The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRaches' Political Proems
Because I Care
I am a deeply caring person.
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
Table of ContentsOptions
List of Bookmarks

On Caring

I recently contemplated some cases of people who were traumatized by online leftist lynch-mobs before “cancel culture” became a buzzword:  Decent-seeming, intelligent, productive people—sensitive souls; sympathetic characters—naïve, blindsided, uncomprehending and emotionally crushed as innocent jokes, misinterpreted remarks, and everyday banter were cruelly twisted to make vicious calumny and false accusations.  I hesitate to raise such things, after the victims sank back into merciful obscurity following their fifteen minutes of unjust infamy.  The mob moved on, its virtual bloodlust slaked till it could find its next victim.  Even most of those who opposed the mob eventually forgot.  I saw what happened.  I never forget, and I never forgive.

Because I care.  I am a deeply caring person.  This tends to confuse others, for my caring is Nietzschean, not Christian.[1]Cf. the series of essays by “Cholly Bilderberger” in Instauration, May – September 1979, especially the beginning and the conclusion thereof.  I am quite sure that I could step over the bloody corpses of my enemies without blinking, with cold indifference.  Those who have seen that side of me in real life are usually terrified—even if I didn’t do anything but to gaze at them with eyes they never saw, or say a sharp word in a voice which, to them, must be from an alien world.  Then, they see that I love puppies and kittens, and I oft spend seemingly unbounded time and patience helping others, and I instictively fight whatever I perceive as injustice.  Am I an angel or a devil?

Most people are uncaring, and I condemn them for it.  Worst of all, overly sensitive people are uncaring:  Their bleeding-heart lachrymose sentimentality is a cheap Ersatz for genuine caring.  To care deeply, passionately, without reservation—to let your cares soar above the heavens, to march with them into the gates of Hell—this requires an iron heart.

To those who would care, really care, I say:  Let your caring be your honor.


I care about them.

This is only my initial reply to Dr. Robert Morgan’s comment of October 31, 2021:

As usual, this article is more interesting for the questions it raises than the answers it provides.  We’re definitely left with the impression that the author greatly admires Hitler, but why?  He doesn’t say.  Likewise with Goebbels and his family.  Admirable to Raches, but why?

Because I care.

I care about them:

Some happy Germans.

Twelve years of freedom.

I admit that I have tried dozens of times to answer Dr. Morgan’s inquiry.  The difficulty is not a want of anything to say, but too much of it:  A proper reply would begin with an 800-page tome, like Hitler’s famous little book.

At the highest level, I see Hitler’s Germany from an historical perspective as the third major Western classical civilization, alongside ancient Greece and Rome.  Surely, historians will see it that way a thousand years hence.  It is not that I decide to make it so:  I have the vision to proclaim the future in advance.  For I merely think long-term, and look backwards.  People will come to see the Germans this way.  That is my original thesis—and my call for scholars to be study this subject now, before even more information about it is lost forever.

Most people are unaware of how little we actually know about classical antiquity.  Oldfather apud Oliver calculated that only about 2% of Greek, and 5% of Latin literature survived the Dark Age.  Much of the destruction was deliberate—and much of the destruction is not merely the negative of the memory-hole, but the burial of the truth in Christian lies and forgery.[2]For a brief conspectus, see Joseph Wheless, Forgery in Christianity (Knopf, New York, 1930; 406 pp. plus front- and back-matter).  When the academy is decayed in the New Dark Age, who else but my Great Professor could offer me such an education?  As Dr. Oliver frequently remarked, “Lying for the Lord is a normal exercise in piety.”  All that remains to us is a painstaking reconstruction that has consumed centuries of collective effort by some of the most brilliant scholarly minds.

The careers of geniuses have been spent in struggle to fill in a few more lacunae, many of which will remain forever dark—to emend away a few more interpolations—to debunk a few more forgeries.  The process of understanding antiquity is academic Revisionism at its finest; in opposition thereto stands more than sixteen centuries of the Judaeo-Christian Pravda, which continues its dirty work to this day.

We—anyone who cares for the truth; anyone who cares about history; anyone who cares about the future of civilized mankind—editorial “we”, for I am independent—we have thus a grave problem, and an acute, urgent need.

We need scholars of the highest academic standards to save what can now be ascertained about German National Socialism—before even more is forever lost to the New Dark Age, tossed down the memory-hole or buried beneath politically motivated falsification.  We need more academic-level “Revisionists” (i.e., honest historians) of the caliber of Harry Elmer Barnes.  We need scholars specializing in the German language, and fully educated in philological methods, to examine, for example, the putative Goebbels diaries, with the same standards of ruthless scholarly objectivity as applied to manuscripts that purport to copy the words of Tacitus.  We need a library and historical archive independent of hostile organizations and governments, with a focus on organizing and curating primary- and secondary-source materials, tracing the provenance thereof, assuring their integrity, and making them freely available for study.

I am unqualified for the historical and philological work.  It would take me many years more study to catch up on even one area of the necessary specialties—if I wished to throw aside all other activities, which I do not.  In my rôle as a philosopher and a social critic with significant technical skills, I seek rather to point to this need, to organize the right people and, I hope, the censorship-resistant infrastructure that they will need, and to defend their freedom of academic scholarship.

This is not a task that will be completed in one day.  I have not yet even managed to write my manifesto for it—tentatively titled, “The Department of German Classics”—a document that must carry grave historical weight, which I began attempting before the name “Raches” ever showed up here at The Unz Review.  Since this is supposed to be a “blog”, and I have highly intelligent readers encouraging me to do actual blogging, it is not unlikely that the task will be done piecewise, as seen here.

Here, suffice it to note that at the highest level of normalization, I really do see the German National Socialists similarly to how I see the Greeks and the Romans.  I draw inspiration from them.  I do not try to copy them by rote.  I don’t dress up in a toga or an imitation SA uniform; and I myself have some significant philosophic and cultural differences with these various great peoples.  When I use German imagery, I do not see it any differently than when I decorate my posts with classical or neo-classical artworks.  As high culture always leads, my propaganda to popularize the cause of the Germans trickles down from my historical and cultural perspective on them.  Of course, some idiots may object—just as pseudoscholarly race-mixing propagandists traduce the Greeks;[3]I hung back and waited to see if any of my readers would take up an insult to the Greeks—which cited a deracination-propagandist married to a Jewess (to whom he gave a masculine name, twice), whose work was panned as shoddy even by some mainstream academics.  The only reaction was Yevardian’s prompt agreement—unsurprising, since this is a war of Weltanschauungen; and despite showing evidence of being widely read, Yevardian is just another “liberal intellectual” who lacks critical thinking skills and distorts history favorably to the Jews, albeit one who decided not to live in a totally psychotic fantasy about race.  Since C.T. showed up in one of my other threads, I think it’s appropriate to note that he has looked into Durant’s racial views a bit on his blog, from a perspective that is mostly otherwise favorable to Durant; it looks like a balanced treatment of one point in one book, but does not reach the propaganda that the Durants made for racial “interdependence”, among other problems with Will and “Ariel” Durant. so what?  Should I deign even to notice creatures of the democratic Weltanschauung, who yap at the heels of great peoples and great civilizations?

In answer to Dr. Morgan, I put aside that ambitious “manifesto” aforesaid, and wrote a spontaneous comment that began growing into a sort of an ambitious photo-essay.  Why the German National Socialists?  I thought to publish that in honor of 9. November; as it grew to summarize more points about why the German National Socialists are important, I decided to combine that holiday with a little present for Frau Magda Goebbels’ 120th birthday.  A week later, all that I can say is:  I am an artist, my lack of punctuality would horrify a Prussian much as my perfectionism may mollify, I have a few distractions hereto irrelevant, my dog ate my homework an early draft, I will finish that on a “done when it’s done” basis, y’all can blame Dr. Morgan for asking questions that are too good, and—

I care.

I care about the best, not the worst.  I care about those who inspire me—I care with my eyes turned upwards and not downwards—I care without “the morbid hatred of superiority that make Christians dote on whatever is lowly, inferior, irrational, debased, deformed, and degenerate,” to borrow an apt turn of phrase from Professor Oliver.  (See p. 454 [PDF sheet 456] of the book that Archive.org is censoring.)  If I care enough to remember the injustices of petty online lynch-mobs years after everyone else has forgotten them, how could I not care orders of magnitude more about a beautiful nation that was destroyed by savages, in what was probably the single biggest mass-murder in history—combined with what was surely the biggest, most vicious mass-rape in history?

I admire the healthy, the robust, the strong and the beautiful.  When I watch historical footage of magnificent SS men on the march, or Germans dancing, or even ordinary Germans just having normal lives, I wish them the best.  I frankly admit that they were physically superior to me, as an individual—although I think I could hold my own in the realm of the mind.  To the extent that they were better than me, that is something to look up to—something to admire.  And I wish them the best…

He cared about his people.  I care about him.

—I wish them what they had—what was robbed away from them with murderous cruelty.  —Then, I am in horror.  I cannot watch an historical video of pretty BDM girls, without the foreknowledge of what was to befall them when the Red Army arrived.  I cannot watch those beautiful specimens of manhood on the march, without seeing them ground into the dirt as they fought courageously, honorably, heroically against overwhelming odds.

—And for what?  To please the Jews!  To feed the American world-police megalomania!  From hatred of the Germans as a cause in itself!  To plunder the products of the superior German mind!  And because the Germans wanted their own country for themselves!  Did the Germans not have that right?

I care enough to ask that question.  —Then, I am become Raches. ®


Notes

[1] Cf. the series of essays by “Cholly Bilderberger” in Instauration, May – September 1979, especially the beginning and the conclusion thereof.

[2] For a brief conspectus, see Joseph Wheless, Forgery in Christianity (Knopf, New York, 1930; 406 pp. plus front- and back-matter).  When the academy is decayed in the New Dark Age, who else but my Great Professor could offer me such an education?  As Dr. Oliver frequently remarked, “Lying for the Lord is a normal exercise in piety.”

[3] I hung back and waited to see if any of my readers would take up an insult to the Greeks—which cited a deracination-propagandist married to a Jewess (to whom he gave a masculine name, twice), whose work was panned as shoddy even by some mainstream academics.  The only reaction was Yevardian’s prompt agreement—unsurprising, since this is a war of Weltanschauungen; and despite showing evidence of being widely read, Yevardian is just another “liberal intellectual” who lacks critical thinking skills and distorts history favorably to the Jews, albeit one who decided not to live in a totally psychotic fantasy about race.  Since C.T. showed up in one of my other threads, I think it’s appropriate to note that he has looked into Durant’s racial views a bit on his blog, from a perspective that is mostly otherwise favorable to Durant; it looks like a balanced treatment of one point in one book, but does not reach the propaganda that the Durants made for racial “interdependence”, among other problems with Will and “Ariel” Durant.

 
Hide 52 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I care about the best, not the worst.

    This poses a problem. What about Jews like Einstein and Mahler? Einstein was among the best scientists. Mahler among the best scientists.

    I get it that many Jews played a deeply corrosive role in German society, and even Jews of great talent lent aid/support to bad Jews.

    Still, National Socialism often favored second-rate Aryan talents to first-rate Semitic ones.

    How does one square this with favoring the best?

    And Jesse Owens and Joe Louis beat Aryan athletes. Should a proud nazi, in his love of the best, idolize Negroes? It seems Leni Riefenstahl went in that direction with her Nuba photos and documentary.

    I think meritocracy is important but it’s not the end-all of civilization. If anything, the current woes owe to the Western, especially American, obsession with winners uber losers. Favor the winners among the Other than the losers among one’s Own.

    West went from Intra-meritocracy to inter-meritocracy, and whites came to idolize Jews as the best in brains and blacks as the best in brawn.

    Thus, supremacism was a contradiction in National Socialism. On the one hand, it was about Our World and Ourselves regardless of whether they were the best or not. They were part of the family.
    But National Socialism was also obsessed with being the best, and it turned out Germany didn’t have the best, let alone most, in everything.

    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
    , @Marcali
  2. Raches says: • Website
    @Priss Factor

    Your prior encomium to alleged black penis size shows how easily you swallow liberal myths.

    No, really:  The Germans had people of extraordinarily high quality.  That is one reason why their particular brand of nationalism could work for them, whereas it would not work for many others.  I have been intending to write about that.  Anyway, the proof is in the pudding:  In nominal peacetime, they achieved near economic autarky under a global boycott which deprived them of many raw materials, requiring considerable scientific ingenuity for workarounds.  In wartime, tiny little Germany simultaneously fought the world’s largest empire, largest army, and largest industrial power—and almost won; there were many points at which the outcome seemed to turn on a knife’s edge.  Not superior?  Much to his credit, even Steve Sailer admits that man for man, Germany had the best soldiers.

