Wednesday, January 27, 2010

The Crown of the Evolution!



What in America could still be seen in the 1940s, exemplified in Maxfield Parrish’s paintings—Caucasian beauty, especially Aryan beauty and those women with the most delicate facial features—... that is the crown of the evolution! Presently, however, the magic of that beauty cannot be seen in our decadent culture.

Americans had these paintings at their homes, especially Daybreak: Parrish’s masterpiece. The girls were surrounded by paradisiacal worlds with mountains at the horizon, like those in Finland; near a beach and at dawn light, always with the Leitmotif of the nymphs on the foreground. Any truly emergent man who has watched the films Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice, both based on novels by Jane Austen, will see what I mean.

When I recorded one of my subtitled videos about another film, The Lord of the Rings I had in mind a woman, Éowyn in the capital of Rohan, with those torn sentences coming from an eight-string fiddle, typical of Norwegian folklore. In that video I said that contemplating Éowyn at the top of the city of Edoras and the Golden Hall of Meduseld was a numinous experience; that it transcended eroticism and took me onto a divine plane.

So this is what pains me the most: that it’s fashionable among whites—even among the Germanic people—not to breed anymore. Mixed marriages with Neanderthaloid primitives are now tolerated, as it is to import millions of Mestizos, Muslims, Asians and Negroes into Europe and the United States. And if we consider that blondness is the result of a recessive gene, that if the two parents are not blonde they cannot transmit it to the next generation, we are talking about... I’d dare to call it the sin against life’s Holy Ghost.

6 comments:

Russel said...

Chechar, does it strike you as odd that you care more about these supposedly special traits than the people who actually have these traits?

You are speaking about evolution in a very non-Darwinian way so perhaps it would help if you would define your terms. White women have a pleasant aesthetic I appreciate but are clearly not the crown of evolution if they are doing what you say they are doing: either not breeding or breeding their rare traits into extinction.

As for recessive genes it is true that blondness is recessive, but this only means that one of the parents need carry one of the genes each. For example, a dark haired dark eyed man can carry recessive blond and blue eyes genes (not uncommon among Europeans), mate with a blond and blue girl and one half of the children will have the blond and blue eyed coloring.

If life were like a science fiction or fantasy novel then the physical appearance of White females with the traits you mention might represent evolution.

Perhaps we would like the two to go together, but remember that even within the logic of fiction the Elves of Tolkien have to leave and no longer wish to fight. It becomes the task of a more primal and "less evolved" people - the race of Man in comparison to the Elves - to fight and build the next civilization.

Sound familiar?

Chechar said...

Hello Russel,

Thanks for posting here.

Of course: I was thinking of Goethe’s “eternal feminine” archetype. Jung wisely said that one should never believe that an archetype (say, the Old Wise Man in the Tarot cards) has incarnated in an earthly guru; or in a bearded Marx, etc. That’s a big mistake. However, for a much younger people than me it helps to believe that his sweetheart is the very apex of nature...

Tonight I happen to have watched Sense and Sensibility again. It’s pretty obvious that, even though real Victorian England must have been harsher, idealizing love is important in one moment of our lives. It is the cement for society (again, even if in the aftermath of marriage life disabuses us). In other words: the 1960s revolution of lifestyles is a monstrosity for the survival of our race and culture.

I was not thinking in Darwinian terms. Although I am not a religious person, the universe is still a mystery to me. Sometimes I think that Aryan beauty is teleological. Yes: I hate metaphysics. But when I compare the look in the eyes of a white shark with that of the dolphins’ eyes... I am simply at a loss to explain Darwinianly how could the respective eyes depict windows to two opposite “souls”, or perhaps should I say frames of minds (a ruthless beast and a friendly animal)?

Nymphs like the sisters in the film based on the Austen novel that I watched tonight are undoubtedly the crown of evolution. If today nymph-like creatures behave like inhabitants of Gomorrah, it’s because the culture plummeted sharply after the 1960s: a very complex phenomenon that I cannot discuss in a post. But I have seen decent old-fashioned, Austen-like women coming from Eastern Europe. The crown still exists, Russel, always provided that they are treated gentlemanly, within tradition and solid family values (like Hugh Grant treated his loved one in the film).

Along with non-discrimination, feminism must be reversed. OK: we don’t need the hard ethos of Victorian England with women. The America at the times when my grandmother was in her prime will do it...

Chechar said...

Today I posted the following in Occidental Dissent:

I am surprised to find someone advancing hypothesis about beautiful looks within the context of the Aryan beauty of females, which is my main preoccupation in these times of treason and Western suicide. I had harbored thoughts like this before but never dared to write them down in a scientific manner. I encourage Wikitopian to continue this line of research to its ultimate consequences.

Although female Caucasian beauty is my ultimate religion, the motor that moves me to hate with all my soul the treasonous anti-white racists, my own line of research through the last decade has been quite different, as I’m trying to convey in the Gates of Vienna blogsite with my book The Return of Quetzalcoatl. I don’t want to overwhelm the readers of these posts with tons of info about how the relatively new discipline known as psychohistory has demonstrated that non-western cultures have abused far more their children and women than us. In a nutshell, I believe that there’s a correlation of Caucasian beauty with our gentler modes of childrearing and the treatment of our women.

While the Chinese have higher IQs (105) than the average white, they have tormented their females for centuries. In addition to this, our power rests upon the fact that once in a while Caucasians are able to produce males of +160 IQ. This and the angelic beauty of some Aryan females (and treating them accordingly – cf. Psychohistory) must have been the basic cause for our previous success vis-à-vis the other races (before the suicidal religion of liberalism took over).

Absolutely fascinating stuff! Seminal articles like Wikitopian’s may prove to be part of the corner stones of a future building to understand the power of whites.

Desi said...

Aryans are Desis, like me. Brown South Asians from "Desh".

It is a cultural misappropriation to use the term to indicate any non-South Asian.

Chechar said...

You are missing the fact that since the 19th century white nationalists have used the term to refer to the "Nordic", "blond-haired and blue-eyed" people.

Rudel said...

Your understanding of inheritance is all wet. I have dark brown hair and green eyes, my wife has light brown hair and blue eyes. Both of our children have blond hair and blue eyes.

The genetics of hair and eye color is actually quite complicated:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001516.html