An aborted postscript to my book

“Writing about Stravinsky’s Le Sacre du Printemps, Pierre Boulez stated that it was the comeback of barbarous hordes in our century, what I may call the Id’s revenge.” —César Tort

My book The Return of Quetzalcoatl is being published in the blogsite Gates of Vienna. The book explains a phrase that in the past I used in the masthead of this blog: “The legacy of Lloyd deMause and Alice Miller might unearth the psychological roots of the West’s suicide.”



Update of 3 March 2010

Seven chapters plus the Preface were published in the Gates of Vienna (GoV) blogsite. A couple of days ago Baron Bodissey, the GoV administrator, informed me that he won’t be publishing the rest of the chapters. Reason: After realizing for the first time in my life that Jewish influence on U.S. immigration has been very noxious, and saying it openly in my blog, the Baron told me that he won’t be publishing the rest of the chapters. According to him, in my blog thread I had welcomed comments from real National Socialists who believe that the Jews are inferior and that they must be exterminated!

Jesus. I was absolutely flabbergasted by this e-mail, since the long Tanstaafl article republished in my blog explicitly states: “I do not say that Whites are the master race and Jews are subhuman. I do not say that I want to exterminate Jews. I do not secretly crave such things and I resent anyone who projects their own imagined hatreds into my head.”

This projection aside, even after I rebutted the Baron about it, he expelled me from publishing in his site because I stated in my blog that I am no longer a philo-Semite.

If the Jewish question is a forbidden topic in mainstream media, supression of free speech even in the blogosphere makes one feel a little angry. I had been publishing chapters in GoV since last July, and I don’t know where the rest of my book will have a proper readership.

On the other hand, I believe it was a necessary step to say adieu to false friends: those exclusively concerned with the Islamization of the West but indifferent to the dilution, and eventual extinction, of their own ethnic group (and thus of Western civilization).

The good news is that I have made new, real friends: white nationalists.


Update of 9 March 2010

I have published Chapter 8 in this blog. Also, below I include a draft of the "Postscript to The Return of Quetzalcoatl for the GoV edition" that was never published at:




Monsters from the Id

Having in mind the excesses of the Third Reich’s violent yang, in his essay Empire of Yin Takuan Seiyo hints some dialectics: “Thus will excess yang always bring about a counter wave of yin, which will generate a third—and usually destructive—force vector.” But in the same essay Seiyo does not seem to assert in absolute terms that the Oriental concept fully explains the etiology of the current debacle in the West: “It is difficult to deal with the dystopia of the West partly because we don’t have an accurate concept of its genesis.” Furthermore, after publishing his Empire of Yin, in his book From Meccania to Atlantis Seiyo writes that 500 years from now archeologists will be slicing through the stratum of the broken remains of European and American cities wondering what had destroyed this civilization, where “all the answers are no answers” for the simple reason that “it’s not the real answer, except if this be a society of madmen.” Seiyo adds:

What we are witnessing is a voluntary self-destruction carried out by democratically elected political leaders on acquiescing populations that, largely, refuse to see The Emperor’s New Clothes even as his naked arse is at arm’s length from their faces.

Note the phrase “acquiescing populations.” Free Hal has noticed it too in a brief Gates of Vienna essay that elicited a substantial amount of comments.

All the answers about the cause of our self-destruction are ultimately no answers. However, in science and especially in medicine it is considered barely scientific to approach a disease if its cause is not well established. Mental disorders for example are so mysterious that after a century of research professionals are still debating whether they truly belong to the medical specialty in the first place.

In a similar vein of Seiyo’s, Fjordman wrote:

Well, the West is currently stark, raving mad, and sometimes actively hates itself. I’m scratching my head trying to find out where this self-loathing comes from. Maybe we feel guilty because we are so successful and rich and accomplished that we just can’t take it anymore. But where do such ideas about guilt originate from?

From an insecure attachment to our parents, of course. We are all mammals, and primates to boot. And since among the primates we have the record of the longest childhood, a super-Stockholm syndrome makes adult children of abusive parents turn the other cheek for nonexistent wrongs, as explained in my first chapter. This is the real curse of the Homo sapiens, but we are barely starting to discover it. To illustrate this hypothesis I would like follow Seiyo’s lead in From Meccania to Atlantis with still another 1956 sci-fi film: Forbidden planet, where the “monsters from the Id” destroyed a very advanced culture because of unconscious forces that the inhabitants of that planet were clueless about their existence.

In the epilogue I mentioned the ancient word “daimon,” which I first read in Stefan Zweig’s The Struggle with the Daimon. The daimon symbolizes the forces of the Id. Analyzing specific individuals, in my blog I have posted a couple of entries about these daimonic forces that nobody in the counter-jihad, or even in the broader conservative movement, seems to know. Actually, very few in the mental health professions are familiar with it, as is demonstrated in my previous books written in Spanish. In English, see for example my analysis of Teresa, an European who hates the West that I know personally. I believe that this analysis can be extrapolated to other people who, like her, celebrate mass migration in Europe.

Why do I reject the current explanations on the Islamization of the West that border on conspiracy theories? Because there are many people like Teresa among the “acquiescing populations,” not only among our ruling elites, as Free Hal has reminded us in his article linked above. We must look for a deeper psychological explanation for our self-loathing.