    Your identification of the only famous Jewish Mahler of that period as a “scientist” (!) rates your knowledge of science history accurately—even better than your ignorance of the fact that the Germans indeed had an astoundingly disproportionate concentration of first-rate scientists—among other matters.  You are essentially repeating Jewish propaganda.  Anyone with a yen for science history want to pick this up?

    For those who love charts, here is a chart of how many Olympic gold medals small Germany, with no blacks, won in 1936, compared to the much larger U.S.A., with many blacks on its team:

    This is how, in a publication issued under Dr. Goebbels’ signature, the Germans described Jesse Owens:  “The wonderful American runner and long-jumper”:

    I uploaded those last month, as you can tell from the URLs.  I also looked around for a photo that I have somewhere of Luz Long with Jesse Owens.  Herr Long gave some impromptu coaching to Owens, in an Aryan sportsmanlike manner; and Owens credited this for his later beating Long for the gold.  Long was killed in action in 1943, defending Europe from American invasion.  The Germans of that era were generally friendly to blacks—probably because blacks were foreigners, and the Germans didn’t have much experience with them.

    Especially nowadays, reactionary racists just do not understand how easy it is to treat the brutes kindly—too kindly—when you have a reasonably healthy, very superior nation of more or less pure racial stock.  There is a kernel of half-truth to the Jewish psychobabble about racism being caused by “insecurity”:  Those who are secure in their supremacy are not on the defensive, so they oft (albeit not always) tend to be magnanimous to what they must perforce perceive as exotic, unthreatening alien creatures.  Needless to say, Hitler’s Germans were extremely racist—but they had a different attitude about it.

    ——————————

    I didn’t reply last month, and I am severely abbreviating this reply now, because I frankly find it boring to explain all this at length to someone whose knowledge of history is so generally unimpressive.  Yes, my very first comment at The Unz Review was an off-hand remark, made in irritation at someone so prissily obsessed with “boomers” that he believes the Jews suddenly took over America in 1992—and he apparently never heard of the World War that his “greatest generation” fought for the Jews—and looking back over that comment, I see he also seems unaware of the social implosion of the U.S. in the 1960s, among other things.  What did “The Donald” like to say?  Sad. ®

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  3. @Raches

    I didn’t invent Jungalo Fever. White women are into it, so take it up with them.

    BAMMAMA and ACOWW will be the undoing of the West.

    Mark my words.

    • Troll: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  4. Yevardian says:

    Seeing as this the most current thread, I may as well respond to various past threads here.

    BlackFlag immediately saw the way that you missed one of my primary points about Christianity and its bastard offspring, modern liberalism. I hung back and waited to see if any of my readers would take up an insult to the Greeks, which cited a deracination-propagandist married to a Jewess to whom he twice gave masculine names—whose work was panned as shoddy even by mainstream academics. Since C.T. showed up in one of my other threads, I think it’s appropriate to note that he has examined Durant at least a bit on his blog. But here, the only reaction to that anti-Greek citation of Durant was your prompt agreement.

    I must admit I’m not directly familar with Durant’s works, and I’m only vaguely familar with him through glib dismissals or passing references by others. Whatever his demerits may be, he certainly wasn’t helped in publishing his works at a turning point when ‘big history’ and theories of civilisation (starting with skepticism regarding classing distict civilisations, now at the point where the word is scarcely ever used without snarky airquotes) were becoming deeply unfashionable. That’s most obvious in Toynbee rapidly going from the then most popular historian of the century, to almost completely forgotten today, rarely being recalled with embarassment, if at all.
    Anyway, although there’s a lot to legitimately criticise him for, as a writer of history his narratives certainly has a certain grandeur, wonder and massive scope to them that are almost totally lacking in history writing today, whether academic or popular.

    But as arguing for the ‘suicide of Greece’, this is hardly a controversial statement at all, you’d have to find a particularly devoted scholar of Hellenistic period for anyone arguing that that era wasn’t one characterised by exhaustion, ennui and imaginative despotism.

    In the AK goodbye thread which somehow became half about me, which I almost entirely ignored at the time, I later found that you are friendly with utu, a malicious liar, an idiot, and a conspiracy theorist on the same level as geokat62—it figures.

    Friendly with =/= endorsement.

    He’s simply one of the more interesting (someone with strongly negative/skeptical views on the USA and China / Russia is rather unusual) commenters on this website, unlike many prolix handles who have negative added value, no more, no less.
    This much at least, you’ve already vindicated, judging by the length of text or replies you’ve deigned to give him.

    Well, this is why I recommend that beginners first learning about the Jewish Question should avoid the Talmud—and start by reading the Jewish Bible (i.e., the Christians’ “Old Testament”) with both eyes open and the brain switched on.

    Yes, obviously I’ve read the Old Testament (in multiple languages, though sadly, not Hebrew), pointing out the bloodthirsty and psychotically jealous nature of the God depicted in there is somewhat of a cliche, don’t you think?
    And again, yes, nasty, but hardly unique. You only need to cross over to Israel’s immediate neighbors (and linguistically, barely distiguishable) to see hard evidence for practices such as child sacrifice (its practice within Israel directly referenced in Judges, with Jephthah’s post-victory sacrifice of his own daughter). Or the flood and Noah being directly sourced from the old Sumerian myth, where the higher gods simply decide to drown humanity for being ‘noisy and irritating’. The general template can be seen in different form in the Greek legend of Prometheus’ and his ‘gift of fire’.
    Besides, many books of the old testament are especially beautiful, simply as literature, for instance Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, or Ruth. In somehow setting all this apart as the origins of some unique ‘mind-virus’, you give the Old Testament the same flavour of special sanctity as believing Christians themselves, only in reverse. Why not simply enjoy it as part of Semitic (in the broad sense) mythology, among those of rest of the world?

    From the stark difference between Philo and Greek thought, to the Jewish Problem in ancient Rome, to the outbreak of Maccabean fanaticism […], to the development of “my sky-daddy can beat up your sky-daddy” Jewish henotheism into monomaniacal Jewish monotheism, and much more, the Jews’ national character as damn Jews is reflected throughout their history as it is in their nightmare books of Jewish fairytales.

    Judaism throughout most of its history has only been very dubiously monotheistic (you are familiar with Israel Shahak, aren’t you?), and again, this aspect of the religion probably developed during the exile period, probably due to Persian influence, monotheism then being retconned onto books concerning the Davidian period and earlier.
    And so what? Is it better to be too prudish or humourless to enjoy a good nightmarish fairytale?

    To ignore all of that history and fixate on the Talmud puts you intellectually about three short steps from endorsing the Khazar bunkum, as many ignorant Christian “antisemites” embrace from desperation to avoid admitting that they literally worship a fictionalized composite of Jewish criminals as their god.

    Funny you mention that, considering the Nazis themselves were too cowardly (or politically prudent) to publically avow that final step, opting instead for the ridiculous halfway-house of ‘Aryan Christianity’.
    It seems Hitler himself was one of that tiny percentage of totally undoubting atheists in the world, but he essentially acknowledged that such a worldview is simply far too cold and frightening for most people. In this vein he also tolerated Himmler’s neo-pagan play-acting, perhaps also as experimentation for future religious policy (speculation, I know hardly anything on this topic personally), despite his personal contempt for it.

    Apropos the topic hereof, do you suggest that the Jewish misogyny inherited by Christianity, which is clearly evident from the book of Genesis forwards, is only a product of “Talmudic Judaism”? The question is rhetorical.

    Greek mythos contains an almost identical creation myth (in spirit, if not in detail) in the form of Pandora’s Box, to Eve’s Apple. Under the circumstances, I think that says more about gender in human nature, than any Ur of ‘Jewish misogyny ‘.

    If you string together maudlin clichés, commonplace nonsense, and the passive cowardice of indulging a comfortable helplessness “about something over which I have no control over [sic], have zero power to change” when tools to take control and change it are free, readily available, and easy to use for anyone with an IQ over room tem…

    I simply don’t have a messiah complex.
    I’m also doubtful whether someone can be a ‘liberal intellectual’ and a ‘quietist’ at the same time.

    Camille Paglia [….] My first impression, the feeling that I get from her writing, is that she is a bizarro-world degenerate version of Friedrich Nietzsche—I mean the man, not his philosophy—unsurprising, since they are both self-described Dionysians.

    Yes, that’s both a very humourous and accurate description, and something I also felt reading her work, hence the recommendation.

    Anyhow, besides Oliver Revilo, do you have any particular recommendations for ‘non-liberal intellectuals’ yourself? I recall reading Julius Evola a while ago, but found it to be almost total garbage, Emile Cioran was a little better but I couldn’t call him a great writer either.

    • Thanks: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  5. @Jim Christian

    Oh sure, Ratchets, you care. Once merit was flushed in favor of mediocrity (EEOC, quotas and the like) and the border thrown open there was nothing left to care about, except it’s fun to watch the destruction. There it is, soup to nuts, without the embroidery. Quality.

  6. Marcali says:
    @Priss Factor

    The problem is that you are talking about half of the issue only.

    Expected performance = capabilities (inherent and acquired) x motivation (negative or positive)

    This means if the motivation is destructive the one with higher capabilities does the more damage.

  7. Oh, I have never thought of it like that!

  8. The Allies were the true barbarians. This is especially so of Communist Russia!

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  9. Though belated, thanks for the reply to the first part of my post. Your attitude strikes me as similar to my own, only more so. People have speculated about who or what you are, but instead of Ron Unz, or an AI, I think maybe you’re an avenging angel, like the ones described in the lyrics to this German rock song:

    Als er aufstand an dem Morgen der sein letzter war
    Schien die Sonne und die Vögel kreischten laut
    Eine Woge von Verlangen stürzte über ihn
    Und klebriger Tau bedeckte die Haut
    Durch den aderblauen Himmel ging ein breiter Riss
    Dunkle Wasser brachen über ihn herein
    Eine unbekannte Macht erhob sich tief in ihm
    Und mit einem Mal war ihm alles klar
    Daß nichts mehr so wie gestern war

    Wenn Engel hassen
    Stürzen sie wie Steine aus dem Himmelszelt
    Wenn Engel hassen
    Fliegen sie als dunkle Vögel in die Welt
    Wenn Engel hassen
    Wandern sie als schwarzer Schatten der uns quält
    Und nehmen Rache an den Menschen die gefallen sind wie sie

    Als er aufbrach ließ er alles hinter sich zurück
    Seine Schritte waren federleicht und frei
    Unterm Mantel trug er einen kalten schwarzen Stahl
    Er lächelte leis und summte dabei
    Seine Hand gab sieben Menschen einen schnellen Tod
    Bis ihn selber eine Kugel niederwarf
    Wer ihn kannte sagte daß es seltsam war
    Denn glücklicher hat man ihn nie gesehn
    Der Glanz eines Engels war auf ihm zu sehn
    Wenn Engel hassen
    Stürzen sie wie Steine aus dem Himmelszelt
    Wenn Engel hassen
    Fliegen sie als dunkle Vögel in die Welt
    Wenn Engel hassen
    Wandern sie als schwarzer Schatten der uns quält
    Und nehmen Rache an den Menschen die gefallen sind wie sie

    But what will your total be? More than seven? I can hardly wait to find out! LOL.

    • Thanks: Raches
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  10. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “Revenge is a profound moral desire to keep faith with the dead, to honor their memory by taking up their cause where they left off”. Thus, honor may become a heritage that passes from generation to generation.
    Whenever it is compromised, the affected family or community members might feel compelled to retaliate against an offender to restore the initial “balance of honor” that preceded the perceived injury. This cycle of honor might expand by bringing the family members and then the entire community of the new victim into the brand-new cycle of revenge that may pervade generations.”
    -Michael Ignatief

    Revenge —> from Vindicate, rescue, claim


    Revenge implicates a relationship with the gods, a declaration that gods’ judgment had been distorted, falsely interpreted or conveyed and demands correction.

    Revenge is the child’s cry: “Mother (father) loves me best.”

    Revenge is Esau crying, Jacob stole my father’s favor from me.

    ===
    The song’s refrain: Wenn Engel hassen —> “When angels hate —”

    I don’t think Hate is a necessary component of revenge, quite the contrary: revenge is a plea that a sundered bond of love be recognized or re-established

  11. @Twin Ruler

    AGREE “The Allies were the true barbarians,” but DISAGREE that Russians were the most barbarian: (qualifier “Communist” introduces another category entirely).

