This Addenda adds additional material
to the main site, The West’s Darkest Hour.
Don’t celebrate it. Yes, everyone hates Bill O’Reilly, but this is not about him. It is about the war on men.
And this is a major victory for the anti-male forces. This man—the most-watched television news anchor in the history of television—is having his entire career destroyed for flirting with women.
This is utterly insane.
Old Bill has now got the whole of international kike feminism lined up against him. None of these accusations even involve any kind of assault. They are all just hoax “sexual harassment” charges.
As covered in F. Roger Devlin’s epic essay “Sexual Utopia in Power” (pdf link: here, buy the book, which has a bunch more essays: here), “sexual harassment” is just a way to frame normal male flirting behavior as deviant or oppressive.
If women don’t want men to flirt with them, they should stay home or wear burkas. The idea you can have your career destroyed for flirting with co-workers is totally and completely insane.
Anyway, whatever. Bill O’Reilly sucks anyway. And he is definitely fired. Flirting with a woman is, in our present climate of social justice, equivalent to calling for the extermination of Jews.
The Western psyche has been neutralised after hundreds of years of universalist indoctrination by the Christian churches (“we’re all one in Christ”)… The core belief of colour blind Christianity is to bring salvation to all tribes. Nation is irrelevant, salvation in Jesus is everything. Marxism preaches the same messianic nation-wrecking ideology.
Translated opening pages from the 3rd
volume of my autobiographical trilogy. (P.S. of March 25: Yesterday the only living creature I really loved died. Today or tomorrow I’ll bury him. I’ll probably remove this intro to my book and replace it with my feelings about mi Conejito)
Stefano di Giovanni: St. Francis
denies his earthly father.
This painting in the high altar of San Francesco,
Borgo Sansepolcro, shows him breaking off his
relationship with his father and renouncing his
patrimony, laying aside publicly even the
garments he had received from him.
If in the future one would say that the crucifixion of a soul describes my deepest being, he would greatly err. In reviewing my previous book, I was surprised that, what I most identified with, were the pages about my most beautiful memories with my sister. The true César is not the tragic César but the happy César with his family in the house of the street Palenque. Already something of that César was glimpsed in the second third of the first book of this series, in which I stopped the narrative just before arriving at my adolescence. Now I will have to retake the autobiography where I left it in the middle book of Hojas Susurrantes.
The problem with this new project is that very serious situations are unfolding in the world. So serious that it is not even clear that I’ll finish it. I do not know when the dollar will collapse and, therefore, the shelter that at the moment I have in the cursed house [this refers to a section in a previous book of the trilogy]. If international confidence in the dollar devalues soon, I will not finish it. In fact, I’m kind of living on the slopes of the Vesuvius without knowing exactly when it’s going to explode. Furthermore, the white race commits suicide at an accelerated pace. A book like this one would only make sense if the Aryans recover from their suicidal passion to the degree of founding an ethnic state where someone like me, who connected the dots to place the trauma model on solid footing, flourishes posthumously. But we cannot know if the Aryans are going to be saved, so the sense of all my work hangs by a thread.
The reason that makes me go back to the linear autobiography of the type of La India Chingada is that, I realized, the psychosis and iniquity in my family was no more serious than the psychosis and iniquity of Westerners in general. Consider for example what I say about the mental health of my sister and the incredible psychological dissociations of my father in Exterminio. Are not they a microcosm of what is now happening in the West? And the same I can say of the steamrolling haughtiness of my mother. To give a single example: when I wrote Exterminio Donald Trump was still a candidate, among many, of the Republican Party. Today a month has passed since he assumed the position of President of the United States. The string of lies, insults and even paranoid delusions that the national and foreign media are throwing at his figure evokes in me the war my mother fought against me in my teens.