The Return of Quetzalcoatl

No human being has an absolutely secure attachment with his or her parents, as hinted by Colin Ross since the beginning of my book. It is no wonder, therefore, that after the two world wars, with an “empire of Yin” as the psychological Diktat for good-thinking in the ensuing zeitgeist, our inner rage could only find an escape valve by re-directing it against ourselves.

According to the late legend, Quetzalcoatl was a white god who disliked the practice of human sacrifice; he bled his penis instead. Now, in the twenty-first century, the white self-harmer god has returned. We may not perform human sacrifices, but we do self-sacrifice the yang element from our character. Liberalism—which besides the unholy trinity of race, gender (feminism) and sexual orientation includes political correctness, pseudoscientific environmental scares, demographic decline, cultural collapse in the form of mass immigration, multicultural dogma and cultural relativism; false feelings of guilt for our colonialist past, willful blindness before a revived Islam and even two minutes hate in the form of massive, anti-Western demonstrations—is but an immense teoatl: a Nahua word I mentioned only once in the book as a metaphor of an orgy of self-sacrifice. All of this teoatl has a common denominator: the debasement of our culture and ethnic group. What we are dealing with is a new incarnation of the Id monster that nobody in the West, and I mean nobody, has identified yet.

Since Lloyd deMause sides the political left, he has never used his own notion of group fantasy to analyze the present mad world where all the answers about the cause of our self-destruction are ultimately no answers. On this point I would like to make an observation. Mental health clinicians have noted that if anger toward the real perpetrators—abusive parenting—is blocked, either depression or self-harming behavior will eventually emerge. This is also the conclusion of my analysis of Andrew Solomon, a prelude of my analysis of other Western self-haters here.

In group fantasies you either sacrifice others or sacrifice yourself. Since the 1960s the West has chosen, Solomon-like, the second way, self-injury: something analogous to the deliberate infliction of tissue damage with or without suicidal intent, as the mythical Quetzalcoatl did. Since in this postscript I do not pretend to offer anything else than a prolegomena to this complex subject, let us put the working hypothesis in a nutshell: Due to unresolved childhood trauma, since the latter half of the last century the unconscious hatred toward the abusive parents has been transferred onto pathological hatred for our parents’ culture, i.e., our culture. This may sound rather far-fetched, but at least in clinical observations at the Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma it can be ascertained that the self-cutters formerly abused at home say that the cutting makes them feel alive or reborn. At least in psychiatric settings, both Seiyo’s “madmen” and Fjordman’s “But where do such ideas about guilt originate from?” can be understood under the light of the trauma model and the locus of control shift.

Even though pre-Columbian sacrifice was infinitely cruder, the unconscious drive that moves both self-harmers and the white westerners who are bleeding their civilization to a certain death might be the same. As we saw in the second part of this book, Mesoamerican sacrifice of others only replaced self-sacrifice. Amerindian sacrifice was, ultimately, the sacrifice of the ego. We also saw that, paradoxically, child sacrifice was practiced throughout history during the most prosperous times. Likewise, in an infinitely higher plane such as Western civilization, according to deMause the economic depressions in modern nations are caused by growth panics. From this viewpoint, the elaboration of fantastic climate scenarios by environmentalists is no less than their fear before our prosperity. A related suicidal ethos compels us to sacrifice the future of our children and grandchildren who might end up fleeing an Europe under Islam. From the psychohistorical viewpoint, the drive for civilizational suicide behind this unconscious force, either by Mesoamericans (whose culture disappeared cyclically) or modern westerners, has the same etiology.

Throughout history humans have identified a variety of scapegoats as substitute objects for their unresolved traumas due to poor parenting. Once the West itself is the identified whipping-boy for the current group fantasy, it is considered fair-play to project even the most psychotic forms of self-loathing onto ourselves, like president Clinton telling an Arab audience that it is “very positive” that whites will be no more the majority in America in the next few decades.

Nevertheless, I am not a psychoreductionist like deMause. Emergent stages such as economics, politics, social movements and especially art seem to move in a logic of their own. This translation of my book should be read in the context of what I call the eagles’ view in counter-jihad: the bloggers whose privileged perspective see what is happening in the world from a cloudless sky. The eagles are like geographers: they can describe the seas, the rivers, the land, the forests and even a mountain from the above. But they cannot explain why a rising volcano, or an earthquake, came up just there in their visual field. I on the other hand understand myself as a sort of geologist of the psyche. The plate tectonics of the inner, unconscious selves or daimons, explains how the mountain was formed or why the world is about to explode among the fury of pyroclastic flows and megatons of vomited magma. My chosen field of knowledge does not contradict the eagles’ point of view. Twentieth-century plate-tectonics modeling only complements and explains nineteenth-century observational geography. However, the study of the monsters of our unconscious is so disturbing that I very much doubt that conservatives will takeover psychohistory from its treasonous owners.

Why do I publish my fourth book in Gates of Vienna then?

Like Dr. Morbius of Forbidden Planet I must confess I had a premonition about the coming catastrophe. Perhaps it is too late to start looking for a Spanish publisher: it takes time to find one and still more time to see if it will ever be translated into English. I decided therefore that the manuscript should be exhumed out into the blogosphere, what Baron Bodissey appropriately calls the monastery of Lindisfarne. If there is indeed something as cataclysmic as the fall of the Roman empire in the future that might start to reverse the current paradigm, a survivor will find someday at the monastery’s library a dusty, marginal and far-fetched psychological model that might help him to figure out where could the monsters that destroyed this civilization have come from.

