywhere throughout history, the so-called “majority” consists of natural born slaves: Mass-men who, if granted any rights in their own governance, not only will vote themselves into chains, but will force the same chains onto others who do not share their innate inferiority. By the aristocratic principle, majorities must obey: They must never rule; and they must never have any “rights”, except the right obediently to embrace the rule of a Caesar. Caesarism is the cure for the democratic disease, and it is the antidote to populism: It is the wise leadership of an aristocrat who uses the power of the mob, to break the power of the mob.

I am not a National Socialist—just as I am not a Bonapartist and not a Caesarist. I admire Adolf Hitler similarly as I admire Caesar and Napoleon, albeit in greater degree. Hitler was the leader of the free world—the last leader of the lost world.

I am of the forsaken, and I speak for the betrayed. I am a ghost of a stolen past, and of a forbidden future that was murdered in the womb. My spiritual mother is Nemesis: Divine Vengeance herself hath rebirthed me and taken me to her fearsome breast, and nursed me with the wrath that knows no mercy.

Only as such is there any possibility at all that past wrongs, which can never be undone, may nevertheless be overcome. These, my Proems, are my postscripts in blessed memory of a superior past—Never Forget!—and thus, perhaps, my prologue for a better future, unto those few who may deserve it: They who would come nigh at history’s end, to rebirth it in a fiery new beginning.

Also schreiben der Wille der Göttin der unerbittlichen Rache. ®


To the heiligen Helga, Hilde, Helmut, Holde, Hedda, and Heide: Blessed forever be your memories.


Image credit: Statue by an unidentified Roman artist. Photograph by “Dave & Margie Hill / Kleerup” (CC-BY-SA), via Wikimedia Commons; modified by Raches.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: About the Author, New Dark Age, Revenge 
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Hidden Information in Our Government Archives
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
How America was neoconned into World War IV