The times that I am living are suffering the most serious moral crisis and of aesthetic values; of crazy policies in fiat currencies that will soon collapse, and even an apocalypse of energy devolution by the depletion of oil in the coming decades. How can I focus in my life when the world around me is falling apart? Well, if there is something that justifies a third volume, it is that this book could offer more clues that the evil that destroyed me, my sister and my cousin, and the evil that is destroying the West, is the same.
Thus, my present mind orbits around two suns. When I wrote the first draft of Hojas Susurrantes I orbited around only one: the toll that causes parental mistreatment in their children. Then, I ended up waking up to the real world by discovering the literature of white nationalists thanks to the internet. Now my mind orbits around a binary system of suns: national socialism has joined the cause of childhood.
In Exterminio I mentioned many times the book I compiled, The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, which contains articles by several authors. In that compendium I present each section with an essay coming out from my own pen. If we order chronologically my spiritual odyssey we would read it like this: Hojas Susurrantes, The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, Exterminio and the one I begin now, De san Francisco a Himmler.
Of the articles of The Fair Race the most important is the book-review on Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany: 1944-1947. The author of Hellstorm has published essays in a webzine for white nationalists. I must say that the primary reason I find myself writing this book, rather than doing political activism, is that white nationalists do not want to organize. In the chapter “Tres Puentes” of my previous book I explained my criticisms of white nationalism: critiques so important that I must iterate and expand them.
In an entry in my blog that I left hanging for a long time I had come to the conclusion that liberals, conservatives and white nationalists are heading for the abyss. An Irishman whom I talked in London told me that even the pro-white movement seems to be carried away by the irresistible death wish suffered by contemporary whites. The metaphor I used in the blog entry is that the liberals are driving the train into the abyss; the conservatives are simply trying to slow it down, lightly stepping on the brake here and there to hinder the liberals’ ways. Although off the train, white nationalists are headed in the same direction, but at a much slower pace: they go on foot.
For the sake of clarity, let us compare the values of the white nationalists with the true defenders of the Aryan race:
• Hitler and the National Socialists organized a political party: the first step to make a difference in the real world. The cyber-based movement of white nationalism, on the other hand, refuses to leave the homely comfort zone.
• The Germans clearly defined their ethnicity as Germanic, including Austria, the Scandinavian and Low Countries, Switzerland and even parts of the old Soviet Union; Hitler even dreamt of sharing the world with the Anglo-Saxons. Those who advocate white nationalism, on the other hand, are either openly anti-eugenicists and anti-nordicists, or do not care about nordicism at all. Like the conservatives of the Republican Party who treat mestizos as equals, in order not to offend Mediterranean sensibilities they refuse to recognize that the standard of whiteness is the Nordic type. Many have no objection to granting the amnesty to the whitish population in Europe who have dirty blood, even if that means the eventual mongrelization of the true whites. This is why I say that nationalists are going on foot toward the abyss.
• Hitler and his closest friends abandoned Christianity, a religion of Levantine inspiration that only weakens the Germanic peoples. Many white nationalists, unable to apostatize from the religion of our parents, proclaim their religion candidly and have been blinded about the toxicity of the Galilean cult.
• National Socialists, including Catholics and Protestants, renounced Christian ethics and became pragmatic Nietzscheans. White nationalists, on the other hand, are frightened by history, for example the legitimate will of the Germans to conquer those Slavs who had handed over their country to the Bolshevik Jews. (If a Reich existed today, the same could be said about the legitimacy of conquering the Judaized United States by this hypothetical German empire.)
• Hitler and the National Socialists took sexual polarity as something to be taken for granted. Like all militarist cultures, the Germans subscribed to patriarchy and no woman was admitted to the leadership class. The men of white nationalism, on the other hand, have become unrecognizably feminized. Many have no problem with either the feminism that has been wreaking havoc on their race or the sexual degeneration that originated in the 1960s. For example, the National Socialists had an absolute will of biological fertility. The feminized nationalists have no problem accepting that women make careers; that they enter their conferences, or that they practice an ethnosuicidal natal control.