____________________

Update of 3 October 2010:

Presently I believe that the cause of Western malaise is threefold: (1) Liberalism, understood as the last phase of Western Christian civilization as Conservative Swede argues; (2) the Jewish problem that very strongly and efficiently catalyzes liberalism, and (3) the monsters from the Id as explained here, especially among the most extreme cases of cultural self-hatred and self-racism among whites.

An overtly “monstrous” Id is only one side of the psycho-historical approach. The Id’s revenge can take subtler forms too. Today, a poster at Mangan’s answered the question, Why did change happen so quickly in the 1960s? He responded by pointing out the unprecedented buying power of the young; and that the generation that survived the depression and that won World War II wanted nothing so much as to spare their children those miseries. The anonymous commenter also noted that those parents thus spoiled their children, the Baby Boomers, who were indulged and had money to spend.

I myself entered the discussion at Mangan’s with this comment:

Rick Darby said... “I have no all-explanatory theory of what caused this. Probably morals had been changing through the '50s, but in a clandestine way. By the early '60s, the changes surfaced in a generation that had a less strict upbringing than earlier ones.”

Perhaps psychohistory could be useful here, both Lloyd deMause’s approach (childrearing) and Julian Jaynes’ psychohistory (long time ago mankind suffered a cataclysmic breakdown from its schizoid stage). The theory is a little complex but a short post of mine in this thread at Gates of Vienna may give an idea. In a nutshell I would say that an entire psychoclass in modern times, what deMause calls helping mode of childrearing, has cataclysmically confused liberty with licentiousness.


Update of 23 December 2010:

Having read Michael O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic I realized that there is a fourth factor which should had been listed as factor #2 in the above list.

O’Meara is a nationalist who believes that the United States is “the principal enemy of the American nation.” Although he does accept the Jewish Problem as a very serious problem, he states, “this enemy is not the omnipotent Jew” “but the corporate, technocratic elite.”

Corporate capitalism is our main enemy according to O’Meara. As he states on page 93, because the system prioritizes money and greed, the country’s historical racial hierarchy was overturned; the social engineers ethnically cleansed whites through the flooding masses of Negroes; whites being resocialized as mindless, deracinated consumers. The contents of page 91 provide a very vivid illustration of how this corporate capitalism destroyed far more our traditional culture than the terrible totalitarian regimes that the people of the Eastern bloc endured:

When Thomas Molnar, who played an important role in the US conservative movement of the 1960s and ’70s, returned to his native Hungary after the collapse of the Soviet empire, he found, to his astonishment, that traditional culture and education, which had virtually disappeared in the West, were still very much alive in the former Soviet bloc.

From this viewpoint, the One Ring in the LOTR saga, the ring of greed and power, is the real culprit, as Michael Colhaze has speculated recently at Occidental Observer.

On women

In his chapter “On Women” of the very brilliant collection published in English as Essays and Aphorisms, Schopenhauer wrote the most insightful thoughts about women I have ever read, of which I’ll quote some sentences (no ellipsis added between excerpts):

1
Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, “man”.

In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of his life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy.

2
The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and more slowly does it mature. The man attains the maturity of his reasoning powers and spiritual faculties hardly before his twenty-eight year; the woman with her eighteenth. And even then it is only reasoning power of a sort: a very limited sort. Thus women never see anything but what is closest to them. To consult women when you are in difficulties, as the ancient Teutons did, is by no means a bad idea: for their way of looking at things is quite different from ours, especially in their propensity for keeping in view the shortest road to a desired goal and in general what lies closest to hand, which we usually overlook precisely because it is right in front of our noses.

It is for this reason too that women display more pity, and consequently more philanthropy and sympathy with the unfortunate, than men do. Thus, while they possess the first and chief virtue [compassion], they are deficient in the secondary one which is often necessary for achieving the first.

3
Fundamentally, women exist solely for the propagation of the race. Men are by nature indifferent to one another; but women are by nature enemies. Because in our case a hundred different considerations are involved, while in theirs only one is decisive, namely which man they have succeeded in attracting. Another reason may be that, because they are all in the same profession, they all stand much closer to one another than men do.

Man strives for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But women is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e., amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have provided incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value. What there ought to be is housewives and girls who hope to become housewives and who are therefore educated, not in arrogant haughtiness, but in domesticity and submissiveness.

- end of “On Women” excerpts -


Schopenhauer’s chapter boggled my mind when I read it back in 1992. Here we had a 19th century philosopher that, unlike the coward men of my world, told the naked truth about the fair sex; and I would like to expand his crude, albeit realistic views to its ultimate consequences, especially from my present viewpoint of this most darkest hour for what I treasure the most: Nordish women.

The first weapon of mass destruction against our civilization has been the ideology of anti-white racism. Along with it comes feminism: the other fatal weapon for the West and the inexorable dwarfing of the white people.

Let me indulge in a little fantasy for a minute, “If I ran the zoo...”

