Anthony Ludovici: conservative from another world

Excerpts from the article
I read in Counter-Currents Publishing
(no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):


Over a series of documentary books (and seven novels) Ludovici argued that woman differs from man in mind and function as yin differs from yang. He challenged the view that woman was merely “a peculiar sort of man,” seeing her main, adaptive roles in society as bearing and raising children. Women who abstain from sex for long periods and do not carry out their biological functions of regular pregnancies, childbirth and breast-feeding encounter all manner of physical and psychological problems.

Ludovici opposed contraception. Aside from the obvious step of banning immigration, he proposed three other solutions to prevent the overpopulation of Britain: (1) Anglo-Saxons should emigrate and colonize lands at the expense of “inferior races”; (2) revive the eugenic infanticide of older times; (3) prevent the unfit from marrying. But if Ludovici encouraged large families, he detested the contemporary adulation of children. In The Child: An Adult’s Problem (London, 1948) he explained why. His opposition to birth control for Anglo-Saxons was clearly stated:

It invites a proud people henceforward to pour its seed down the drains instead of multiplying and spreading over the earth... it calls upon a proud conquering and imperial race henceforward to limit its multiplication in order to keep pace with (or rather to keep within the bounds imposed by) such inferior races as Negroes, Eskimos, Mongoloids of all kinds and Negritos, and such mongrel populations as the Levantines, the South Americans and the hybrids of South Africa.

Ludovici admired Jews but greeted the advent of National Socialism with interest. He went to Germany to see the new regime for himself, writing articles for the conservative English Review about the German “miracles” largely concealed from his fellow-countrymen by “rigorous press-censorship.”

Germany’s religious atmosphere and sense of unity amazed him, and he agreed with the dignity the Nazi regime awarded to manual labor, the back-to-the-land movement, the waning of democracy, the idea of art reflecting the soul of a people, and “the concentration upon an ideal of woman as wife, mother and domestic mate.” But he decided that these reforms by Hitler counted as “nothing compared with his innovations in a far more difficult and pitfall-strewn field—the field of human biology.” Ludovici was impressed by the law to prevent hereditary diseases, the eugenics court, and such attempts to breed healthy types as “the biological cream of the SA,” the SS, while stretching tact to the limit in his writings by never mentioning the Nuremberg race laws or the word “Jew.”

As far back as 1913 he had not been as circumspect, when he wrote that England held “an enormous alien population in its midst.” By the time A Defence of Conservatism came out in 1927, he was speculating that, if Britain’s official Jewish population of 300,000 religious observers were to include non-observing Jews and half- and quarter-Jews, the figure would be pumped up to about a million. Needless to say, Ludovici disapproved strongly of Jewish-Gentile intermarriage. He did not disapprove of Edward I’s expulsion of Jews from England in 1290:

A nation with individuality is... a segregated ethnic unit, and... must be protected from the influence of other segregated peoples, whose cultural index, so to speak, must be incompatible and therefore undesirably modifying.

Ludovici adopted a nom de guerre, Cobbett, to examine the Jewish question more fully in The Jews, and the Jews in England (London, 1938). (He told his friend, William Gayley Simpson, that using his own name for this book would ruin his career as a writer.) Programmed with this mindset, Jews are “indifferent spectators” to the fate of their Gentile hosts, whom they strive to undermine:

Their influence... tends to impoverish and weaken all local tradition, national character and national identity, when these happen to be at all resistant to alien invasion. And since these factors are integrating forces, it follows that extreme Jewish liberalism atomizes a population, turns each man into an isolated individual, and ultimately culminates in a state bordering on anarchy in which, at the turn of an eyebrow, anarchy becomes a fact.

Lecturing four years later on English Liberalism (London, 1939), he told a sympathetic audience to take heart from the experience of Nazis and Bolsheviks, groups once ridiculed as “contemptible minorities” but who went on to dominate Europe. He used these examples to prove that political, economic and social victories are determined by will. The lesson for us is that, “if any cause is upheld with passion and single-mindedness, it must ultimately prevail, even when congenital... liberals and international manipulators, Jew or Gentile, constitute the organized enemy.”