• The National Socialists simply and directly pursued the fulfillment of their duty to the point of dying heroically for the fate of their race. Like the Roman Republicans their ethos was severe, stoic and brutal. White nationalists, on the other hand, live under the illusion of the American dream and the childlike pursuit of universal happiness. Like the imperial Romans of the time of Nero and Caligula, the nationalists are hedonists. They lack the Teutonic spirit of tribal sacrifice. The saying “We don’t stand a chance unless our men become killing machines and our women birthing machines” sounds like anti-music to their ears. None wants to sacrifice himself for the 14/88 words. Who wants to become a bloodthirsty soldier or literally force our spoiled women to become birthing machines? With the exception of the late David Lane, who keeps in his heart the legend of the rape of the Sabine women who gave birth to the virile republican Rome?
• From time immemorial, the number-one enemy of the Aryans has been materialism, the inexorable thirst for riches without looking after their race. Keep in mind, once again, the history of the white race by William Pierce published in The Fair Race. Because of that corrupting power of the “One Ring” Hitler and the National Socialists subscribed collectivism, honor, hierarchy and militarism always in harmony with the aesthetic impulse of the Aryan soul. In the forums of white nationalism, on the other hand, one does not read much criticism of the greatest factors of white decline: capitalism and Christianity. They mention the Jews a lot, but not the mercantile societies that degenerated into a consumerist materialism: the most corrupting thing for the Aryan soul for any honest reader of history.
• The National Socialists pointed to fascism, war and conquest. Just read the Führer’s various pronouncements about his projected empire, and even my quotes of what Francis Parker Yockey tells us in “From the Editor’s desk: Materialism” in The Fair Race. White nationalists, on the other hand, seem to sympathize with democracy; the human rights proclaimed by the French revolutionaries, and with pacifism. Even the nationalists who can be considered secular make the sign of the cross when spotting the ideologue of Aryan militarism.
• In his table talks, Hitler constantly spoke of the most beautiful European architecture, painting and classical music. All of this was omnipresent in the plans of what the Reich was to be after the consolidation of his conquests. At the same time, the Nazis recognized the problem of cultural degeneration in general and degenerate music in particular (remember the chapter “La Traición Musical” in Exterminio). White nationalists, on the other hand, are amused by the negro-American phenomenon of rock and the filth that the Jews make us see on television and on the big screen.
Having pointed out the nine points above, let us remember that in Exterminio I said that George Lincoln Rockwell and William Pierce were not white nationalists, but that they followed the Hitlerian spirit. For example, they had no Christian scruples about people of color and Jews. Rockwell even formed a Nazi party in the US and mocked the precursors of white nationalism with these words: “They never, never get out into the public, into the streets, and reach the masses with an inspiring and driving masculine movement, which alone can win the hearts of the masses! They pass literature and talk only to each other.”
Rockwell was killed in 1967 and Pierce died a natural death. At present, in white nationalism there is no real resistance against the massive migration of non-whites and the forced fraternization with them, resulting in Aryan genocide by miscegenation. As even Pierce did not dare to form a party, his torch went out after his death in 2002. And although Rockwell was the last true National Socialist of the West, due to his premature death by murder he did not leave a legitimate heir either.
Being a Nazi means forming a fascist and overtly racist party in Europe or North America: something that the erroneously called white nationalists—as their behavior does not lead to a white nation—will not dare to do. Trying to summon these bourgeois who almost never leave the internet destroys the moral of the priest of the fourteen words. Unless these cowards become brave, I must do something else. Without any Aryan group that offers real resistance to the system—that is: to form a party like that of the heroic Rockwell—I have no choice but to write these annotations to my previous books: the pair of volumes where I already said the essential.