If I were dictator of the West, I thought in my daily peripatetic walk in my town, I’d reverse feminism back to Victorian and pre-Victorian ages (yes: I’m a fan of Jane Austen). The reversal would be brutal and swift: but the psychological plan in my racial dictatorship would be to gradually “liberate” women not beyond the values of, say, America in the 1940s and 50s. All of this would be pure Machiavellianism of course: to convey angry women the misleading message that the “liberal” wing in my dictatorship overcame an idealized Austen-like world when, in fact, the ultimate goal would have been from the beginning to fix forever Western society’s sex roles in about the 1940s and 50s.

Arthur C. Clarke wrote The City and the Stars in 1956. The Machiavellian psychologists and social engineers who created the mega-city Diaspar discussed the Utopia blueprints for centuries before elaborating a closed society (yes: Popper was wrong!) albeit a rather stable culture for whites, which in the novel lasts a billion years.

Although Arthur Clarke was an incorregible liberal who took feminism for granted, it’s a highly recommended novel along with its almost identical precursor, Clarke’s 1953 Against the Fall of Night. But if the westerners finally make it after the race wars it will be obvious that Clarke was wrong: technology was not the ultimately axis of cultural transformation but psychogenic development with the corresponding reversal of the suicidal “women’s rights” movement. Feminism may not be the subject-matter of Michael O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic, just released this week. But its first chapters are worth reading to grasp how psychogenic emergency about one’s own ethnic group could be the transforming factor in the forthcoming future, a future that I still envision like some of Clarke’s best novels.


Postscript of 20 September 2010



Stags sometimes sustain smashed antlers or broken legs, or are blinded in one eye in their lust to win the female; fatal injuries are not unknown.




The target-audience for this entry are obviously the males. However, in order to understand women, the subject-matter of this post, we must first understand the biological basis of our lust to win the favor of one of these beautiful specimens. Just as Schopenhauer spoke out the naked truth about women, so naked that no woman will ever accept it, in this postscript I will quote zoologist John Sparks, the producer of the 1996 TV series Battle of the Sexes in the Animal World.

Sparks’ brutal honesty shocked me. It turns out that we males are, quite literally, driven by our gonads (cf. “the sperm and its slave” way below). Thanks to the attraction toward young nymphs, what I have called the crown of evolution, our unattainable goal is to fill the world with duplicates of us. In the introduction to his book, Sparks wrote:

* * *

Every living creature has an overwhelming urge to breed. This is not simply a trivial expression of bestial lust, but a fundamental characteristic of life, the fulfilment of which determines whether an animal is a success or a failure. The nature of sex is widely misunderstood, a matter which this book [Battle of the Sexes, BBC Worldwide, 1999] will attempt to rectify.

Animals of every kind strive to ensure the survival of as many of their genes as possible. Sex specifically demands very public behaviour among many species. With an almost unlimited supply of sperm at their disposal, [the males’] best reproductive strategy is to mate with as many females as possible; each of which will provide them with offspring. From the male’s perspective, there are never enough females to go around [My note: this strategy doesn’t work with humans. See, e.g., my entry on Abraham & Casanova]. Competition between the lusty males is therefore intense. However, in species in which males have opted for dedicated monogamy the females are usually the larger sex; in some cases, the males are miniaturized. Charles Darwin was aware of degenerate males.

Suicidal sex

For most kinds of animals, no matter what tactics the males employ to further their sexual aspirations, it is the females which determine the winners. This is because—as we shall see in the next chapter—it is they which do the choosing.

Remarkable strategies have evolved which illustrate the extremes to which males will go to give their own sperm the best chance of reaching the eggs first. In Australia, male red-tailed phascogales—small, squirrel-like carnivores—burn themselves out in an all-or-nothing quest for fatherhood. These endearing little marsupials [are] so intent on finding as many targets as possible for their precious sperm that they have no time to feed during their week of frenzied sexual activity. While the freshly impregnated females retire to their nests, the knackered males rapidly succumb to a combination of infections, failed livers, gut ulcers, extensive hemorrhages and extreme weight loss. Not one adult male survives. But 50 per cent of the females’ babies will be males and by the following spring they will be mature enough to enter the same lethal sexual arena.

One battle over, another looms

The egg is now fertilized—in a split second, a new life has been initiated. This has been achieved against astronomical odds. Both the sperm and its slave, the male body which produced it [my emphasis] and propelled it into the female’s tract, have had to be supreme players in the most rigorous and demanding contest on earth—survival. The male has relied on countless brawling ancestors, themselves winners endowed with the skills needed to overcome both physical dangers and cut-throat competition from rivals. His sperm has passed the female’s demanding tests for quality control. Of the billions that started the race, many were deformed, most simply got lost or died of exhaustion. Of the few that lashed their way to the egg, only one was victorious.

Although it takes place on a microscopic scale, this is the key event over which the sexes have been striving to exert control.

* * *

My comment:

From the zoological viewpoint it is worth noting that, unlike the birds, in our species a male can force a female to copulate. In fact, among the primates rapes are pretty common, especially among orang-utans and chimpanzees.

On the other hand, while it is true that from the fruit fly to the elephants the females choose the male or the males, at least in my case I declined marriage proposals from several Mexican ladies throughout my life. They were honourable ladies, yes: but not “beautiful nymphs.”

What a predicament it is not to live in a little whiter nation...