Modern conservatives have either disowned or forgotten Ludovici. If they knew of his writings, George Bush and Margaret Thatcher, not to mention Milton Friedman, would have to reevaluate their conservative credentials. Ludovici was a conservative from another, vanished world—a world in which such incandescent minds as T. S. Eliot and Lothrop Stoddard could discuss the pros and cons of racial separation, or government by elites, or the Jewish question.

Because conventional politicians have placed a taboo on the older racial and elitist conservatism, the best of it has passed down to pro-Majority activists and thinkers. Although we haven’t yet defeated the “organized enemy,” we have a vital ally, bound and ready for action, in a shelf stacked with Ludovici’s 30 and more published books. Put simply, Anthony Ludovici was an Instaurator before Instauration.


_______________

My comment:

Of course I disagree with “revive the eugenic infanticide of older times”, except if Ludovici had in mind conditions such as Mongolism.

The complete article can be read here.

Parting Word

For me, that goal is Nietzschean: the creation of a perfected, god-like white race that will give meaning and purpose to this godless, meaningless universe.

….........................................................................................—Greg Johnson

Chechar is taking a long break and will be back after an uncertain, but certainly long period as the real life needs some attention now.

Regarding the latest posts, isn’t it extraordinary that after so many decades the events exposed by Solzhenitsyn are still concealed from the general public? For decades Hollywood and the TV have bombarded us with images of mass deportations of Jews into Nazi ghettos while at the same time we get zero images of the hundreds of thousands of Russians extradited by Allied forces right into the hands of the Soviet executioners—and zero images too depicting the disproportionate amount of Jews involved in Red Terror.

After World War II our souls, morals and worldviews have been so corrupted by this propaganda that it has become increasingly difficult to look at 20th-century history without a major soul-surgery. In prison Solzhenitsyn underwent such surgery, as described in the most moving pages of his Gulag. After moulting off his exuviated soul Solzhenitsyn could finally understand that the sphere of the sociopolitical realm could only be comprehended by developing the inner self.

Similarly, my soul ripened from suffering as described in Whispering Leaves, part of it published in my web page. The journey to understand the dark night of our age drove me to search for traces of the divine in the most obvious yet—under the sky of liberalism—concealed places. When I was nineteen I discovered what today I interpret as artistic images of our beloved wives and lovely daughters.

Why am I leaving Parrish’s Daybreak in the masthead during my break? Because saving our people from extinction is essentially a spiritual battle. While it is true that in this age of treason we must fight back in the spirit of Roman severitas, as seen at the very bottom of this blog, to win the battle over the West’s darkest midnight we must rediscover that only the eternal feminine would lead us to the Absolute.

Abraham vs. Casanova’s “Game”

A recent post by Hunter Wallace,
“The Elusive Traditional Woman,”
prompted me to write part of the below
reply. But first I will quote two sentences
of Wallace’s essay. The first sentence is—



About Women:

American women tend to ruin themselves these days. There are fewer incentives than ever before for a man to settle down with one woman. Marriages don’t last. Divorces can cripple a man financially. It is harder than ever before to raise children in this degenerate culture. Here’s reality as it exists: what American man wants to settle down with an American woman who has slept with 15+ other guys, who is going to divorce him in four or five years, who is going to take all his money, who has an insolent, self-centered attitude, who doesn’t have the personality required for marriage and childrearing?

The second sentence is About Men:

Alphas are men who sleep with lots of women, who are naturally attractive to women, and who can have any woman they desire; Betas are men who are less attractive to women, who pick one woman and have children, and who are the stable household providers; Gammas/Omegas are frustrated men who are not attractive to women and who don’t have any sexual partners.

The above vocabulary comes from what is called “Game,” or adapting to the sexual marketplace. I agree with one of the commenters at Occidental Dissent (OD) that from a moral standpoint elevating “degenerate behavior”—what I call Neanderthal behavior—by calling it “Alpha” implies the wrong standard, and that calling men who engage in traditional relationships “betas” is also extremely deceiving.

I have avoided the subject of what is called “Game” because it strikes me as outright degenerate and unworthy of civilized white nationalists (only Judaized WASPs open their veins by playing such a suicidal game).

A few days ago I watched the DVD version of the 1959 film Journey to the Center of the Earth, which I had seen as a child on the silver screen. A deep nostalgia invaded me while seeing how Alec McEwen (Pat Boone) woos Lindenbrook’s niece Jenny (Diane Baker). Paraphrasing Spock [a liberal commenter at OD] I would say just the opposite: for reasonable men the ideal is a woman with no experience, a “clueless virgin” just like the one in the movie I liked so much as a child.