    Russians were defending their land and people. That they were incited to barbarism is certainly true: Ilya Ehrenburg was not a “Russian” seeking to defend Russia, he was just a barbarian expressing and inciting to bloodlust — the ‘angel’ whose hate dropped like stones from the sky, his leaflets –and Allied propaganda– were “dark bird” leaflets inciting hate and death.

    American and British Allies, however, were the true barbarians: they were the aggressors, the thieves of honor. Germans had done nothing to Americans and the British other than to prosper. In the Calvinist sense, German industry and success implied that the gods loved Germans the best, and this the Americans and British — and the Jews who goaded them — could not abide. Cain killed Abel.

    Americans and British literally rained death from the skies on Germany as also on France and Italy.

    see Jörg Friedrich, The Fire

    • Thanks: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
    , @Fox
  12. SolontoCroesus: “The song’s refrain: Wenn Engel hassen —> “When angels hate —””

    When, or if

    But then, that’s the question, isn’t it? Does Raches hate?

    SolontoCroesus: “I don’t think Hate is a necessary component of revenge, quite the contrary: revenge is a plea that a sundered bond of love be recognized or re-established ”

    Hate is what powers our Darwinian universe, a struggle of all against all. Hate is red in tooth and claw; its hands are bloody. What’s wrong with Hate? By contrast, Love exists mainly as illusion. In the culture of the West, Love is Christian pixie dust thrown into the white man’s eyes to keep him from seeing reality. If you can convince your enemy not to hate, you have effectively disarmed him.

    He who hates Hate hates life.

    This is why I’m glad to hear Raches say he is a philosopher. That word is too often misapplied nowadays to mere academics; clock-punchers who regard it as only a job, 9 to 5. But as Raches said previously, he thinks philosophy must be lived, and I agree with him. “Philosopher” is something that one is, not just a job. As a philosopher with his chosen moniker, I’m sure vengeance is something to which he’s given a lot of thought. And therefore I wonder, what will be the result of his vengeance? What form will it take? Cold steel is only one way. There are many others.

    • Thanks: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  13. Raches says: • Website
    @Priss Factor

    I didn’t invent Jungalo Fever.  White women are into it, so take it up with them.

    That’s just more Jewish race-mixing propaganda.  You are really gullible.

    If you believe the mass-media, Hollywood, television, leftist bloggers, and interracial porn, then yes, white women have jungle fever.  The same applies if you believe reactionary manosphere idiots who just want to blame women for everything.

    A small minority of men (of all races) have homosexual desires.  By your logic, it means that men are queers.

    A small minority of white women are infected with “jungle fever”.  From what I can tell, most of the rest are ideologically against “racism” due to social pressure; but they are just not attracted to blacks, despite all the propaganda and social pressure to mate with them.  They need to be protected from the pressure to mix with blacks.  That means positive cultural change, which will not come from preaching a Jewish fantasy.

    Incidentally, if what you say were true, I would not even try to fight it:  Any species with such a degenerate female half is overall biologically degenerate, and does not deserve to survive.  Fortunately, it is not true. ®

  14. Raches says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus

    Thanks for picking up on that.

    I’m running a bit behind, in part because Pepe Escobar’s latest article reminded me of something that I have been contemplating for my desire, from my perspective, to reconcile Russia with highly principled German nationalists.  On some particular points, it may be an even trickier project than my desire for a China-Japan alliance; but it could have such beneficial results for all good people.  (And one of Yevardian’s remarks collided with my thoughts on my desire for a Revenge Academy, thus inciting the beginnings of an essay—and now, I must reply to Dr. Morgan again.)

    Although I obviously detest what the Red Army did to the Germans, I am always careful to qualify that as the Soviets—not to condemn the Russian nationality; and moreover, I like how Dr. Oliver put it, which I have previously quoted from his discussion of Soviet atrocities in Rumania:

    https://www.unz.com/proems/why-germans-are-hated/#p_1_26

    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.

    By the by, one of the reasons why I am so focused on Dr. Oliver is that he was a Machiavellian political thinker in the highest sense.  And he was quite influential.  I have seen some people dismiss him, because he did not lead an organization; well, he was not a type to be involved in mass-movements.  His publicly visible influence was only the tip of the iceberg.  Just for the most trivial example, he inspired Dr. Pierce to write The Turner Diaries, and gave him the template for it.  (In my eyes, that also marks him as being not the stereotypical wimpy academician.)

    Wannabe “far-right” leaders are a dime a dozen, and most go nowhere.  I like the Machiavellian political thinking.

    Oh,¹ and I have always liked Russia. ®

    ——————————

    1. Completely off-topic, as regards this irrelevant video—which I just tossed in because I have a funny sense of humor:  As I leaked in some other thread, I admire Anna Chapman.  But not the pseudoscientific nonsense promoted on these shows.  That is a problem not exclusive to “conspiracy theorist” commentators at The Unz Review.  Well, the idiotic liberal media compared her and her chess-partner to Dr. Goebbels.  Even though it was intended as an insult, I love it—though she probably hates it, and she may not be so thrilled about that video being used in this context.

  15. @Raches

    “Incidentally, if what you say were true, I would not even try to fight it: Any species with such a degenerate female half is overall biologically degenerate”

    I agree that Priss Factor enjoys trolling right wing white men with lude and derisory comments but your statement displays a puritanical and female-centric perspective that makes white racists psychologically vulnerable to interracist demoralisation. It puts the white p*ssy on a pedestal, essentially saying: “if it can be proven that black men are more attractive or sexually pleasurable for white women than white men, then I hope white men go extinct”. It’s plausible though that male racial and sexual insecurity could be evolutionarily beneficial as it would encourage mate guarding, industriousness and aggression, though this may no longer apply or apply to such a degree under modern technological conditions.

    Many Jews are involved in selling black sports, black music and black porn but many whites are fully in cahoots with them and far more both accept and partake in these things. Blacks have a sensual appeal to whites as a representation of their less inhibited, primitive selves and this would be the case whether Jews were around or not. It was also white men who allowed and facilitated the initial import of blacks to America, gradually gave them equal or superior rights and integrated all institutions. So the question of whether white women have a sexual preference for black men (as is theoretically possible: black men prefer white women to black women and yellow women prefer white men to yellow men) would have never arisen if white men had not abdicated their natural responsibilities and kept their women in traditional roles and separate from black men.

    While I do not believe that most white women find most black men attractive this is true of most men generally but most white women probably do find a minority of tall, better than average looking, more masculine black men attractive. And in the absence of social stigma, many if not most white women would consider a black man of decent socioeconomic standing. Even marriage and cohabitation stats (as unreliable as they are in this area) suggest that white women find black men far more attractive than yellow men, despite all of the disadvantages and risks associated with black men. And because Africa is proximate to Europe and a burgeoning continent while Europe is in severe demographic decline, this makes Africanization a special threat to Europe’s demographic makeup. Priss is right about this.

    Furthermore, virtually no man is a woman’s first choice sexually in an ideal world, yet very few men think “because I’m not Henry Cavill I’m not interested in women”. In more puritanical times and places, a woman may be looked down upon for enjoying sex at all but an objective view suggests that most women have “whorish” desires, such as to be “raped” by a highly attractive or masculine man. We should take account of these things and not idealise an illusory white female purity, which was a mistake that David Lane made that he came to regret.

    • Replies: @Raches
  16. Americans secretly fear that the Nazis really are The Master Race! It is all to do with envy.

  17. Raches says: • Website
    @Yevardian

    So, my detractors are ridiculously accusing me of being “puritanical” (!), and of not understanding some women’s “whorish” behavior.  For the lulz, I need to pass that along to our favorite self-proclaimed, capital-D Degenerate professoress together with a quote of what Valla expressed through his Epicurean character in De voluptate I.XLIII.2.  I am not an Epicurean; but my attitude on that topic is very close to that of the classical Greeks, the classical Hindus, or, mutatis mutandis with respect to German culture, Himmler, who seems to have had some of the same inspirations, and astute insights into human nature. ®

  18. Raches says: • Website
    @NEETzschean

    I agree that Priss Factor enjoys trolling right wing white men with lude and derisory comments but your statement displays a puritanical and female-centric perspective that […]

    […]

    Blacks have a sensual appeal to whites as a representation of their less inhibited, primitive selves and this would be the case whether Jews were around or not.

    […]

    In more puritanical times and places, a woman may be looked down upon for enjoying sex at all but an objective view suggests that most women have “whorish” desires, such as to be “raped” by a highly attractive or masculine man.  We should take account of these things and not idealise an illusory white female purity, […]

    2. You have obviously never read anything that I have ever written.  Well, as Nietzsche said, “Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.”

    1. That’s more race-mixing propaganda—a Big Lie that is making itself true, as people repeat it to brainwash themselves and others into sexualizing ugly, stinky, disgusting rhymes with triggers, who set off the “this thing could get me pregnant” instinctive panic button of normal white women.  I should show how absurd it is, with a reductio ad absurdum in another essay (sigh) for which I must gather links of the type that most far-right people never saw.  But if you repeat to yourself often enough that coprophilia has a “sensual appeal”, then you will start to believe it (and do it), too.

    I will admit that blacks are generally less “inhibited” than whites.  That is primarily¹ a problem with Christianity and the cultural residues thereof, not with the white race itself.  Different races react quite differently to Christianity, and also, whites have been culturally Christianized for much longer than blacks; thus, the argument that many blacks are Christian is a non-starter here.  I also note that relative black disinhibition is a cause of sexualization of negresses by white men; that is relatively rare, but outside of race-mixing propaganda, the sexualization of black males by white women is really not much more common.

    I am against Christianity, and generally against philosophical and cultural movements that have a morbid puritanical streak.  Problem solved.

    In deeming blacks “masculine”, you need to compare apples to apples.  Hollywood, et al. pick the most appealing blacks for their propaganda and use every trick in the book to build up their image, just as the mass-media pick a few blacks with outlier IQs for stories to build the myth of black supergeniuses.  If you stack that image of a “masculine” black against a wimpy, dysgenic white incel, then yes, the black will look more masculine.  But if you measure him against a white alpha-male type, the white man crushes the black for masculinity, hands-down.  (By that, I do not mean whatever the manosphere deems “alpha”.)

    The white race does suffer a shortage of manly men, and a surfeit of dysgenic wimps who should never reproduce.  In large part, I blame dysgenic wars; but even before that, modern, democratic men were so effeminate that they created feminism in the Nineteenth Century.  The solution is obvious:  Eugenics.  Eugenicists warned a century ago that white people needed eugenics then, to avoid degenerating into an inferior race.  Better late than never! ®

    ——————————

    1. Yes, I am aware of Stoic attitudes towards sex.  I am also aware that Stoicism was anti-naturalism masquerading as naturalism, anti-logic masquerading as logic—and that it was originally invented by a Semite.  (I said a Semite, not a Jew; when I want to say “Jew”, I say it; and although Zeno could have been a crypto-Jew calling himself a “Phoenician”, I know of no adequate evidence to authorize that conclusion.)  It had some unfortunate consequences, but it also had some redeeming features; and anyway, it never had the cultural hegemony that Christianity attained.

    • Replies: @NEETzschean
  19. Fox says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    I feel the same way. And I think that Russians have survived the war psychologically healthy, and are a healthy people now, is because they were in fact defending their own soil on their own soil. This is a natural, a healthy response to an attack, and independent from the question whether Barbarossa was a preemptive action to an impending strike by the Red Army or not.
    By the same token the Americans and English can’t appeal to a cry from their soil. They were subjected to an engineered campaign of red-hot hatred to act murderously against an abstract threat. To drop bombs on a city and not having to witness the torn-apart bodies, the homes ripped apart, the childrens’ toys scattered and charred, the firestorm, the desolation caused, the blood is not the same as storming an enemy redoubt under fire, even if witnessing much of the same. Killing by murder and a killing in self-defense leaves the person taking the human life in two completely different psychological states. One of self-loathing, and one of having overcome a real danger; one weakens, the other strengthens the personality that exists to maintain and convey life.

    Western societies are falling apart, they don’t defend themselves, they wish their self-abolition. That’s a sign of being sick and I think it is the late consequence of being coached in two wars in the most extreme hatred against an enemy that had done no harm to them and had not intended any harm. Such an intense, artificially and artfully implanted feeling can’t be simply switched off.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  20. @Fox

    Thoughtful; thank you.
    I think you responded to Morgan’s response wherein Morgan mistakenly, imo, interpreted Love that I submit means love of kin, culture and country as a virtue demanding courage, with a saccharine notion of Love as allegedly advanced by Christian doctrine.