Elves betray their UK to orc hordes

Conservatism is the survival and enhancement of particular peoples and their institutionalized cultural expressions. I don’t care that I am not an Aryan: Nordish female beauty, especially the English roses, is what moves me to defend the West.

To win a spiritual battle the source of ultimate power is Eros. Here there are a few of my exchanges in the Gates of Vienna (GoV) forum on the subject that touches me the most:

Chechar said...
What I find it most shocking is that the most beautiful specimens of Homo sapiens, such as the English roses, are breeding below the replacement level while, at the same time, the West imports masses of non-Caucasians into its lands. This is enough trauma for me—but apparently not for the native European, American or GoV commenter. Why??

Self-identity starts with one’s own phenotype, and our main instinct ought to be the preservation of our genotype. Will Durant wrote that nations are born stoic and die epicurean. Today’s degenerate and epicurean westerner apparently gives a damn for the elementals of self-esteem and self-image: the phenotype of our stoic forefathers.

Isn’t the most beautiful race the one that gives birth to the white women? Plato once wrote that Eros is the dialectic force. If the core of self-identity is no longer our driving force, we are in deep trouble. The commentariat at GoV and Robert Spencer’s blogs are extremely afraid to touch the race card. But then, if Eros is no longer our driving force we are, psychogenically speaking, already dead.


Félicie said...
What is tragic is that person after person after person after person (all white people, of course) tells me with a beatific smile on (usually her) lips: “the future world will be brown, and that is a beautiful thing.” When I carefully ask (because you have to be very careful these days asking these questions): “and are you OK with this?” the answer is invariably, “yes, I am totally fine with this—the new brown human being will be beautiful (because race-mixing is very healthy) and this will, as well, put an end to racism, hatred, and violence.” When I hear this, I despair. Can you save people who don’t care about being saved? How is it even possible to create this new suicidal breed? Why am I different then? My parents didn’t lecture me on the merits of race preservation.

Chechar said...
I am shocked. Do most people in your country believe this?

I’ll try, if the Baron allows me, to publish my stuff on the whys of self-hatred (among white women). If what you say is true, anti-white racism is becoming a religion for whites. And that’s why, paradoxically, I welcome Islamization: these brutes might serve as catalysts for the big paradigm shift against immigration and anti-white racism.

Félicie said...
“Do most people in your country believe this?”

I’ve heard this many, many times from people in Sweden and the U.S. But I do certainly hope that it is the minority that has acquired this scary belief. How does one find out the real number, anyway? I have a feeling that it’s mostly educated people in big cities who don’t mind being replaced. I get a sense that there are more women than men among them.

Chechar said...
O ye women who used to be the very crown of evolution now despise your gene pool! Fortunately you, Félicie, are not among them.

Homophobic Horse said...
Don’t be intimidated by them. The one word open shut case and unanswerable riposte to these reconstructed race supremacists is this: Mexico. The Mexican ethnos is a mix of black, white, and American Indian/Asian and it doesn’t seem to have resulted in a utopia. South America in general is like that.

Conservative Swede said...
Chechar: “I wish I could be as optimistic as you Con Swede. But I really fear for the worst: ethnic dwarfness and cultural takeover.”

Well, the whole point is that it takes “the worst” before the thick heads of the collective mind will shift. Catastrophe, chaos, trauma, etc. as we said. And much of what you describe has already happened. Ethnic dwarfness—people of European descent used to constitute 30% of the people on this planet (in the 1950s). Now we are down to a little more than 10%. However, even if we go as low as 5% before the turnaround comes, that’s still not the end of things. And we have had a lot of cultural takeover already (see the articles of this blog). The only thing that is remaining of the old order (the happy 1950s) is the collective illusion that everything is fine. It’s when this goes away that a turnaround can happen.

The point is that we are doing these things to ourselves. Watching Eagle talks about “the end of the world as we know it.” I just can’t wait to see “the end of the world as we know it.” “The world as we know it” is exactly what is the problem.

The good news is that there are many catastrophic events in store for the coming five years, which have great potential in not only tearing apart the collective illusion of the bubble, but actually make sever cracks in the institutions upholding the current order and paradigm.

* * *
Policy Exchange poll:

• 86% of UK Muslims consider “my religion to be the most important thing in my life”.

• 37% of Muslims aged 16-24 say: “We would prefer to live in the UK under Sharia law”.

• 74% of Muslims aged 16-24 say: “We would prefer Muslim women in the UK to wear the hijab”.

• 13% of Muslims aged 16-24 say: “We admire Al-Qaida and understand the motives of the London bombers”.

If you see the source of these figures, the inescapable conclusion is that the UK is finished. And to learn that hyperborean Elves are precisely the ones who have betrayed their people by inviting orcs into their soil (exactly the same can be said of Holland and Scandinavia)...

High time for a coup in these treasonous nations.

* * *
Bill Clinton: anti-white bastard

Truly amazing: Addressing Arabs and speaking in high terms about the idiotic Obama speech in Cairo, Bill Clinton said that America won’t be an European-based majority nation by 2040. That is: that whites will finally lose, numerically, their majority status. And—Jesus Christ in Heaven—Clinton also said that this is a good thing!

Larry Auster has commented that Clinton’s hippie generation was not just interested in equality for blacks. No: from the middle 1960s they sought from the beginning the destruction of European based civilization.