To demonstrate why the traditional marriage is for winners and “sex games” for losers, let’s indulge in the language of science.

In biology, success is measured by the number of descendants that an organism leaves. But since most of all of the descendants of a Don Juan who doesn’t care for his offspring may die prematurely, this definition is tentative and must be modified. Oxford zoologist David Lack argued that, for each species, natural selection favors the size of the offspring that results in the most of them surviving to maturity: a more accurate definition.

But we can further define fitness as the relative (i.e., compared to the other guys, including the so-called “alphas”) ability of a male to survive and leave offspring that themselves survive and leave offspring. This is standard biological theory, and what matters most is not the actual value of a male’s fitness in terms of the number of his progeny that survive to reproduce, but which individuals have higher fitness than others.

Here’s where the critics of “gamers” are right when applying this definition to Homo sapiens. From the fitness viewpoint, what is the quality of living for human bastards (David Lack studied birds)? In our species fitness is a relative measure, with the fittest humans in a population being assigned the value 1. Alas, our enemies, the Jews, are #1 according to this definition. But there’s a positive side to it: Take heed of their lifestyles! Traditional Jews aren’t Casanova-esque alphas!

If the fittest human male in a population is assigned the value 1, I would call that guy Abraham (“I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven”, Exodus 32:13). All other individuals have their fitness expressed as fractions or proportions of 1 compared to the Abraham paradigm, who was everything except a degenerate “alpha” male or a Don Juan. One of the reasons white nationalists must like Hitler and the Nazis is because they tried to turn Nordish people... into Number One.

My comment at OD ends with the above provocative sentence. But in fact we don’t need Nazism. Reverting to the 1950s plus WASPs gaining a solid ethnic consciousness would do it.

In the OD thread, another commenter said that “Game” is just another example of the liberals’ poisonous way of looking at things. However, since adolescents and young men are still fond of so-called “alphas”—as wrongly defined in today’s degenerate culture (the real alpha is the Aryan equivalent to Abraham)—, let’s ponder a little about the life of who is presumably the iconic case of “alpha” male in the West.

When my grandma was born, adolescents envied Casanova. But when later in my life I read a little of him I realized that, like every Don Juan, Casanova was a loser. “He will spend the night with the most pitiful harlot,” writes Stefan Zweig in his psychobiography about Casanova, “rather than sleep alone.”

We can hardly be surprised to find that the quality of his feminine provision is not always of the best… Enough for him, generally speaking, that she should be woman, vagina, his polar opposite in matters of sex, formed by nature to enable him to discharge his libido… Casanova’s collection is anything but a gallery of beauty.

This is the antithesis of what I believe: a monogamous, lasting marriage inspired by Nordish female beauty. Casanova, on the other hand, was never really in love with anyone, and to boot he could not have bought women if we imagine him without his money. In fact, the Don Juan archetype, equipped above all with callousness, is the sworn enemy of women. According to Zweig, it is the person that women loathe and project onto the whole male sex. Like Casanova, the Neanderthals I happen to know don’t discriminate among women. “In wartime,” a Mexican saying goes, “any hole is a trench.” In Casanova’s maximum opus readers can see the same troglodytic view of women, from underage teenagers to shriveled women in their sixties: mere masturbatory objects. Awful…

Despite his countless coitus Casanova didn’t invest in his future in the traditional form of a warm family. We find him, in his old age, with syphilis at the shadow of an Austrian nobleman. Without his money women did not respect him. His last refuge was to write his memoirs, but during his lifespan no one pays attention to his manuscripts. The man wrote folio after folio for twelve hours a day for seven years only as a defense mechanism. “It was the only way in which I could hinder myself from becoming crazy,” confesses the old hermit.

For seven years I have been doing nothing else than write my memoirs… I look forward to being rational enough in my last illness to have all the manuscript burnt before my eyes.

But Casanova didn’t do it and naive people glorified the adventures of this failed man after he died.