    The interrelationship between Love and Hate that is the dynamic that war-making (and war-makers) demand is not as complicated as first appears, not when one gets down to brass tacks:

    Leni Riefenstahl produced Triumph of the Will, an artful record of those things Germans could rightfully be proud of. It was used as propaganda to induce German people to love their nation enough to defend it vigorously.

    In response, US military hired Frank Capra (a sap, a tool who was used and discarded forthwith) and Jewish Communists Anatole Litvak, Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein and Anthony Veiller to produce the Why We Fight series to engender in the American people sufficient hatred of “the Hun” to convince them to travel to Europe to kill Germans, as well as to “maintain morale” among American military as they did so.

    (At war’s end, Apr. 4, 1945, the same Hollywood filmmakers who had produced miles of film demonizing Germany, were summoned to Germany by Eisenhower to stage and film “for the record” death camps. At that time, Eisenhower made this fascinating comment:
    “We are told the American soldier does not know what he is fighting for. Now, at least, we know what he is fighting against.” )

    Americans began firebombing raids against German civilians by 1942 (at latest); one of the goals of the long slog through Italy was to take possession of Italian air fields from which to bomb more of Germany.
    In all that time that American GIs were delivering death from the air — 1942 to April 1945 — are we to understand that “the American soldier did not know what he was fighting for?”

  21. SolontoCroesus: “… Morgan mistakenly, imo, interpreted Love that I submit means love of kin, culture and country as a virtue demanding courage, with a saccharine notion of Love as allegedly advanced by Christian doctrine.”

    Part of your confusion is probably due to your conflation of Love with love. Why the shift to lower case? When you capitalized Hate I took you to mean Hate and Love were cosmic forces locked in combat, and I wanted to disabuse you of that mistaken notion by pointing out that Love (as understood by the Christian cultures of the West) plays little if any role in the workings of things in our Darwinian world.

    Now you try to shift your argument to “love of kin, culture, and country”. But why love any of those things, if not for selfish reasons? Parents love their children because they carry their genes, and children love their parents because their very lives depend on it. This kind of love has nothing to do with altruistic, Christian love, i.e., Love as an independent force in the world. Likewise with love of culture and country. One loves such things (or should) because they enhance one’s own chances of reproductive success, not for any other reason. This is certainly underscored when we consider that love of culture and country aren’t virtues in themselves, since they can even conflict with the aforesaid love of kin. For example, if you are white, you’d be insane to love either the culture or country of America in its present form.

    Ultimately though, I believe it’s a fundamental mistake to try to project Love and Hate onto the universe, even though sophists have been doing it for thousands of years. They’re only human emotions after all; transient electrochemical phenomena. Congeries of atoms and the void are all that really exists.

  22. I wonder why we even have the 14th Amendment in the first place? Jews, of course, do not adhere to it anyhow. For Jews, Zionist Jews in particular, a German is a German is a German. Now, German Americans, as they are called, can cry blue in the face that since they are born in The United States of America, that legally speaking, they are US Citizens. Still, that would mean nothing to the Jew.

    Jews, in their quest to seek vengeance for what supposedly happened, in The Holocaust, routinely ignore the 14th Amendment, in order to persecute German Americans, and even anyone they would imagine has German blood coursing through their veins. And, indeed, what is the purpose of Holocaust Education anyhow? Well, Jews are not against Hate Speech in principle. The purpose of Holocaust Education is to teach its victims to hate Germans, Germany, and all things German!

    The 14th Amendment, especially to Jews, is merely a dead letter. And, Jews would not want anyone to properly assimilate to the American Way of Life. After all, if too many German Americans could, they would. Germany’s reputation never recovered from The Third Reich! And that is precisely why Jews try to alter said American Way of Life, over and over again. To confuse and confound those who would otherwise want to conform to it. Notice, the Beats, the Hippies, the Punkers, and all those other “Counter Cultures.”

    What is really interesting to me is that almost nobody is patriotic to America anymore. Even most “Conservatives” are more loyal to The State of Israel. And, what is truly interesting to me, in its sheer irony and absurdity is this: Zionism, the Official Ideological Worldview of Israel, is merely the Jewish equivalent of Nazism: what was termed National Socialism in Germany. And, what do I actually mean by that.

    Well, simply put, both the Zionists and the Nazis have the same basic Worldview: of a Cosmic Struggle, between the Only Truly Good People and the Only Truly Evil People, wherein everyone else is merely expendable. They disagree, of course, on who are The Only Truly Good People and who are The Only Truly Evil People. According to Zionism, the Jews are The Only Truly Good People and the Germans are The Only Truly Evil People, and in Nazism it is the reverse. After all, what do you suppose the Jews mean when they say that The Holocaust was “Uniquely Evil”? Jews are saying that they believe that the German people, as a people, are so. Oddly, they seem to overlook all the non German perpetrators of The Holocaust, like The Poles and others. And, the more I look into this, the more telling I find it all.

    Moreover, the way that the Israeli Defense Forces disdain Arab Muslims, is also eerily like how the Nazis disdained Slavic people to the East of themselves. I have also found this to be very interesting to consider. What really unnerves me is this: for the exact same reason “Americans” hate what the Nazis did to the Jews, same “Americans” love what the Jews are in their turn doing to the Palestinian Arabs. It all comes down to the superstition of Jewish Divinity: the vile superstition that the Jews are The Chosen People. In other words, that the Jews, being Jews, are the Only Truly Good People.

    The Holocaust is “Uniquely Evil”, but the Nakbar, and all the other horrid things that the Jews do to the Palestinian Arabs is “Fulfillment of Bible Prophecy”! Really turns my stomach. It really does!

    • Replies: @Raches
    , @SolontoCroesus
  23. Raches says: • Website
    @Twin Ruler

    I wonder why we even have the 14th Amendment in the first place?

    Bloggers are supposed to be able to ask, “Dear Lazyweb”.  I’ve been intending to do more of that.

    Do any of my more erudite readers have a good mainstream source with details of the Marshall speech described in the following?

    Quoting Liberty Bell, August 1988, p. 12, n. 3 to the text in which Professor Oliver described the purported continuity of the U.S. Constitution as “a fiction that deceived no judicious historian, but was a gospel truth to the indoctrinated public until a mulatto (!) who is a Justice of the so-called Supreme Court in Washington finally told them the truth”:

    3. Thurgood Marshall, on 6 May 1987, told a San Francisco Law Association at its annual “seminar” on Maui, Hawaii, that the Constitution had been effectively revoked and canceled by the Fourteenth Amendment:  “While the Union survived the civil war [!], the Constitution did not.  In its place arose a new and more promising basis for justice and equality, the 14th Amendment.”  The mulatto was naturally interested in the power of Congoids and half-breeds over White Americans, but he should have noted that when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted at gunpoint, the Constitution had already been canceled.  Armed aggression by a league of states against other states to rob them of their property marked the effective end of a compact between the several states.

    I prefer “mainstream” sources both for propaganda impact, and for my own objective evidentiary weighing; in law, cf. the evidentiary rule about “admissions against interest”.  It would be most preferable if I could find this same Marshall quote, with more details, in a law journal—or such a publication as The New York Times.  I do tend to trust Professor Oliver’s reporting of facts, since I checked and corroborated many of his wilder-seeming claims, I discovered that he was strictly against right-wing hoaxing, and he once got an author dropped from Liberty Bell for faking quotes.

    Twin Ruler:

    Well, simply put, both the Zionists and the Nazis have the same basic Worldview: of a Cosmic Struggle, between the Only Truly Good People and the Only Truly Evil People, wherein everyone else is merely expendable.

    That’s American propaganda, to fuel the dualistically-minded American war of “Good” against “Evil”.  (Funny, I link to that and quote it in a reply to @Fox that I began to prepare yesterday.)

    Moreover, the way that the Israeli Defense Forces disdain Arab Muslims, is also eerily like how the Nazis disdained Slavic people to the East of themselves.

    That’s a propaganda distortion.  The Germans justifiably disdained Poles, due to the grave injustice that the Poles did to them (and still do, to this day!); this is not much different than the Russian attitude toward Poles.  The relations of the Germans to the Russians and to the Ukrainians is more complicated, and not above criticism; however, it was not as you represent it.  (Léon Degrelle, who was awarded the Knight’s Cross for his heroic action at Cherkassy, thought that the Germans should have done more to befriend these peoples.)  The Germans granted the Slovaks their political independence, which they could not otherwise have obtained, before WWII even started.  And the Croats were staunch German allies.  This list could be extended…

    The Holocaust is “Uniquely Evil”,

    Aye, ain’t it just awful that those evil Nazis turned Six Million of God’s Darlings into lampshades, bars of soap, and other useful items.

    On another note, “Nazi” is a propaganda slur.  With some notable exceptions, it is usually used only by those who have only ever seen what the German National Socialists’ enemies have to say about them. ®

    • Replies: @Twin Ruler
  24. @Raches

    The Jews certainly want revenge for The Holocaust. That much is, indeed, accurate. And, they do anything to get it.

    • Replies: @Raches
  25. @Twin Ruler

    Zionism, the Official Ideological Worldview of Israel, is merely the Jewish equivalent of Nazism: what was termed National Socialism in Germany. And, what do I actually mean by that.

    Well, simply put, both the Zionists and the Nazis have the same basic Worldview: of a Cosmic Struggle, between the Only Truly Good People and the Only Truly Evil People, wherein everyone else is merely expendable. They disagree, of course, on who are The Only Truly Good People and who are The Only Truly Evil People. According to Zionism, the Jews are The Only Truly Good People and the Germans are The Only Truly Evil People, and in Nazism it is the reverse Germans are The Only Truly Good People and the Jews are The Only Truly Evil People

    I think you are wrong and your wrongness is the source of the criminal absurdity that you explained: “for the exact same reason “Americans” hate what the Nazis did to the Jews, same “Americans” love what the Jews are in their turn doing to the Palestinian Arabs.”

    1. What “Nazis did to the Jews” is a lie, propagated by Jews for their benefit and affirmed by “Americans” to cover up the crimes that “Americans” and Jews committed against Europeans, especially Germans.

    2. Your claim that Nazism held that “Germans are The Only Truly Good People and the Jews are The Only Truly Evil People” risibly, diametrically confounds reality.
    Two books — Susannah Heschel’s The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany and Capturing the German Eye: American Visual Propaganda in Occupied Germany inform my argument.

    In the wars era, German theologians led by Walter Grundmann sought to remove Jewish influence, and Hebrew scripture, from the definition and expression of German Christianity. Heschel, daughter of a rabbi and a rabid zionist, took vociferous exception to this effort. Heschel’s position is consistent with the essence of Abrahamism, the toxic belief that is foundational to the eponymous Abrahamic faiths. Rabbi Rabbi Mordechai Silverstein explains:
    http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/introduction-to-rabbinic-midrash-1-lesson-1-avraham-and-the-idol-shop/

    [Abraham] knew that the whole world was erring, and knew that what caused the mistake was that they [had] worshiped the stars and figures for so long that the truth had vanished. Abraham was forty years old when he recognized his Creator. Once he achieved this, he began to reason with the inhabitants of Ur Casdim and to argue with them, saying that by serving idols they were not following the way of truth. He broke their images, and began to proclaim that it is not fitting to serve anyone other than God, and to Him it is fitting to bow down and to offer drink sacrifices and sacrifices to, so that all creation will recognize Him. Abraham also proclaimed that it was fitting to break and destroy all the figures, so that nobody will err on account of them

    As I understand Grundmann’s project, he did not argue with Jews that they were “erring;” rather, he sought to separate the Jewish “way of truth” and “images” from those of Germans, in order to establish forms of religious expression — art, music, culture, ritual — that was consonant with German history, mythos, and millennia of being-on-their-land.
    As the title of Heschel’s book states, Jews could not abide this effrontery.

    Cora Goldstein’s book, Capturing the German Eye, catalogs the ways in which Germany was “democratized by force”–

    Once Germany was occupied, the U S Army, and then OMGUS, conducted a massive campaign of iconoclasm targeting at eliminating the legacy of the Nazi regime from the visual realm. Visual remnants of the Nazi era- paintings, monuments, statues, emblems, and military symbols — were eliminated from public view. More than eight thousand works of art were removed from museums and government buildings, classified as Nazi or militaristic, and sent to the United States to be stored in military depositories…
    The American government sequestered all films produced by Nazi Germany and classified them as poisonous material. This was a campaign of radical visual censorship.