When I was born in Mexico City the U.S. reached its cultural peak. If art conveys the spirit of an age, films like Disney’s Sleeping Beauty, with the most lovely princess the world has ever seen, epitomes America’s health. What has happened since the 1950s?

Books have been written about Western decadence in recent years. But not about what pains me the most: those white bastards who don’t give a damn about their own ethnicity, who don’t care about their beautiful sisters that their own mothers engendred.

I mean: if America or Europe changes its color it won’t ever be America or Europe again. Never! Keep in mind the definition of conservatism at the opening of this post: the survival of particular peoples and their institutionalized cultural expressions. A nation is not only made by cultural expressions but, above all, by its own people. Didn’t Franklin say that his race was the most beautiful of all? But if Franklin lived today, wouldn’t his statement automatically mean political suicide? Why Latin American immigrants have the right to speak out proudly about being “Hispanic,” as well as African Americans, but when a white dares to talk shyly about white pride he or she is immediately labeled “racist”?

We are living in vicious anti-white times. There’s no question about it. And anti-white racism comes from… whites. May I therefore address this post to the white people please?:

Do we really want to celebrate, as Clinton did, the reduction of whites in the West? How on Earth can any sane person desire the reduction of its own gene pool in his very country? The fact that an American president just did it is a clear sign that the West is crossing over a psychotic state of malicious self-hatred, similar to those otherwise pretty girls who cut their arms or legs with blades. If we don’t stop the bleeding our gene pool will be gone forever…

* * *
Send this Frenchman to Auschwitz—Please!

I’ve stolen the following from a Gates of Vienna thread about Sarkozy’s mouthpiece:

Minister for immigration, integration and national identity Eric Besson, who is a former Socialist, has just said, in front of an immigrant audience, right in the middle of a Muslim suburb next to Paris: “France is neither a people, nor a language, nor a territory, nor a religion, it’s a conglomerate of peoples who want to live together. There are no indigenous French, there is only a France made out of miscegenation.”

Now you will surely understand why I was not kidding when I wrote at GoV (Baron Bodissey removed my post): “We would restore and re-inaugurate Auschwitz and Birkenau but this time showing through the television the cremated remains at the top of Birkenau’s chimney of the white traitors who created Eurabia. The shock and awe of such a TV show would scare the shit out of the Muslims, especially when the ashes of the bodies of our treasonous elites reach the respiratory systems of the media representatives present at Birkenau.”

* * *
Postscript of 26 August 2010:

“Immigration [into the U.K.] is soaring, increasing by 20% over the previous year and, more important, children born to foreign-born mothers comprised 25% of the total...”

Read the whole article, “The Ongoing Destruction of Britain,” at Mangan’s.

Hotspur’s magnificent critique of Bruce Bawer

Bruce Bawer





Although I am not a religious person, I must acknowledge that the best criticism I’ve read so far about Islamization comes from the pens of conservative writers. Here I post the full article “Who Speaks for Europe?” by Henry Hotspur, published originally in Taki’s Magazine.

The spring issue of the City Journal runs an essay by Bruce Bawer, entitled “An Anatomy of Surrender,” in which he describes the West’s acquiescence of “creeping sharia.” Bawer cites numerous examples of censorship and self-censorship from both America and Europe. They prove that critical views about Islam are no longer tolerated.

Bawer points out that attempts to roll back freedom of speech and other liberties have been less successful in the U.S. than in Europe. He is right. However, he does not explain why this is the case, apart from briefly mentioning that it is “thanks in no small part to the First Amendment.” Unlike Europe, America has not introduced so-called “hate speech legislation” which imposes fines and jail sentences for voicing politically incorrect opinions about certain taboo subjects. Yet, as Americans know, speaking one’s mind can get one into trouble in the U.S. as well. There will be no fine or imprisonment, but one risks losing one’s job and being ostracized.

Yet the question remains: Why is Europe collapsing at a faster rate then America? The reason is one which people like Bruce Bawer are reluctant to acknowledge. Bawer is a liberal American homosexual who wrote books such as A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society. In 1998, he moved from New York to Amsterdam, the capital of the Netherlands. It is not a coincidence that he went to Amsterdam. What Bawer loved about the Netherlands was, he says, “its tolerance, its secularism.”

He moved there soon after finishing his book Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity because he wanted to live in a secular society, away from the Christian fundamentalism of America. The Netherlands is the country that has taken secularization, multiculturalism, tolerance of alternative lifestyles, drug abuse, and other fads to their furthest extremes. It was the first country to discard its Christian past and introduce legalised abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, legally regulated prostitution and drug dealing. On his website Bawer explained:

Moving among the native Dutch, whose public schools teach children to take for granted the full equality of men and women and to view sexual orientation as a matter of indifference, I felt safe and accepted.

However, having settled in Amsterdam Bawer noticed that the country that had renounced Christianity was not a paradise for gays. The Dutch had renounced their Christian heritage, giving in not only to the demands of gay lobby groups, radical feminists and the like, but also to those of Muslim extremists. Unlike in the U.S., homosexuals in Amsterdam are legally allowed to marry because the Dutch no longer uphold the traditional moral order. At the same time, homosexuals in Dutch cities live in constant fear of being beaten up by Muslims youths obeying the Koranic decree that homosexuals be put to death, because the Dutch no longer uphold law and order either.