The sin against the holy ghost

Today, in an ongoing discussion about atheism, I posted the following:

In these times of white dispossession I hate metaphysical arguments. However, since I was a Christian during my early teens, and in my early twenties I fell (and escaped from) a New Age cult with peculiar ideas about “God,” let me enter the debate.

“I can’t call myself an atheist because it’s just as absurd to insist there is no God as it is to insist there is. I can’t call myself an agnostic because spiritually I’m pretty sure there is no God. Then we get into the whole Jungian God that arises from man and we’re back to square one.” – Svigor

Depends on how you interpret Jung. “God” is but the projection of the Jungian Self of a human being at a given point of the human theodicy, I wrote in the Epilogue of my book The Return of Quetzalcoatl. You are not back in square one if you interpret the Jungian Self from a pantheistic, or rather “panentheistic” viewpoint.

But the idea of God cannot be reduced to the Jungian philosophy of the Self. It has also to do with the greatest tragedy of the human soul. Just take a look at the astounding figures of infanticidal rates through history and prehistory in one of my Quetzalcoatl chapters. The God idea has obviously to do not only with the Abraham/Isaac tale, the starting point of Judaism and Christianity; how humans have tried to solve the problem of the attachment to the perpetrator is a factor too (e.g. trying to attach with daddy, a biological imperative as studied in developmental psychology, while at the same time he sacrificed one of our siblings).

In other words, for a small child there’s no God except his parents. But since no human has a perfect attachment with his parents, sooner or later he will project a much safer “attachment” elsewhere, even if imaginary.

But even then the idea of God is incommensurable for psychological reductionism. Back to square one? No. While I don’t believe in a personal God (a personal God in a strictly theistic sense is indeed projection as per trying to solve the perennial problem of attachment to the perp – cf. my book), my educated guess is that there must be something very odd in the universe. Discussing with Larry Auster in my blog I told him:

“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)?”

More to the point on that line of thinking, the visual experience of Nordish female beauty intuitively “proves” a sort of teleological, evolutionary panentheism.

That is why the current anti-white zeitgeist, which implies the extinction of the evolution’s crown (if we imagine it as idealistically as the most inspired painters depict the eternal feminine) is the sin against the holy ghost. Hegel and Schelling would come handy here, but only if we feel Nature’s divinity through, say, Wordsworth’s eyes.

The problem with this is that it’s all subjective, and only those who share the poet’s numinous experience can glimpse the non-theistic providential realm.

The Crown of the Evolution revisited

OK Russel:

Today I uploaded a video with scenes of the 2005 film Pride and Prejudice.

It may not be very legal in YouTube and it might be removed for copyright infraction. But if you can see it, it gives the picture of why I see these kind of women as “the crown of the evolution”, as we have been discussing elsewhere.

I am telling you this in a new entry rather than in one of the older threads because, if only we Caucasians were honest about our feelings, the beauty of the English roses “informed by a Romantic sensibility”, as you put it, could be a helpful corrective to the current anti-white Zeitgeist.

The visuals and the music of Pride and Prejudice project me into the world that an author of a white nationalist novel wants us to move in once the ethno-state is created, hopefully in North America. There are still white states in the Northwest Center, for example Wyoming and the Dakotas. (Alas, England, the original land of the English roses has been invaded by orcs.)

This is a must-see film for all of those who hit this blog.

Watch it...

.

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.

Who’s to blame?

Frontispiece to William Blake's
Visions of the Daughters of Albion (1793)
which contains Blake’s critique of
Judeo-Christian values of marriage.

Sometimes the best stuff about the whys of the West’s darkest hour is found not in the main article, but in the commenters section. Below I quote three illuminating posts from the thread “Be the Change” in Gates of Vienna (GoV).

Fjordman said...
Takuan Seiyo, I like to think of it this way: If you have one brainwashed generation then you have a problem. If you have two brainwashed generations then you have a very serious problem. If you have three brainwashed generations then you have a problem that is so big that it almost cannot be solved, because nobody in living memory can remember how it was to have a sane worldview. We are now fast approaching a point where young Westerners, indoctrinated with anti-Western hatred, not only do not receive a correction from their parents, but in many cases not even from their grandparents. By then we have witnessed a complete cultural discontinuity.