    That is, the “idols” of the German people were smashed

    and

    replaced by American idols

    Moreover, the U S military government used the American experience in visual indoctrination and propaganda to sell private enterprise, consumerism, democracy, and liberal capitalism in occupied Germany.
    The Americans were the global leaders in film, advertising, and marketing in the 1940s, and film was central to this process of indoctrination. In July 1945, OMGUS . . . began to reopen movie theaters in the American zone and sector. The OMGUS Information Control Division, the State Department, and the War Department selected the films that would be shown in the American zone and sector.

    While the Americans were quick to use photography and film as visual propaganda, they took much longer to develop an art policy. The fine arts were outside the parameters of conventional visual propaganda. Yet in the German context, the fine arts were already politicized.

    — and arguably Jewish preferences in art and film (especially):

    The Nazis had eliminated modern art from museums and used their own art as political and ideological propaganda. . . . The War Department, which directly controlled OMGUS, was indifferent to the concept of international cultural warfare and failed to appreciate the importance of cultural politics in the postwar German context.
    Nonetheless, by 1946 a small group of cultural officers in OMGUS had begun to establish bonds with German modern artists to further German-?American relations and stimulate the reintroduction of modern art. They relied on personal contacts, informal networks, and covert funding of cultural organizations. The American art policy in Germany, constrained and often vacillating as it was, is politically important because it prefigured the cultural policies of the CIA during the rest of the Cold War.

    Americans (with Jews prominent among the key actors) destroyed or removed German preferences in art and film (and cultural, economic and social values) and imposed in their stead characteristically Jewish preferences: while Germans had removed modern art, “a small group of cultural officers” who were acting outside of- and occasionally in opposition to the policies of US Congress and military leadership, re-instituted modern art.

    The sides of the argument would be clear cut if one were able to say that “Germans did not carry out the same sort of cultural destruction of Jewish preferences and imposition of German preferences” on the Jewish settlement in Palestine as Americans and Jews did in Germany, but ironically, the reality is not so clear-cut. Etan Bloom wrote in Arthur Ruppin and the Production of the Modern Hebrew Culture the framework of his Dissertation:

    analyzes how theoretical or abstract products come into practice in the social field, using the particular historical case of the transference of Zionism from Europe (mainly Germany and Russia) to Palestine, and thus showing the transfer of components from European culture to the renewed Hebrew culture. . . .[with] Arthur Ruppin, one of the dominant characters in these processes.

    Arthur Ruppin, who was Jewish, was born and educated in Germany, qualified to practice law in German university; spoke only German, never Hebrew; mastered and installed in zionist Palestine German sociological ideas and institutions (as well as mastery of eugenic methods, which he practiced); and even built TelAviv in a style that would appeal to Europeans.

    In other words, while the Jewish zionist Heschel condemned Germans for seeking to express religion in their own idioms; and while American and Jewish conquerors destroyed German icons and cultural expression; German Jews in Palestine constructed the zionist project in Palestine to reflect German methods and forms, in an attempt to eradicate from among Jews what Max Nordau termed “degeneration” and replace it with “more hygienic” German habits.

    • Replies: @Raches
  26. Raches says: • Website
    @Twin Ruler

    The Jews certainly want revenge for The Holocaust.  That much is, indeed, accurate.

    The Jews certainly want revenge on the Germans for the Germans’ desire to have a country of their own.  If you had “Holocaust” propaganda rammed down your throat in the public “schools”, you may not be aware of what is “accurate”.

    This is the best introductory article that I have yet found on the topic, from an author who does not share my particular ideological motives; it is even-handed, it cites numerous highly credible sources, and, compared to the numerous lengthy books on the topic, it’s a relatively quick read at only 17,600 words:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

    The atrocity propaganda about the “Holocaust” must be placed in its larger historical context.  After all, as Dr. Butz incisively observed, “There was a war going on during World War II.”  And I will add:  Thereafter.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-post-war-france-and-post-war-germany/

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/

    And, they do anything to get it.

    That much is, indeed, accurate. ®

  27. What I find very interesting is this: by encroaching on Russia, the US Military is endangering Germany. That, of course, could be the whole game plan. After all, the only other country, in all the world, that Americans hate as much as they hate Russia is Germany.

    The US plans, I suspect, to fail in conquering Russia. The Russians will respond, as they hope, by moving Westward, into Germany, from where the US Military attacks will come from. And voila, many Germans will be killed in consequence!

  28. The 14th Amendment should be repealed. Jews do not respect it anyhow. Still, believing themselves to be The Chosen People, of course they feel exempt from respecting what they would refer to as Man’s Law, rather than God’s Law.

    And perhaps, a White Ethno-State would not be too bad an idea, in the long run. After all, there is already a Jewish Ethno-State!

  29. Raches says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus

    Quite aside from replying to Twin Rule,¹ this is the type of comment that I love:  You present an interesting thesis, it is logical on its face, and you refer and link to your sources.

    That is, the “idols” of the German people were smashed

    I’ve noticed similar things about art, about the American destruction of German monuments and of “Nazi art”, etc.—the quasi-religious implication of attacking “idolatry” seems obvious to me, but you dig deeper into it from the angle of Jewish motives.  What you say also dovetails with a larger theory of my own, about Judaism versus so-called “paganism”.²  Unfortunately, my notes on that were scattered to the winds in a little incident awhile ago, perhaps not unrelated to too much free speech.  (People wonder why I write under a pseudonym…)

    I think that the attempt fully to Aryanize Christianity was philosophically misguided, but I do not consider that important in the context of German National Socialism.  What the Germans ultimately did, in my opinion, was to effectuate something that seems almost impossible:  A smooth, mostly nonviolent way of weaning the German people off Christianity, and replacing it with a fully organic new religious movement that was still developing from its embryonic state when the Americans destroyed it.  Contra @Yevardian’s remark, Himmler was not “play-acting”; and the SS spiritualism was only one component of a larger dynamic, organic social development.  I repeatedly emphasize the organic nature of these developments, because a stilted, artificial attempt to construct a new religion³ is one of several major points of failure of most so-called “neopagan” or otherwise non-Christian new religious movements (including several that Dr. Oliver more or less quietly encouraged—without granting his endorsement to any of them; he obviously didn’t believe in any religion himself).

    I also owe replies to some other excellent comments here, by Fox and by Dr. Morgan. ®

    ——————————

    P.S., my unfinished reply to Dr. Morgan (mentioned in the above article) illustrates the text, “For I look beneath the surface:  I look to essentials.  When I see Hitler’s soldiers, I see a synthesis of Spartan phalanxes and Roman legions wearing German clothes.  When I see Hitler’s culture, I see a culturally Germanized version of ancient Greece at its finest.  Look closely!” with the following photo, accompanied by the caption:  “This, not the SS, is what most makes Christian preachers of the Sklavenmoral panic.  This is the greatest enemy, the ancient enemy of the Jews!”

    It absolutely is “idolatry”—not only a violation of Judaeo-Christian commandments, but a repudiation of the Judaeo-Christian worldview.

    ——————————

    1. My apologies that Twin Rule’s other comment was still in moderation when you posted this, so you could not yet see it.

    2. I hate that word.  It is a Roman Christian slur.

    3. I classify “neopagans” as new religious movements, because they lack any organic connection to their antecedents.  A successful movement based on an old religion could perhaps be a renaissance or rebirth thereof, as if transmigrating the spirit of the dead religion by a metaphorical metempsychosis; but it is no more possible to restore a dead religion to life as it was, than to return a dead human to the realm of the living.  Christians now have the same problem:  Western Christianity has so drastically changed (e.g., Vatican II) that Christianity is really dead, replaced by something alien.  Unfortunately, German National Socialism also has a similar problem; there are very few people in the world today who can claim an organic connection to it, and their society was so completely destroyed that any chance of immediately reviving it probably passed in the 1950s, at the latest.  That is one of several reasons why I am focused on treating it as another bygone classical civilization:  The spirits of the ancient Greeks and Romans live on, and Hitler’s spirit lives on, and we can be inspired by them without artificially attempting to copy them in quite different social and historical contexts.

    • Replies: @Raches
  30. Raches says: • Website
    @Raches

    I should clarify that the photo in my comment is from an art festival.  Not a religious procession.  Well, technically not—ostensibly not.  Art is religion, and religion is art!

    The German National Socialists understood quite well that dressing up in unfamilar costumes with weird-looking paraphernalia makes you look like a freak—unless it is at an art festival, where it is normal and socially acceptable.  Their subtlety and their deep understanding of human nature were amazing.  That is why they succeeded where, thus far, everyone else fails:  They were in the process of totally, radically transforming German society; but they did not much seem to be doing that, even though they openly declared it, because the whole process was organic.  They attained power, they drew absolutely every aspect of normal life into Gleichschaltung, and they made their radical ways normal.  Radicals, especially American “far-right” radicals, tend to pick up on the radicalism, but miss the normalization.

    Learn from success, but do not copy it by rote. ®

    • Replies: @Fox
  31. To add to my analogy, between the Israeli Zionists and the German National Socialists: exactly like the German National Socialists formed an alliance of convenience with the Imperial Japanese; like so, Zionists, Jewish ones in particular, formed an alliance of convenience with Negroes, both here in Amerika and around the world. This, of course, makes both much more dangerous than if either were acting alone!

    Indeed, when Jews whine about the Holocaust over and over again, they sound eerily and uncannily like Negroes moaning about how they suffered under Slavery, in The South. The stories even sound somewhat the same. I wonder if I am the only one to have noticed that? I wonder!

    • Disagree: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  32. @Raches

    Yes, PF’s frequent characterization of Blacks in terms of their sexual prowess and musculature is offensive, and based on my experience, inaccurate.

    One example does not make the argument, but an example has caused me to expand my worldview: over a 3 year period a surgeon from Ghana sliced open my face four times to “excise” or “resection” cancers. I trusted his skill and also his attitude as a healer, not merely a technician.

    I also learned a bit about Ghana, which had been one of the major slaver’s ports. Much later, Germans established one of their few African colonies in Ghana, where they installed railroads and also aided in the development of textile works.

    Germany’s colonies were taken from it in the settlement of WWI, but it is my impression that today, Ghana is still a center for textile production and fashion.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  33. There is good news. Blacks are leaving America. They call it Blaxit!

  34. Fox says:
    @Raches

    These are thoughts which occurred to me also when thinking about the radical change of ‘concept of life’ (I meant to say the word ‘Lebensgefühl’ in English) Germany was imbued with. It was not play acting with sharply tailored dress and new formulas for greeting, etc., these were the mere outward expression of the inner change; rather, it was being the actuator of the new concept of life. It was a new world that had been laid open to enter and it w a s entered.

    • Agree: Raches, Twin Ruler
  35. @Raches

    2. I am not replying to some essay you wrote, I am replying to a specific comment in which you display a puritanical and female-centric perspective by saying that if white women have a stronger natural attraction to black men then the white race should go extinct because the female half of it is inherently degenerate. A more masculine view is that women’s depraved and whorish instincts are irrelevant and that men should impose their will on their women regardless. But the vast majority of white men won’t do that, or defend their homelands from from white racists perceive to be external threats.

    1. I don’t expect you as a (presumably) heterosexual man to find black men attractive but this isn’t relevant. I don’t believe that humans have race specific barriers to attraction, at least in the vast majority of cases; most would prefer a virile mate of a foreign race than a less virile mate of their own, at least if social and economic considerations were removed. I saw a study which suggested that interracial sex among young people was 10x as common between black men and white women than the reverse, which is vast considering the various downsides and risk factors associated with such relationships compared to white men and black women.

    The brainwashing thesis is inconsistent with biological realism: if the media tried to push homeless midgets as being attractive it would have a very limited effect in sparking genuine desire. Ultimately this comes down to the personal and collective failings (from a pro-white racist perspective) of whites, in particular white men who both facilitated it and allowed it to happen.