But before doing it one last word about white nationalism, sometimes called Alt-Right or alternative right in the neighboring country of the north. The biggest problem with their exponents is that they have not realized that their race is their nation. Had they realized it, they would have repudiated the founding ideology of their “nation” and would do something similar to what Jews have been doing for decades: denouncing the Hellstorm Holocaust that claimed more lives of innocent Germans than the alleged Jewish holocaust. Eisenhower, Stalin and Churchill, who ordered that Holocaust after the war was over, ought to be considered the greatest Satans not only of the twentieth century but of Western history. If white nationalists knew that their race is their nation they would have sympathized with the true martyrs, their German cousins, and would have been reporting the Hellstorm Holocaust every morning, midday and evening until the West wakes up.
They don’t do that, even remotely!
I would go even further. Since the Germany of the Third Reich represented the great awakening of the Aryan consciousness, every nation that declared war on Her must be destroyed. And indeed: after the Second World War the white and mestizo countries that had entered combat against the Axis are sinking demographically: the United States, the Soviet Union (now Russia), the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand , South Africa (the punishment for the whites of that nation cannot be clearer), Brazil, Mexico (the Indians who declared war on the Reich), Colombia, the Philippines and Cuba. My hatred for these and the other countries that have been swallowing the propaganda of the Lügenpresse and the Judaized United States, is immeasurable. For the same reason I will be asked why, if this new book is an annotation to the other two, instead of writing it I don’t try to form a party even though I am not an Aryan. The answer is that I do not have funds even to emigrate from the country of the Indians.
Had the West not suffered the social revolutions of the nineteenth century, primogeniture would still exist. However destructive my father was, as was also the father of St Francis, I would have inherited his house and the school. I would have sold the goods and gone abroad. In this hypothetical scenario, along with some American comrades I could pay the manufacture of Nazi uniforms to march against the Federal Reserve in Washington. We would hold pickets warning that the monetary policy of the Jewess presiding over the Fed—identical to the policy of her predecessor, another Jew—will make the dollar hyperinflate to oblivion. With the money of that hypothetical inheritance I would also try that the facts about the Hellstorm Holocaust become better known in Germany. But I have no inheritance or sponsor for the most elemental political activism. I may continue to have youthful ideals in my fifties, but with my scarce resources I must resign myself to the humble trade of writing.
Thus, even though in my autobiography De san Francisco a Himmler I wanted to orbit only around the cause of the children, I will not be able to do so. Due to my new center of gravity, trying to prevent the fair race from perishing, the treatment of children becomes almost irrelevant. Only the Aryans are capable of social engineering to put a genocidal halt to these mistreatments and the torment of the animals, as I’ve fantasized in Exterminio. Or better said, only a few Hyperboreans can develop the perfect empathy that leads us to Utopia.
I have been following what Greg Johnson, Richard Spencer, Hunter Wallace, Andrew Anglin and Stefan Molyneux are saying about the recent Milo scandal—respectively, here, here, here, here and here. (Update of February 25: Millennial Woes’ recent video—here—is the best comment I’ve seen on Milo from a white nationalist.) I’d like to take issue with them and specifically with Johnson, who wrote today:
Milo’s defense of what basically amounts to classical pederasty—in which teenage boys take up with adult men—is highly misleading. It might have been normal in ancient Greece, but it is certainly not the norm among homosexuals in the modern West.
Nationalists apparently have no clue about what classical pederasty really was in the Greco-Roman world. At least I’ve tried to explain it (see my collection of articles mentioning pederasty: here). In a nutshell, Greco-Roman pederasty was infinitely less degenerate than what is accepted homosexual behavior in today’s West.
This does not mean that I am defending Milo. The Hollywood orgy he attended with “very young boys,” presumably thirteen-year olds, was obviously destructive for the poor kids and it has nothing to do with classical pederasty.
And this does not mean either that I want classical pederasty in our times. In dark and perilous times we need hypermorality. See for example my translation of the mini-book on Sparta. Unlike other ancient Greek cities, militarist Sparta apparently did not promote pederasty.