As much as I loathe to admit it, Marxists and other anti-European forces have been far more successful in staging a slow, “permanent” revolution in the West than they ever were in staging an armed revolution. They have largely succeeded in their goal of eradicating Western civilization, and are now working hard to physically eradicate the European peoples who created this civilization to ensure that it cannot be rebuilt in the future, either. They achieved this feat not by gaining control over the means of production but over the means of indoctrination, the mass media and the education system.

The only thing left to do is to let the current ruling paradigm crash under the weight of its own uselessness and work to survive so that we can build something new out of the ashes. We need a new paradigm as the current post-WWII “suicide paradigm” isn’t sustainable. The question is whether the coming discontinuity will be so severe, just like it was in the Middle Ages, that we will end up with an entirely new civilization, the third generation of European civilization.

Takuan Seiyo said…
Fjordman, I think we have to go to the giants of science fiction, maybe Philip Dick, to get an idea where this is leading. But restoring a common Western culture is no longer possible. Even intelligible conversation with the other side is no longer possible. We don’t share the same language anymore, even if we were born in the same country. Words like justice, nation, freedom, culture, racism, constitution, wealth, work, love, marriage, gender, right versus privilege etc. no longer have a common referent, and words like honor, merit, fidelity, prudence, civilization, civility, manners, graciousness, manliness, femininity, modesty, class, elegance, valor don’t even exist in the other side’s vocabulary anymore.

Or look at American films between 1935 and 1955. These are recent pop culture artifacts that seem 150 years old. See how much French or German dialogue is included in these films meant for the broad and relatively unsophisticated American audience, how good English, good manners and virtues prevail even in plots that are cynical or risqué (Hitchcock’s To Catch a Thief is a good example).

I need to modify what I wrote in the previous comment. While it’s only our last three generations that have been transformed into changelings, the left has been working on all that really for 100 years, not 40. Much of what one can find in the works or speeches of Lenin, Trotsky and Gramsci reads like a blueprint for a soft coup d’état, exactly of the kind as has been unfolding in the last 40 years.

Whiskey said...
I take issue with both Seiyo and Fjordman. This is not “Gramscian” stuff out of the Frankfort School. It is the natural result of Christianity. That most Christian of poets, William Blake, in Daughters of Albion compared marriage and family to slavery and prison. Mary Wollstonecroft, mother to Mary Shelley, preached free love in the 1780’s. The Oneida Commune predated Marx and the Revolutions of 1848. Much of the current morass stems [from] the Romantic poets and the thoughts of Thoreau and Whitman.

Which boil down to this: if you have some amount of money, better to behave like a depraved French Aristocrat than an upright member of the “square” bourgeoisie. Or more concretely, elites wish to maximize sexual, personal, and monetary freedom of action for themselves while cloaking themselves in Caesarian “for the people” morality.

You can’t sell things people don’t already want. The tremendous amounts of money flowing to elites, making them richer than the richest French aristo under Louis XIV, create the tremendous appetite to cast off any restriction in a decadent, depraved elite. The impact of the condom, improved female earnings, and anonymous urban living make women the natural home of the Hard Left, combining as it does “the New Aristocracy” of the Kennedys, Obama, etc. with a massive female-friendly social safety net. Anyone watching little girls play princess or adult women wanting understandably to jigger the system for them can understand this. The impact of the collapse of marriage (which ties female well-being to that of men’s opportunities) is to my mind, far more explanatory than the idea of the pod-people and bodysnatchers.

The films of Hitchcock in San Francisco reflected a married, bourgeoisie world. The current city reflects a decadent, aristocratic single world dominated by single women seeking aristocratic princesses and a safety net.

Chechar’s comment (off GoV):
I agree with Whiskey that liberalism is the natural result of Christianity. Today’s crisis can best be understood if we go beyond Gramscian or commie brainwash into a meta-perspective that involves Christian ethics.

Conservative Swede has explained such perspective here (see also here). If we keep in mind Swede’s philosophy that modern liberalism is but the last stage of a dying, giant red star, Whiskey’s answer to Seiyo and Fjordman makes sense within my framework of a noxious “helping”-mode of childrearing, because that was precisely what originated feminism (cf. my criticism of Lloyd deMause). Parents allowed their daughters to “enjoy” the new lifestyle, thus endangering Caucasians with extinction since women avoid to reproduce with healthy population-replacement levels. In the thread of one of my Quetzalcoatl chapters I commented:

This is resonant with our struggles against today’s liberals. In the last chapter I said that liberty should not be confused with licentiousness. And the big paradox with the “helping mode” psychoclass of the late 20th and early 21st centuries is that it is akin to the emergency from bicameralism three millennia ago. And so are the measures to be taken! For Con Swede, a Franco or a Pinochet is badly needed in Europe.