    The root problem isn’t Christianity, it’s technology. Europeans have created a technological system of post-industrial wage slavery, bread and circuses on demand hedonism and a highly authoritarian police state, atomising and devirilising themselves in the process. Africans have not been exposed to this to anything like the same degree and to the degree that they have, it may have even had a “eugenic” effect (stud breeding 100’s of years ago and now welfare subsidised thuggery and single motherhood). Plus race realism suggests that blacks are naturally wild and crazy having evolved in sub-Saharan Africa rather than a frigid, industrious Northern Europe. East Asians aren’t more reserved than Europeans due to culture but due to evolution, the same is true of Africans. As far as primal masculinity goes (only considering fighting and f*cking) blacks probably have an advantage. And young single female instincts are such that they desire to be conquered and sexually degraded by a highly masculine exotic barbarian. Civilisation results in a kind of repression and effeminacy that associates blacks with savagery and liberation.

    Even the dysgenic wars were results of technological progress and underline the relatively weak natural bonds of race, as these wars were fratricidal civil wars in racial terms. Why would the elites of the technological system engage in a system of pro-white eugenics? Clearly they believe that globalism enhances their wealth and power more than National Socialism, one of the rival systems that they overcame. And if they do institute eugenics, it will surely incorporate transhumanism and what results in the long-term will have no relation to anyone who exists today; white genocide through the backdoor.

    • Replies: @Raches
  36. [Uncritical regurgitation of commonplace American propaganda.  — Raches. ®]

    One day, sad and depressed, I began to wonder: what about all of Stalin’s victims? After all, were it so wrong and evil for Adolf Hitler, and his Nazis, to exterminate off all the millions they did: why, pray tell, was it not equally and similarly wrong and evil for Joseph Stalin, and his Commies, to exterminate off all the millions they did?

    [MORE]

    Then, I remembered one word: Goyim. Most of Stalin’s victims were Goyim (that is, non-Jews). It all comes down to the distinction made, in the Talmud, between the Jews, as The Chosen People, and the Goyim, as Cattle in Human form. As such the lives of Jews are considered more precious.

    Of course, though they claim The Holocaust was unique, much of what supposedly happened in that event sounds suspiciously like standard operating procedure of Communist countries, like the Soviet Union and The People’s Republic of China. After all, the Soviets and the Red Chinese also had a whole lot of Prison Camps, wherein they tortured and worked to death their victims in the most vicious and macabre ways. The Holocaust also sounds suspiciously like what the Israeli Jews, in their turn, are doing to the Palestinian Arabs!

    Soon, I had an epiphany. In order to understand Jewish feelings about that event, one must imagine a farm, a strange form of farm, wherein the Cows took over and started slaughtering the farmer and his family (instead of the other way about). One would think something evil, supernaturally evil, and sinful about that. Most people would. Similarly, when Goyim, not only Germans but other Europeans, did to the Jews what the Jewish Bolsheviks had earlier done to Russians (Russian Christians in particular), Jews feel that said Goyim have risen above their station in the Jewish version of the Great Chain of Being. After all, sin is rising above one’s station in the Great Chain of Being, is it not?

  37. @SolontoCroesus

    Promised myself I’d ‘maintain radio silence’ for the duration. Sometimes random commenting is an addiction.

    DID want to explain the inclusion of a comment about people from Ghana on an essay about National Socialism. In light of recent events in Waukesha, I think my perspective is pertinent.

    I’ve been in one of those Black Sensitivity smash-ups and it was disgusting.
    But I am also disgusted by categorical demeaning of persons of African origin/ethnicity, and dismissal of them as a collective on the basis that they have a “lower IQ,” two phenomenon routinely found on Unz.
    I don’t know much at all about African history, though I recall that as a kid I was delighted with some bits of information I learned about Timbuktu — I liked the way the name rolled off the tongue. But it was even more intriguing that Timbuktu was a center of learning, with libraries and book shops dotting the major trading centers.

    So this is the flag of MY virtue signaling — I think there’s a lot we can learn from the African nations.

    • Replies: @Raches
  38. I fear for the future of the White Race! Almost nobody is patriotic to America anymore. Even most “Conservatives” are more loyal to The State of Israel, than they are to their own country. This is a truly said time to be White at all.

    Moreover, those who hate Germans in particular, hate Whites in general; and those who hate Whites in general, hate Germans in particular.

  39. Raches says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    As you may imagine, I wrote a very long reply to this and your prior comment.  Unfortunately, it was too personally revealing—I will need to think about that.  Suffice it for now to say, I do have reasons for an affinity to the German National Socialists.  But not the obvious.

    Wenn Engel hassen, it is a cold, inhuman hate.  Angels do not have human emotions:  Unto weak mortals, their love is as terrifying as their hate.  And angels must have read Nietzsche.  I think that Nietzsche must have been preaching to the angels, for Nietzschean amoralism could be achieved in practice only by an angel.  Siehe die Guten und Gerechten!  Wen hassen sie am meisten?  Den, der zerbricht ihre Tafeln der Werte, den Brecher, den Verbrecher—das aber ist der Schaffende.

    As poetic as the image of cold steel is, it is necessary to fight with weapons of the mind:  What can defeat enemies who already control cold steel on a mass scale, with overwhelming numerical and logistical superiority?  One brain of Dr. Goebbels’ caliber is as powerful as many divisions of armed men—it is metaphorically a thermonuclear weapon. ®

  40. Raches says: • Website
    @Twin Ruler

    exactly like the German National Socialists formed an alliance of convenience with the Imperial Japanese

    You are patently ignorant, and regurgitating American lie-propaganda.  The Germans had a deep cultural respect for the Japanese, they actively propagandized their own people with it—they were building cross-cultural ties with the East even as America preached pure hatred of the “Japs”.  The Hitlerjugend were sending delegations of German youths to Japan, where they visited Japanese temples and learned about Japanese culture; this was interrupted by the War, which made travel between these faraway lands difficult and dangerous.  Etc…

    The American spiel about an “alliance of convenience” is a total lie, and one which requires considerable chutzpah for its hypocrisy.  Whenever I ask an American how they think they were on the right side of the War when their ally was Stalin, they mumble something along the lines of, “Oh, that was necessary to stop Hitler.”  Never mind the fact that the Americans were actively propagandizing their own people in favor of the Bolsheviks.  Suppose it’s true.

    What is an “alliance of convenience”, if not allying yourself with Stalin, who wants to destroy you, for the oh so sacred purpose of “stopping Hitler”, which apparently is supposed to justify anything whatsoever? ®

    • Replies: @Twin Ruler
  41. Raches says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus

    Promised myself I’d ‘maintain radio silence’ for the duration.  Sometimes random commenting is an addiction.

    I have also been in “radio silence” mode.  (Lamentably distracted with some irritating nonsense—not relevant here.)  My apologies to you for some slowness in processing my moderation queue.

    DID want to explain the inclusion of a comment about people from Ghana on an essay about National Socialism.

    Although I disagree with you about that, I was not surprised; I am not the usual “right-winger” who knows nothing about this subject.  My reaction was to chuckle, “Ghana—you and Hanna Reitsch, teaching blacks to fly.”  In reply to someone else above, I mentioned Luz Long’s sportsmanlike cameraderie with Jesse Owens.  When W. E. B. Du Bois (of all people) visited Germany in 1936, he was treated respectfully; and although he sharply criticized National Socialist racial policies, he found that Germans treated him better than white Americans did.  Because he committed the sin of not totally lying about this for the sacred purpose of trashing Hitler, if you dig into far-left anti-racist sources, you can find controversies about “Du Bois and the Nazis” (!).

    (Note to @Ron Unz:  This is an aspect of history that may pique your curiosity for American Pravda.  If so, I could give you some starting citations for research, from “mainstream” and left-wing sources where it is, of course, quite buried beneath ritual denunciations of Hitler.  I am not so inclined to take it up myself, because I do respectfully disagree with how the Germans handled this.  It is a complicated issue, with many subtleties that would require your usual even-handed approach to avoid some common traps and fallacies; it would be a lie (and in my opinion, an anti-German libel) to misrepresent the National Socialists as a bunch of hippies who just loved all anthropoids, as I have actually seen some idiots try.)

    One of the worst aspects of the calumny against the Germans is that it totally inverts reality:  The Germans are generally some of the most benevolent people towards foreigners, even including blacks.  That’s overdoing it, in my opinion—but I am appropriately respectful in my statements about that, for they were the nation who stood up for themselves and tried to get a country of their own.  They certainly were not race-mixing liberals.  They were Aryan racialists par excellence.  And they also weren’t big-talkers seething with impotent racism on the Internet.  They had an ideal, they built it in real life, and they shed an ocean of their own blood to defend it against a vicious attack by much larger countries.

    Much of what they said comes off as offensively “racist” today, because they lived in a time when, with the exception of vanguard liberals and Communists, Aryans generally had a healthy sort of casual racism.  The remarks about “niggers” (“Negers”) in Mein Kampf, or some of Dr. Goebbels’ speeches, must be viewed in the context of a world in which Americans were much more racist against blacks, and moreover, intellectual racism was still respectable in America.  Adolf Hitler was an admirer of Madison Grant, a conservationist who applied his natural conservation efforts most of all to the Aryan race.

    As I have sometimes pointed out, the Germans could be so benevolent when they had a country of their own.  They had never had institutionalized black slavery as the Americans did, so the number of blacks in Germany was statistically negligible.  I do think they were therefore naïve about blacks.  As a matter of survival, they need to become less so, fast, lest they be exterminated through miscegenation.  It is a biological necessity that living creatures must adapt to their environments, including the introduction of hostile invasive species—adapt, or go extinct.  That is the law of life.

    I’ve been in one of those Black Sensitivity smash-ups and it was disgusting.
    But I am also disgusted by categorical demeaning of persons of African origin/ethnicity, and dismissal of them as a collective on the basis that they have a “lower IQ,” two phenomenon routinely found on Unz.

    I tell you upfront that some of my blog posts will upset you.  I despise blacks—usually, I call them “niggers”, although out of deference to Mr. Unz’s editorial policies, I avoid that word here unless I am discussing the word itself, quoting someone else, or otherwise trying to convey an idea that cannot be adequately conveyed if bowdlerized.  (I don’t elide it, because I don’t think it’s a bad word.)

    When, without exaggeration, I tell liberals that I am literally more racist than Hitler, they don’t believe me—but you will understand that it is true.

    I think that you keyed into me here because, as I have said many times, I am not an alt-righter, and I am not a white nationalist—starting with entirely different premises (and with considerable respect for some of the better white nationalists, most of all the Dr. Pierce types), I concur with Mr. Unz’s conclusion that American white nationalism is politically bankrupt.  I have also been contemplating an essay that will probably upset many of the less thoughtful white racialists here:  As my philosophical views have developed, I have come to see the aristocratic principle as the primary principle, and racialism as an unavoidable consequence thereof.  This is a subtle point, but it has some big implications.  For example, I reject the concept of “race war” as such; and as I remarked in one of those passages that I think many people missed, for people see what they want to see (footnotes omitted—all boldface and italics in the original):

    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 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, 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.

    As a practical matter, I am fed up to hell with the attitude I have seen displayed by some of the low-IQ Internet “sh—posters” who brag about how they are oh so superior to the niggers, because whites have high IQ—when they themselves behave like trash, indistinguishably from TNB, their culture is of the gutter, and they themselves self-evidently have IQs lower than potted plants.  I don’t want to paint with a broad brush here, and I am well aware that some of the better white racialist forums ban these types; but anyone who has spent time lurking on the “politically incorrect” Internet will know what I am talking about.  And since the worse quarters of the non-moving “movement” have their own political correctness, if you dare to criticize it, then you will be knee-jerk accused of being “anti-white”—with insinuations, oft delivered via a Happy Merchant meme pic, that (((you))) must be a jew (lower-case, because it is also politically incorrect to use proper English to write the word Jew).  Many of these types are also misogynists; and as anyone who follows my comment history or my early blog posts must know, I declare war on the misogynists.  So, Mr. Croesus, on that level, I understand whence you come.

    I think that many white racialists have fallen into a pretty bad trap, which I avoid by putting the aristocratic principle first.  In the correct philosophical sense of the word, ‘rule of the best’, aristocracy is unavoidably racist—just as Christianity is unavoidably egalitarian, and will always tend towards that end by iron logic, no matter how much some people may try to make it otherwise.  For race is a biological fact.  “Non-racist aristocracy” is as much a contradiction in terms as “racist egalitarianism”.  To deny this logic is to deny the reality of race.

    Thus, this is not to repudiate the racial principle, but to give it greater meaning—and to discipline it, by holding it subordinate to what is really important to me.  I don’t see anything as good “because it’s white”.  I see the Aryan race as the race that created most of the greatest cultural achievements in history, and laid the foundations of science.  They have obviously degenerated into eine minderwertige Rasse; I will freely criticize thatBe superior—be the best, as the Germans were—don’t brag about it—be it and do it.  And outsmart the Jews—first, by rebuilding your own world—rather than whining about how if only all Jews were to disappear, everything would be great (a fallacy that Dr. Oliver found especially contemptible).