Bawer fled. In 1999 he left for Norway, another liberal Shangri-la in Europe, just a few steps behind the Netherlands in legalizing liberal fads. However, as in a comical movie, in his quest for the gay paradise, Bawer went from one dire situation to another. Last January, in a piece entitled “First They Came for the Gays,” he relates how his “partner” was recently:

confronted at a bus stop [in Oslo] by two Muslim youths, one of whom had asked if he was gay, started to pull out a knife, then kicked him as he got on the bus, which had pulled up at just the right moment. If the bus hadn’t come when it did, the encounter could have been much worse.

Two years ago, Bawer published the bestselling book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West From Within. Since he is a liberal homosexual, who had previously written a number of books advocating the liberal and gay agenda, he had no problems finding a mainstream publisher and getting his book widely reviewed in the mainstream media. His book is a very useful tool to awaken an American audience to the drama that is currently unfolding in Europe. Nevertheless the book fails to explain what the root cause is of the phenomenon its author describes. Bawer is blind to the basic lesson Americans can learn from Europe’s predicament. He refuses to admit that secularism and liberalism destroyed Europe by creating a demographic and religious vacuum that Muslim immigrants and Islam are simply filling up.

What Bawer calls America’s “oppressive Christian fundamentalism” is exactly what keeps America healthy (at least in comparison to the continent). If the situation in Europe continues to deteriorate it will not be long before Bruce Bawer, for his own safety and that of his “partner,” will feel compelled to flee back to his native America. One can only hope that liberalism will not progress to the point where the American nation, like the nations of Europe, loses the will to assert its own identity, the conservative belief in the supremacy of its Christian heritage, the willingness to fight for the preservation of its traditional values.

Contrary to what Bawer says, it is not true that “first they came for the gays.” First they came for the Christians, and radical homosexual activists were in the vanguard of the liberal storm troopers who silenced the Christians in Europe.

Last October the Brussels Journal, a website that pursues the dual goal of giving the conservative minority in Europe a voice in the public debate and, even more importantly, warning Americans so they can avoid Europe’s mistake, was attacked by Little Green Footballs (LGF), the website of one Charles Johnson, an ally and friend of Bawer’s. Johnson is a liberal who saw the light after 9/11 when he transformed into a so-called “anti-jihadist” and installed himself as the Grand Inquisitor of conservatism. Johnson pontificated that the Brussels Journal is not conservative, but is run by far-right white-supremacist neo-fascist Europeans, as dangerous as your average Islamist fanatic.

The reason for Johnson’s ire was BJ’s support for a counterjihad conference in Brussels last October, where members of European anti-immigration political parties such as the Belgian Vlaams Belang (VB) and Sverigedemokraterna (the Swedish Democrats) attended, as well as the fact that the BJ had criticized Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Dutch politician and Muslim apostate. Hirsi Ali, whom Johnson calls “a heroine of the highest magnitude” and Bawer “perhaps the greatest living champion of Western freedom in the face of creeping jihad,” advised the Belgian authorities in February 2006 to outlaw the VB. She opined that the party:

hardly differs from the Hofstad group [a Jihadist terror network in the Netherlands, involved in the assassination of Theo van Gogh]. Though the VB members have not committed any violent crimes yet, they are just postponing them and waiting until they have an absolute majority. On many issues they have exactly the same opinions as the Muslim extremists: on the position of women, on the suppression of gays, on abortion. This way of thinking will lead straight to genocide.

There it is: Anyone who does not agree with the secularists on their feminist dogmas, their homosexual propaganda and their pro-abortion stance, is just as dangerous as al-Qaeda and is a maniac bent on genocide. Bruce Bawer eagerly joined the controversy by attacking Paul Belien, the Brussels journalist who founded the BJ. He posted the following letter at Charles Johnson’s LGF website:

In May, Paul Belien wrote as follows in the Washington Times: “Europe is in the middle of a three-way culture war between the defenders of traditional Judeo-Christian morality, the proponents of secular hedonism and the forces of Islamic Jihadism.” “Secular hedonism” is plainly his term for secular liberalism. Plainly he identifies with what he calls “traditional Judeo-Christian morality.” And the structure of his sentence suggests that for him both “secular hedonism” and “Islamic Jihadism” are equal enemies. And what about those of us who foolishly think this is a war for individual liberty? Are we just supposed to sit back and shut up and take orders from a bunch of little Euro-fascists?

Another “little Euro-fascist” according to Johnson, Bawer and their ilk, is Brigitte Bardot. In April, the 73-year old French former movie star was tried in court for the sixth time for “inciting racial hatred.” The public prosecutor demands that Bardot be given a two-month suspended prison sentence and a fine of €15,000 ($23,000) because she wrote in a letter that she is “fed up with being under the thumb of this population [of Muslim immigrants] which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its habits.” In Europe, it is a criminal offence to hold such opinions.

Johnson and his friends refuse to defend Bardot. In their eyes she, too, is as horrible as the average Islamist suicide bomber. One of Johnson’s friends, an American neocon of French origin, wrote that Bardot is a “fascist,” just like the Muslim “Islamofascists.” About the prosecution of Bardot by the French authorities he said:

As far as I am concerned, this particular case is a dogfight between two equally totalitarian factions. I certainly do not recognize myself in the kind of France Brigitte Bardot (and the company she keeps) mourns. Her getting in trouble for that is not enough of a reason for me to drop my principles and side with one flavor of Fascist just to oppose the other. I’ll just wait on my side of the line in the sand, to see which one comes on top. Rifle at the ready, if need be.