Reference to Franco or a Pinochet must have seemed a little rough for the GoV commentariat since I didn’t get any answer. But I must add that despite being a republican in heart the times are so dark that they require an imperial solution. It’s time for a new Caesar...


The Great Gatsby

The Jewish question has started to intrigue me. But yesterday I watched for the first time in my life the 1974 film The Great Gatsby, starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow; directed by Jack Clayton from a screenplay of Coppola based on the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald. None of these people are Jewish. But I found a subliminal message very akin to the more recent race-treasonous films that paint the whites and the West as the bad guys, quite a few of them directed or screen-written by the Jews at Hollywood. The whole point is that we must blame with equal ferocity all of the gentile liberals who also have contributed to demonize the white nationalists and the western culture. After all, it was Scott Fitzgerald, an Irish Catholic, who featured a reference to a conservative racialist author in The Great Gatsby. The film where the good guy Jay Gatsby (Robert Redford) is murdered starts with the following dialogue between Tom Buchanan (Bruce Dern) and his guest. At the end Tom is exposed as the bad guy of the movie, the one who incited the murder of poor Jay:

Tom: “Nick, have you read that book, The Rise of the Coloured Empires by Goddard?”

Nick: “Why? no.”

Tom: “Well, it is a fine book. Everyone ought to read it. See the point is that if we don’t watch out, the white race will be utterly submerged...”

[Nick’s face denotes incredulity]

Tom: “No, that’s so! It’s up to us. We, the dominant race, must watch out, or the other races will have control of things.”

Daisy [Mia Farrow] sarcastically says: “We’ve got to beat them down.”

Tom: “Daisy, it has all been scientifically proved. You see we’re Nordics. You are, and I am and... Anyway, we are responsible for all the things that made civilization: art science, and all that.”

The Rise of the Coloured Empires is a real book that today very few take seriously despite of the fact that, if the West had really watched out, neither China nor Islam would have awakened. If we look for an explanation of why Tom’s message fell upon the deaf ears of those who watch Hollywood films, the answer lays precisely in The Great Gatsby where frivolous parties ran amok in America’s 1920s, the zeitgeist when Fitzgerald wrote his novel. (Of course: today, frivolity has degenerated even further.)


Postscript of 25 August 2010:

Now that I am reordering the entries of this blog that I had written before the lightning that divided my intellectual life in twain, and removing mere copy-and-paste entries from other blogs, I see that accidentally I deleted a post with a couple of interesting comments in the commenters section. Fortunately I had saved them in my computer:

Monsieur Calguès said...
The book this conversation alluded to is The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy; the Goddard in the conversation refers to the book’s author, Lothrop Stoddard. I am not sure if you are familiar with the book. I have read it and it’s worth the effort. No author today could get away with writing some of the things Stoddard wrote. He would encounter difficulty finding a willing publisher today.

Chechar said...
Monsieur Calguès: As soon as I get a few bucks I will buy a long list of must-read books, such as this one. Here’s what an Amazon Book reviewer has to say about The Rising Tide. Ask me: who for decades have suffered the tsunami of uneducated semi-Indians that destroyed my beautiful neighborhood in Mexico City!:

“Forbidden book, very informative. I was impressed with how this work counters much of the ‘politically correct’ nonsense on campus. The egalitarian establishment would very much like to ban this work, they have already done much to keep it from potential readers. Changing demographics mated with Pavlovian ‘PC’ conditioning will allow them to ban this book soon. My advice is to get this book and read it while you still can.”

Monsieur Calguès said...
Forbidden indeed. Which makes it more surprising that I managed to find the book in a university library some time ago.

The Turner Diaries, however, would be impossible to find in any library in any form. One must access it online or order it through the mail. I believe some countries have even banned it.

But a society built on lies cannot endure, eventually it must collapse. The Soviet Union proved that maxim. There are violent times ahead for the West. They cannot come soon enough for me.

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...