    Is it difficult, with many obstacles?  Well, aren’t Aryans supposed to be a race of smart, courageous people who rise to any challenge?  Was that not what they were, once upon a time?  Another answer to Dr. Morgan’s questions:  I admire the German National Socialists, because they set the right example by being what I here urge others to be.  When I dig into the history of what the Germans did in their country, I am fascinated and frankly, a little bit intimidated.  Although I sometimes respectfully criticize them (they were too kind, too merciful—and Hitler was too trusting, which was how Canaris got away with his treachery for so long), their cultural and scientific achievements command my admiration:  I am helpless but to admire them, for they were the best of the best, Aryans of Aryans.  “αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν καὶ ὑπείροχον ἔμμεναι ἄλλων.”

    I think that the deeper cause of your complaint, Mr. Croesus, is that some of the more culturally degenerate whites are devolving into an “ethnic-grievance movement” as Mr. Unz astutely predicted 22 years ago, in the cover headline story of the very Jewish Commentary magazine.  I want no part of that.  It is beneath me, and I would not waste my life on it.  I have no sympathy for it.  And without the backing of the mass-media and of Soros types, a white equivalent of BLM will fail to be anything other than a propaganda foil for the ADL.

    That said, I do despise blacks.  Always have.  And I was not raised to be racist; to the contrary!  The anti-racist propaganda that I was fed as a child bounced off of me, just like Christianity.  And though I always got along well with high-achieving people of high-culture races, I am completely contemptuous of the blacks.  I don’t intend to pull punches about that here at The Unz Review, beyond limiting my use of the word “nigger”.  I’m not trying to antagonize you here, but rather, replying in candor to your thoughtful comment implying that you disagree with me, and in the same spirit thereof. ®

  42. Raches says: • Website
    @NEETzschean

    I don’t expect you as a (presumably) heterosexual man to […]

    Why do you assume that I am a man?  LOL.

    I am not offended that many of my readers guess the incorrect pronoun, because I have never disclosed whether I am a man or a woman.  Regardless, I do qualify my readership; and I specifically want to alienate manosphere misogynists who imagine that they can keep women out of politics, after men invited them in.

    A more masculine view is that women’s depraved and whorish instincts are irrelevant and that men should impose their will on their women regardless.

    Your theories obviously have not had contact with reality.  Also, that is not a masculine view:  It is a misogynistic view, and in its cultural essence, a Jewish/Christian view.  It’s good that your opinion is irrelevant:  Between your simplemindedness and your political ineptitude, you will never have the power to impose your will on anyone.

    Now, if I wanted to play your game about “women’s depraved and whorish instincts”, I might reply that men are a bunch of natural born perverts who just want to stick it in—oft indiscriminately, without regard to who or what they are sticking it into.  White men, in particular, left a trail of mongrels in their wake as a disastrous side effect, as they spent thousands of years building empires, subjugating other races, and overall exercising their otherwise healthy primal urges for “fighting and f*cking”, as you so elegantly put it below.  In North America, the first bumper crop of mulattoes was spawned by white men who were so perverse that they copulated with their female livestock.  I have a pet theory that many American racial problems are caused by the white side of the schizophrenic mixed instincts of American so-called “blacks”, most of whom are hybrids.  For a brown man with white fore-fathers, there may well be a genetically hardwired instinctive drive to be in white society—and most of all, to possess white women.  But he is stuck in limbo, for he can never fit into white society—he does not have the character for it, and usually not the intelligence, either.  Most of all, his integration with white society is the destruction of the white race.

    Whereas modesty, chastity, and marital fidelity are traditionally considered feminine virtues—as you would know, if you knew anything whatsoever about philosophy or the history of morals.  And some of the most credible theories of prehistory hold that women invented the family.

    Against your puritanical and male-centric view that ignores the nature of male sexuality, if I were to take that argument to its logical conclusion, I might suggest, as did some of the most radical second-wave feminists, that almost all men should be physically exterminated, most male fetuses should be aborted, and only a small number of male breed-stock should be kept in slavery as sperm-machines.  This misandrist argument would be a neat mirror-image of your misogynist argument.

    But I don’t play that game.  Although I hold a Nietzschean view of a healthy antagonism between the sexes, I am not inclined to put them irrationally at war to their mutual destruction.  Also, I do not have the Christian moralistic attitude on these issues—not at all, as you will see presently.

    Therefore, I will just brush off your nonsense with a laugh:  “If occasionally we run across some man with an anti-feminist chip on his shoulder, we just laugh about him and consider him a funny old has-been out of touch with the times.” — Reichsfrauenführerin Gertrud Scholtz-Klink, leader of the National Socialist women’s movement, in an interview with Lothrop Stoddard.  The Reichsfrauenführerin ran three different national organizations with millions of members, had an active family life, and herself bore an eventual total of eleven children.  (Will Biden, who so admires motherhood, kneel before in awe at the feet of the Reichsfrauenführerin?)  Some women have boundless energy.


    Reichsfrauenführerin Gertrud Scholtz-Klink


    A cover from a large-circulation National Socialist women’s magazine.

    (In my original draft reply to Dr. Morgan’s “why Hitler?” questions, I gathered these images inter alia to point out, among other things, that the National Socialist women’s movement was one of many things that the German National Socialists got right.  They set a good example.)

    As far as primal masculinity goes (only considering fighting and f*cking) blacks probably have an advantage.

    Yes, blacks have such a primal advantage at “fighting and f*cking” that they spent thousands of years conquering vast empires, and unfortunately spawning many mongrels as aforesaid.  No, wait:  That was white men!

    Next, you will explain that racism is caused by white men’s insecurities about the sexual superiority of black men.  That disgusting Jewish smear is evidently true, in your particular case—the Defamation League should thank you for your arguments!  Whereas if it were true generally, I would say that whites should go extinct, as an inferior species that is unfit for survival on this Earth.  Fortunately, it is not true—generally.

    Although I have mixed feelings about Himmler due to some stuff at the end, I must salute him here, because he was very insightful about the need to manage depraved male sexuality—to prevent men from sexual degeneracy.  And since he didn’t have a Christian bone in his body, he had no qualms about, e.g., using regulated prostitution to prevent men from falling into race-mixing and homosexuality.  This tends to scandalize conservatives, and cause no small perplexity to liberals; and he was indeed correct that Christian attitudes towards “sin” and “vice” are a major cause of faggotry, due to the nature of male sexuality.  His attitude in that regard was not so different from the wisdom of mediaeval aristocrats—most people here would be shocked by some aspects of oh-so-Christian mediaeval society, which still retained many “pagan” characteristics by the law of cultural residues.  Anyway, if some individual women have very whorish instincts (a trait that follows a bell curve as most any other trait), it can be collectively beneficial to the race, too.  Most women have a much deeper desire to be wives and mothers, as they quite happily were since time immemorial—until, with stereotypically masculine stupidity, modern democratic men created feminism, an essentially puritanical movement. ®

    • Replies: @NEETzschean
  43. @Raches

    That is very interesting. After all, the Japanese were highly obsessed with honor, or what they would call Bushido.

  44. If the Jews really believe that they were, somehow, Chosen by the Man in the Sky to rule over the rest of us, then they are truly a tribe of superstitious savages. That is for sure!

  45. I wonder what you think of Kurt Saxon, Raches? He was an interesting individual.

  46. Radical Feminists believe about men in general, what the Ku Klux Klan has traditionally believed about Black men in particular. I have always found this to be interesting to ponder, albeit in a very unsettling way. I suppose, in Amerika especially, white men have learnt to give up chivalry, and emulate the savage behavior patterns that they used to disdain and loath in the negro!

  47. The Muslims, of course, seem to understand neither the threat of overpopulation or Feminism (the idea of gender equality). That is precisely why they act the way they do.

  48. Raches: “I might reply that men are a bunch of natural born perverts who just want to stick it in—oft indiscriminately, without regard to who or what they are sticking it into.”

    LOL, and you’d be right!

    Raches: “I must salute [Himmler] here, because he was very insightful about the need to manage depraved male sexuality—to prevent men from sexual degeneracy.”

    And this is the proof you’d be right, since there’s no need to “manage” male sexuality unless it’s already inclined to depravity. After all, there’s no need to make laws against a thing nobody wants to do.

    Raches: “The Reichsfrauenführerin ran three different national organizations with millions of members, had an active family life, and herself bore an eventual total of eleven children.”

    And what percentage of modern white women have had 11 children, I wonder? No doubt it’s minuscule.

    Raches: “Most women have a much deeper desire to be wives and mothers, as they quite happily were since time immemorial”

    I don’t speculate about the deeply hidden desires of women, but the constantly falling fertility rates of women all over the world where scientific birth control and abortion are readily available tells a different story. When we look at what women actually do instead of what they say they want or think they want, we’re forced to the conclusion they don’t like being mothers all that much. Certainly, many more women could have 11 children these days if they wanted to. As I understand it, the American state is even proposing to subsidize this now to the tune of \$250 -\$300 per month per child. For a woman with 11 children, that’d be almost \$36,000 a year in direct cash deposits into her bank account, likely along with gov’t paid housing, medical care, and food benefits.

    Raches: “—until, with stereotypically masculine stupidity, modern democratic men created feminism, an essentially puritanical movement. ”

    LOL. Even if we admit that men created feminism, why did women accept it unless they saw it was to their advantage?

    “Woman makes of man what she wishes. Formerly she made heroes and now she makes apes.”
    – Immanuel Kant, cited by B-A.Scharfstein, 1980, The Philosophers. Oxford : Blackwell.

    • Thanks: Raches, Twin Ruler
    • Replies: @Raches
  49. Raches says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    [Dear smart readers:  I am seeking copies of Ludovici works that don’t seem to be available anywhere online.  Thanks.]

    I knowingly oversimplified in the statement, “Men created feminism.”  Its origins were a confluence of democratic-minded feminist men, worst of all John Stuart Mill, in the intellectual and ruling classes, and the more widespread effeminate degeneracy of nineteenth-century, Victorian-era men, which induced women to compensate by masculinizing themselves.  Without these factors, the few female intellectuals and ideologues of early feminism would have been socially marginal and politically powerless.

    N.b. that most present-day “men’s rights” ideologues get the causality backwards, because they are ignorant of history.  Men became effeminate first.  Weak-willed, irrational, indecisive, irresponsible, emotionally unstable fathers raised masculine daughters who saw nothing to respect in men, long before feminist mothers started psychologically castrating their sons.

    For a diagnosis of the etiology of feminism, I highly recommend the antifeminist works of Anthony M. Ludovici.  As suggested by such titles as Woman: A Vindication (1923) and Man: An Indictment (1927), his books pretty much entirely blame feminism on men; and as implied by the title, Enemies of Women: The Origins in Outline of Anglo-Saxon Feminism (1948), he characterizes feminism as an anti-woman ideology.  His works are anti-feminist, anti-misogynist, pro-woman.

    Although I may have nitpicks with Ludovici on some points on this topic (and some other disagreements with Ludovici generally), they are nitpicks, and do not detract from the overall truth of his thesis:  Ludovici was right.  And in revealing the true origins of feminism, he was essentially doing what @Ron Unz does with American Pravda.

    Ludovici was a Nietzsche scholar, who wrote several books about Nietzsche and translated some of Nietzsche’s works to English.  In my comments, I have previously recommend his excellent introduction to Nietzsche (Archive org scan) to those whose knowledge of Nietzsche does not go beyond Wikipedia.  His antifeminist works are essentially an historical and psychological elaboration on the philosophical Nietzsche aphorism, “Of man there is little here: therefore do their women masculinise themselves.  For only he who is man enough, will—save the woman in woman.”  Politically, Ludovici advocated aristocracy; in religious terms, much like Oliver (and I do not know if or how much they may have influenced each other), Ludovici advocated developing a better religion to replace Christianity.  Needless to say, just as every intelligent person who is acquainted with reality, Ludovici was a eugenicist.

    Apropos the topic hereof, Ludovici visited National Socialist Germany in 1936.  Upon his return to England, his report is quite persuasive to me, and I recommend it to everyone who appreciates this thread.  However, I rarely cite it; for it is too sympathetic to the National Socialists.