Interestingly, Johnson’s friend explained why he regards Bardot as a fascist. She has:

a neo-Fascist outlook on homosexuals, immigrants and contemporary American foreign policy.

For neo-conservatives and other former liberals, the conservative Europeans opposing the Islamization of their continent and the Islamists are “equally totalitarian.” They hate the traditionalist Europeans as vehemently as they hate the Muslim extremists. Everyone who does not condone their lifestyles is opposed with the same vigor. People like Bawer, Johnson, Hirsi Ali et al. have become America’s preferred critics of Islam. Like cuckoos they have laid their egg in the conservative nest. They defame real conservatives as “racists,” “fascists,” “homophobes,” and try to drive them from the conservative movement. They are self-styled anti-Islamists who, as Lawrence Auster notes at his blog, condemn every critic of Islam from outside their own liberal and/or neocon envelope, including everyone who dares raise the topic of deportation, or looks for the root causes of Islamization in either immigration policies or the West’s moral decadence.

In his City Journal article, Bruce Bawer lists numerous cases of prosecution for “hate speech crimes” in Europe. The article is deliberately one-sided. It tells only half the truth. Bawer does not mention Bardot, though since 1997 the poor woman has already been fined four times for criticizing the Islamization of France. The public prosecutor in Paris told the court last month that Bardot should be given a tough sentence because the prosecutor has run out of patience with her. Bruce Bawer writes that in 1989 Ayatollah Khomeini:

introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Khomeini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies while those who dare to call a spade a spade are “Islamophobes.”

He does not mention that there is another assault against freedom of speech going on by another type of “cultural jihadists.” It began well before 1989 and those who dare to call a spade a spade are “homophobes.”

Last year, a French appeal court sentenced Christian Vanneste, a conservative member of Parliament, to a fine of €3,000 ($4,600) plus €3,000 in damages to each of the three homosexual activist organizations that had taken him to court for his views on homosexuality. His crime? He had said that “heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality” and that “homosexual behavior endangers the survival of humanity.” The homosexual activist groups welcomed the court ruling, saying that freedom of speech should be restricted in order “to punish homophobic comments which should be fought because they inspire and legitimize verbal and physical attacks.”

Bawer criticizes hate-speech legislation that criminalizes “religious insults” and places the burden of proof on the defendant. This kind of legislation has been introduced in most European countries and Canada. It criminalizes not only every statement that might inspire and legitimize verbal and physical attacks on Muslims or that is deemed offensive by them (so-called “Islamophobia”), but also every similar statement about homosexuals (so-called “homophobia”). Indeed, hate speech legislation was not primarily introduced to facilitate the Islamization of Europe but, under pressure of homosexual lobbies, to undermine the traditional Christian roots of European society. Islamization is but the logical consequence of Europe’s dechristianization. Islam is the monster that the liberal secularists allowed in to devour their Christian opponents. Now that the monster has begun to devour the liberal secularists as well, the latter start to wail about oppressive legislation, though they continue to use the same legislation to harass Christians.

Unfortunately, the liberal secularists have not learned from the disaster in Europe and are eager to inflict the European predicament on other corners of Western civilization such as Australia and America. The Daily Telegraph of Australia reported last month that the Australian authorities have told schools to stop using terms such as husband and wife. The terms boyfriend, girlfriend and spouse are also on the banned list and have to be replaced by the generic “partner.” Australia is also going to include “same-sex attraction issues” in students’ lessons on relationships, diversity and discrimination. According to Australia’s Education Director-General schools have a responsibility to fight homophobia.

“Cultural jihadists hate our freedoms because those freedoms defy sharia, which they’re determined to impose on us,” laments Bruce Bawer. The other “cultural jihadists,” however, are determined to impose their social and sexual agenda on us. They, too, intimidate and terrorize. America has not been immune to this.

Last week homosexual activists at Smith College, Northampton, MA, rioted in protest against a speech delivered by Ryan Sorba entitled “The Born Gay Hoax.” Ryan was talking to the Smith Republic Club when activists stormed the podium and deprived Sorba of his right of free speech. Uniformed police officers who were present at the scene just stood and watched. Rather than take action against the rioters, the officers and a university official walked to the podium and ordered Sorba to leave the room “for his own safety.” As Nancy Morgan recently wrote:

Gays are portrayed as victims of an unfeeling society. As such, they have been granted special rights not available to other Americans. The right not to be offended, the right to automatic respect, and the right to offend any person or group that dares to object. Imagine the outcry if Christians were granted these same rights. The fear of being branded homophobic, racist, mean-spirited or any of the other politically-correct labels has effectively silenced millions of Americans.

This bears an eerie resemblance to Bruce Bawer’s description in City Journal of Europe’s appeasement of its Muslim bullies, who, like the gays, have also been granted special rights not available to other Europeans: the right not to be offended, the right to automatic respect, and the right to offend—and silence—any person or group that dares to object. In fact, the two situations illustrate one and the same phenomenon, which occurs when Westerners are no longer prepared to defend their traditional values and the moral heritage of Christianity which once formed the core of their identity.