What I find bothersome about the Milo scandal is that the commenters are alienated from the spirit of the ancients, and this also refers to westerners in general. Recently at The Occidental Observer some authors have been trying to educate their readers about the importance of the classical world to save the race (see e.g., here and here).
Westerners, including nationalists, are in a bad shape precisely because they have become completely alienated from their roots. Incidentally, after I post this entry I’ll relocate my “From St Francis to Himmler” below my sticky post: the girl on the rock. It nails white nationalism.
Last year a friend recommended me the great work of William Gayley Simpson, Which Way Western Man? that can be read online. Simpson lived 99 years and wrote that huge work, of 775 pages, throughout most of his life.
I have read some chapters of Which Way Western Man? and was impressed that, before the internet age, Simpson managed to move from an altruistic Christianity to a stance in which he defended Hitler. I will not read the whole book. It is a mixture of disparate writings. One of the earliest dates from 1930, the chapter dedicated to Jesus; another, his already racist view on life, of 1977.
Simpson could have become a B-type bicausalist, blaming Christianity even more than Jewry, since after his Franciscan stage he became a fanatical reader of Nietzsche. For example, on page 18 of Which Way he says about his Franciscan venture: “It was full of Christian pity. It is no less than a crime against life when the superior is sacrificed to the inferior… the kind of thing the great scholar and musical authority Schweitzer did for years in the jungles of Africa”.
This seems to vindicate what I have said about Albert Schweitzer. In another confession, hundreds of pages later (on page 499), we see how Simpson’s Christianity was involved in what Nietzsche calls the inversion of values:
In fairness to myself and to my reader, I must remind him that I approached this question, forty years ago, very definitely from the equalitarian side. In my student days, and for the nine years of my Franciscan venture that followed, with a belief in “universal love” and an outlook on life very like that of St. Francis of Assisi, I quite ignored race, and discounted it. Wherever I went, in our South as in our North, in the Orient as in my own country and among my own kind, I met men as I found them, and valued them for the worth that I sensed in them as individuals, without regard to their race, their nation, their family, class, or any other feature having to do with their origin or their associations. Provided that there was health of body and mind on both sides, I even openly declared my readiness to sanction racial intermarriage.
But it was my Christian tradition and my ignorance that spoke thus.
Let’s jump other hundreds of pages forward. On page 708 Which Way contains a passage summarizing the English Revolution in a couple of paragraphs:
In the reign of Charles I, King of England from 1625 until he was beheaded in 1649, the Jews had already been outlawed from English shores for about 350 years. Driven out of Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492, many of them swarmed into Holland, where they soon made Amsterdam the financial capital of the world. Meanwhile England, without any Jews, had prospered mightily, had come to be known as “Merrie England,” had produced Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Age, and had destroyed the Spanish Armada; and by the time of Charles the First was showing signs of that expanding vitality that was to make her the greatest empire-builder in all history. This caused the Dutch Jews to lust for readmission to English soil, inasmuch as no animal makes so desirable a host for parasites as one that is healthy and growing. Cromwell came into a collision with the king that developed into a civil war.
He required money and all things needful for his army. The Jews agreed to be the suppliers on condition that, should he come out on top, he would have the ban against them lifted. In a few years the king’s head rolled, and Jews, mostly from Holland, swarmed in. Within two generations, they became the dominant financial power in the land and, as we have already seen, the Bank “of England” was set up, which, with its acknowledged privilege of enjoying “the interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing,” became the model for all the central banking systems with which the Western world was gradually saddled.
On pages 755-6 Simpson responds to a liberal in such way that he should be cited today:
The very men of whom you have been at such pains to make mock, even in our universities —Gobineau, Chamberlain, Spengler, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, H.F.K. Guenther—yes, and Adolf Hitler and Lincoln Rockwell, too— we will gather up from the scrap heap where you have thrown them and done your best to bury them, and we will wash them clean that they may be seen in a true light for what they were, and will set them up before us as our exemplars, our teachers, our heroes and our inspirers.
Although Simpson never surpassed his bicausalism type-A, it is worth reading, in 762, how he portrays the Jew:
But in any case, so long as we retain control over our own society, we must establish it as our undeviating and relentless aim to make and to keep our people homogeneous. The Jews, of course, to their last gasp, will resort to their utmost cunning and marshall all their strength to bring any such effort to naught. For they know full well, as already observed more than once, that it has been only by maintaining an attitude of abhorrence toward all mixing with aliens that they have survived the centuries and have come to be the power in the world that they are today. And they are no less aware that the only means by which they can keep a creature of our size in leading strings to them is to get us to swallow the poison that they themselves keep so far away from, until we become a race of enfeebled, fawning, mixed-breed curs.
In that same page Simpson even vindicates nordicism: a taboo subject for the white nationalists of today:
Also, with homogeneity as our goal, we must sternly shut our doors against all immigrants who are not White. Indeed, in my own judgment, we should be wise to reject even those White people who do not stem from the countries of northwestern Europe.
It is a disgrace that books like this one, published in 1978, have not been reedited, translated and found in the bookstores of the West.
Editor’s note: Irmin Vinson, the author of an important book on Hitler, has commented on the latest Star Wars film, recently reviewed by Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson (here and here). Italicized sentences come from Johnson himself. Vinson wrote:
On Spencer! On Johnson! My inclination is to vote for neither, and to avoid watching the movie as well. Sorry to sound obnoxious, but it seems bizarre to me that two grown men, both of whom read great books and can spell big words correctly, are babbling away about a children’s movie, a worthless piece of pop entertainment that was deliberately conceived as an attempt to multiracialize a revered film franchise.
We know that racial hostility toward us has shaped both of the new Star Wars films. That should be enough to keep white nationalists far away from them. Even when they were innocuous politically, Star Wars movies were never worth the trouble of learned analysis. The only justification for watching this particular movie would be to analyze its racial politics and to encourage others to stay away from any movie theater screening it.
If I had to vote, I would choose Spencer, since he eventually gets around to the real political purpose of this latest piece of anti-white propaganda. I figured it out without actually seeing it, which wasn’t difficult. As a Radix reader pointed out over at YouTube, if anyone desperately needs to watch this film, it will eventually be available on a torrent. Hold your breath for a while, and then get it for free. Think of your theft as a minor act of rebellion against people who hate us.
In short, casting non-whites in Star Wars is not the same as putting them in stories like King Arthur or Robin Hood.
In both cases the multiracial casting would be an attempt to remove us from, or marginalize us within, our own popular culture.
Many people have sentimental feelings about the original Star Wars movies. I don’t myself, but many people do. Today those old movies seem far too white in the eyes of liberal multiracialists and Jews. Hence the multiracial casting. If we are so weak that we tolerate being removed from our own popular culture, then they are more than willing to do it to us. It is part of their deliberate campaign to immerse us in a popular culture that embraces and promotes the demographic changes currently underway throughout the West. We could end their propaganda simply by refusing to pay for it, but they’re confident that we won’t.
The creators of the new Star Wars movies are hoping that twenty years from now young viewers from 2016 will have the same sentimental feelings about non-white Star War characters that older viewers today have about Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia. They do not want white film heroes for our future; they want non-white heroes. Unfortunately they have, at the moment, the media power to make their wishes a reality.
I can’t see any reason to be pleased by a film that carries so sinister a purpose. If the film is good, then its qualities are bad for us and good for all those who favor the destruction of the West. It would be great if Rogue One turns out to be a box-office disaster. I’m crossing my fingers.
Go see the film. Then come back and apologize for this obnoxious sperging.
Why should he waste his money paying a Jewish studio for the privilege of watching a multiracialist children’s movie? We’re not talking about Touch of Evil here; the movie under review can be nothing more than a high-tech, CGI-intensive version of an old Flash Gordon serial, with Asians and Negroes playing roles previously assigned to Europeans.
“I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet.
Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.”