    Here, for an outsider’s view of the Germans, I usually cite Lothrop Stoddard instead—not despite, but because of Stoddard’s skeptical, somewhat suspicious attitude.  Besides his 1940 early wartime report being much longer and having greater factual depth, Stoddard was objective and quite fair, but obviously not politically advocating for Hitler.  When I cite him, I cannot rightly be accused of citing mere advocacy.  To me, at least, Ludovici comes off as if he fell in love with what he saw in Germany; I feel the same way myself, but it is of limited use when operating in an environment that is mostly hostile to “Nazis”.  Whereas Stoddard patently did not want a Hitler-style system in his own country.

    (Neither did Oliver, before some point in the 1970s—when he must have recognized that the America he loved was already dead; before that, he simply recognized that German domestic policy was none of America’s business.  I have reason to believe that some of the very short, vague negative statements about Hitler in his earlier conservative articles were probably interpolated by editors, as not infrequently has occurred in political publishing.)

    ——————————

    The German National Socialists fulfilled the Nietzsche’s aforesaid proclamation that “only he who is man enough, will—save the woman in woman.”  They spoke to both men and women with, perforce, a two-pronged approach, as sexual dimorphism requires.

    Their men were the manliest men to walk to the Earth since the Eighteenth Century, if not much earlier; the SS is exemplary here, and manhood was overall on the rise throughout Germany.  Look closely at the ecstatic female faces in the crowd at a Hitler parade:  Those are orgasm faces—you can almost hear those women thinking, Oh my god, these are men!

    And they started organizing women in the early 1920s, when the Party was still in its infancy, such that by the 1930s they already had their own powerful women’s movement under woman leaders.  Hitler didn’t trash women as Anglin does—and I’m quite sure that he would have arrested anyone who did.  To the contrary, in praise of German women, the Führer spoke some of the most eloquent words ever said; and NS propaganda glorified and glamorized the National Socialist ideal of womanhood.  They presented that ideal as something that women wanted to be.  And if a few unusual women wanted to serve their people in different ways, such as Hanna Reitsch flying airplanes, that was fine.  There was no “shut up and get back in the kitchen” type of attitude, which is repulsive to women.

    No surprise:  After the National Socialists attained power, the German birthrate exploded—and those bearing these new Germans into the world were happy mothers, a value totally ignored by r-selected manosphere morons who are so ignorant of childrearing, they imagine that they can get good results by beating women into submission.  (What kind of neurotic, or even psychotic children would grow up under “NEETzschean’s” formula of forcing women to do what he says?  I am so very glad that he and his ilk will always be socially marginal, politically powerless rejects!)  A woman is not simply a womb:  She is a highly evolved childrearing system.  The female brain has emotional characteristics that men lack for connecting with young children and raising them.  As Napoleon observed, the mother is the greatest influence on the future direction of the child (and I cite him as exemplary of his own statement: his famously formidable mother raised a son who conquered the Continent).  Under National Socialism, millions of healthy, happy German women were highly motivated to raise children.  It was a formula for future German superpower.

    Also no surprise:  While American women were voting for Roosevelt, German women were voting for Hitler.

    ——————————

    Dr. Morgan, I will try to follow up with you later on some other points you raised.  I wrote this while I was supposed to be doing another article, and I seem to have stepped into a controversy in another thread—these are the issues about which I care very deeply.

    Obiter, I have been intending to ask you if you wish to take up a discussion of atheism.  If so, I will make a thread just for that sometime.  Otherwise, it is probably not worthwhile; few people have the worldview that you seem to evince.

    My own perspective on that is quite unusual.  As I have insinuated a few times in my comments, I am not actually an atheist, as most people assume.  If I have any mystical beliefs, I prefer to keep them private.  Either I have an innate mental flaw, a wetware programming bug shared by billions of other anthropoids who have not yet evolved beyond a proper classification as simians, or I have an instinct that you and Dr. Oliver lack.  Either way, I assure you that I categorically refuse to believe anything that contradicts observable reality.  To the contrary of most people, I am emotionally most comfortable with absolute atheism, and in the rare company of absolute atheists.  The idea of a blind, cold universe and the nonexistence of souls does not bother me, and never has; even when I was a very young child, I am proud to say, attempts to terrorize me into Christianity with “what happens when you die?” sorts of questions did not perturb my equanimity in the slightest. ®

  50. @Raches

    Much of your reply is based on blaming men for creating feminism. I don’t see how this in any way contradicts my arguments. Men should understand the nature of women and act accordingly. Women can’t be blamed in some objective sense for their nature.

    I presumed you were a heterosexual man because 90%+ of those on the heavily ostracised and powerless “dissident right” are male and you type more like a typical man than a woman, albeit of the male feminist persuasion. Your interest in obscure far-right Nietzschean intellectuals like Oliver and Ludovici is even more disproportionately male than the DR itself.

    As a self-professed Nietzschean, what do you think about this quote:

    “When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality.”

    Or perhaps this one:

    “What is truth to a woman! From the very first nothing has been more alien, repugnant, inimical to woman than truth – her great art is the lie, her supreme concern is appearance and beauty.”

    These “pro woman” thinkers held the view that women are relatively more dishonest, irrational and less suited to intellectual pursuits than men and that “all problems with women hath one solution: pregnancy”. Nor is there any chance that they subscribe to neo-feminist understandings of rape or believe that female autonomy is a good in itself. They are all reactionary intellectuals who lived in a time where feminism and “sexual liberation” were far less advanced, which goes a long way to explain why they are less abrasive than certain modern writers on the subject of female depravity.

    It’s bizarre that you try to deflect the male instinct to conquer onto Judaism or Christianity. I don’t think that the Vikings had any problems with raping and pillaging. Men enforcing their will on women is the overwhelming norm in human history because men have a higher sexual drive, are bigger, stronger, faster, braver, more strategic, have a tumescent rod between their legs and often desire a legacy, while the more masochistic female sex has the capacity to sexually and reproductively betray their men, as well as a greater willingness and a desire to submit to masculine force. It’s only with the rise of modern technological system of law and order, contraception/abortion and the service sector economy that women have been given “equal rights”; the same system that will very likely destroy the race that created it.

    “Modesty, chastity, and marital fidelity” were considered feminine virtues because patriarchal men wanted to enforce these civilised codes of behaviour on women. Women tend to be more risk averse and conformist which helped to facilitate it. And white men also wanted to believe that white women were essentially pure creatures in order to reduce feelings of insecurity or guilt. But none of this is in accordance with biological reality.

    You misunderstand what I mean by “fighting and fucking”: I’m speaking in a purely primal sense: the realm of singing, dancing and virility. A 5’2 man armed with a gun could easily kill a much bigger and stronger man and rape a woman but this doesn’t make him physically or sexually superior in the sense that I’m talking about. I also don’t see why mulattoes would have a stronger desire for white women than coal-black Negroes, who contrast with them to an even greater degree. Your “pet theory” is also an obvious rip off of Oliver.

    Your argument that 2nd wave feminists were misandrists and that’s bad so my arguments are bad is illogical. From their perspective they may well be right, though if they really believed it then they would have started a lesbian nation by now, if they had the competence to do so. Your argument assumes that truth is found in the middle, a fallacy of moderation. Furthermore, I do not argue for the extermination of women (lmao) so I see no comparison with the ideas of the bisexual prostitute Valerie Solanas or the morbidly obese asexual rape fantasist Andrea Dworkin. The 2nd wave feminists were rabid technophiles as they believed (correctly) that extreme technological intervention was the only way to eradicate the natural inequality of the sexes, whereas the only possible salvation I see for the self-doomed white race comes with the destruction of modern technology.

    Nazi Germany was not the feminist paradise that you are making it out to be. The Nazi woman is conversing with a sympathetic American intellectual in Stoddard who wants to present the 3rd Reich in positive terms, one way being in portraying their attitudes towards women as very modern and liberal (for similar reasons, the Nazi’s world downplay their racism internationally) as many Amercian readers had been primed to believe that Nazi Germany is a patriarchal, natalistic and socially conservative society which had moved most women out of employment and toward “Children, Kitchen and Church”. It’s ironic that you approvingly mention the childless Nazi aviatrix Hanna Reitsch because she had a very cozy relationship with Ghanaian dictator Kwame Nkrumah after the war:

    “Earlier in my life, it would never have occurred to me to treat a black person as a friend or partner…”

    If I said 100 years ago that women desire, at least on the level of primal fantasy, to be “raped” then it would be considered scandalous and offensive but it would nonetheless be true. If I said that white women are naturally attracted to some proportion of black men, then that would also be considered scandalous and offensive but again it’s obviously true. This was believed at the time by Lanz von Liebenfels, who was a considerable influence on a young Hitler and Schopenhauer said something similar. Ludovici (a staunch Freudian) also makes this implication in at least one of his books.

    So after saying that if white women have a primal sexual preference for black men then white men should go extinct, you now say that if white racism is caused by white male sexual insecurity then white men should go extinct! This is the Platonic form of white feminism lol. The non-feminist racist position is that it doesn’t matter if a white women could have infinitely more pleasure with a black man than with her white husband; she is not autonomous and belongs to him. And if white men fear black men’s capacity to sexually alienate white women from their race (as is obviously the case in the fictional books and ADV broadcasts of William Pierce) then this should be an incentive to keep white women away from black men at all costs. But clearly, white men and women do not care much about the racial and demographic situation, not enough to physically resist it anyway. As long as they have their fast food, ball games, music, TV/films, porn/sex and their wage slave jobs, they are happy to be amalgamated with the rest of the world.

  51. Raches: “Either I have an innate mental flaw, a wetware programming bug shared by billions of other anthropoids who have not yet evolved beyond a proper classification as simians, or I have an instinct that you and Dr. Oliver lack. Either way, I assure you that I categorically refuse to believe anything that contradicts observable reality.”

    I think my materialist worldview is almost identical to yours. You wrote in one of your linked comments that:

    [Humans] are differentiated from the other simians only by their conceits and their superstitions; … They certainly have no agency of their own. They are blind, insapient automata comprised of chemical reactions and electrical impulses.

    and that’s very close to how I see it too, but with a couple of significant things I deduce from it that you, apparently, have not, or at least have not yet. First, by placing humans firmly in Nature, I don’t elevate them to the status of special creatures uniquely endowed with “free will” and a “soul”, as do Christians and their cultural sympathizers. Second (and re atheism), I see their “conceits and superstitions” as a means, brought about by evolution, by which they self-regulate their groups. In other words, I see ideas, including the belief in God and its elaboration into religion, as the human analogues of the pheromones and dancing language by which honeybees communicate and regulate their activities. According to this way of seeing the matter, religion and beliefs in God persists not because of their objective truth, but merely because they have up to now aided survival. In this category I would also place the mystical beliefs of your own you allude to above.

    When you say humans have no agency, I think you’re on to something there too, since as a Darwinist, I think that all human behavior can be completely explained with reference only to the interaction of genes and environment, just as with any other animal. But for me, this is where Ellul’s ideas come in. He defines technology as “the ensemble of means whereby man obtains what he wants from the world”, and so this can also include insubstantial things such as ideologies and religions. In this view, human history then can be seen as a series of battles between various groups using different techniques, with victory going to the most efficient at ensuring survival. A case in point was the Second World War, which pitted the racially exclusionary ideology of the Germans against the racially assimilative, Christianoid ideology of the Allies. Like it or not, it was the latter technology that proved victorious.

    Re feminism and who to blame for it, I don’t see much point in assigning blame. I’m more interested in the cause, which I think is tied to the evolution of technology. I see a steady decline of masculinity and patriarchy with each advance of “Progress”. A particularly egregious example of this is scientific birth control and abortion techniques, which have all by themselves liberated women from being slaves to their biology. Without these techniques feminism wouldn’t be possible. Technological advance thus has already, to a large degree, equalized the sexes; and, as groups compete for survival, it may necessitate even more “progress” in this direction, forming a kind of feedback loop. After all, a woman can pull a trigger or press a button to fire a missile the same as a man. As Hanna Reitsch and Countess Bernadotte showed, some of them can also fly planes as well or better. There is therefore no reason not to let them, or even to compel them if it would aid survival, even though it goes against their traditional role. This destruction of culture and its attendant genetic changes to the underlying human component, feminizing the men and masculinizing the women, is a primary characteristic of technological “progress”. It’s in this way by degrees that the human becomes transhuman.

    • Agree: Twin Ruler
Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Moderated by Raches.  Anonymous comments are welcome, but will be moderated more strictly than those from commentators with at least a pseudonymous reputation.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Raches Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism