“Love it or hate it, the most sophisticated always rule. Just ask the animals.” — M.Brahmin
Our failure to interpret works from the Right has often come from an inability or lazy unwillingness to follow even the shortest thread in esoteric Art. Likewise, it comes from the stupidest idea that “Art doesn’t matter” or has little effect. Hence it is assumed that no one would spend the time to invest it with actual meaning. “Art is the organic expression of a race soul,” they might claim in a moment of inspired passion. Then satisfied with this incoherent gibberish, insist the matter to have been settled.
It is true Aryan men are the least affected by Art. This allows them to feign a disinterest or disbelief in its power. Yet this is at root a jealous feeling, an admission that the Right cannot, in fact, produce abiding Art. Thus far this has been almost entirely true. It is certainly true so long as these efforts have been disconnected from race or connected to Christianity. This is, of course, a deep problem, as again, Art is mating song.
From the Left, less interestingly, this inability to interpret esoteric work emerges from the most profound pusillanimity and naivety, where one assumes sheepishly that everything in Art and Religion has a benign or benevolent meaning and intention. Indeed, “even if there are dark messages there” they wonder, “can’t we make them benevolent by interpreting them as benevolent?”
Of course, that is precisely what one is supposed to do with REM, to fall under its sway, to accept it one way or another, under any pretext. But on the Left we shall not dwell. The intellectual laziness of the Right, where one, nevertheless, is still a child with the health and energy of youth, is the more pressing question.
When the Right has produced meaningful Art, it has been through an overly costly meditation and effort, where a man, wholly unsupported by a “knowing culture,” acts alone, against all odds. One feels palpably the struggle and lack of victorious ease in his work. Frequently he crafts tragedies because “what else is ‘truthful’?” Indeed, this is how Spengler became such a stirring “truth speaker,” by essentially conceding defeat. Nevertheless, the results have been isolated, mixed and rarely culture-directing. Again, part of our project is to end this disconnectedness among artists seeking to develop salubrious works. To help provide, again, a “matter” from which to draw as existed in Rome.
For example, why is it that only a Jewish Esotericist understands that if the dragon as a symbol is a synonym of a serpent, the serpent a synonym of the vine of Bacchus, Bacchus a synonym of the vine of Judah and Judah a synonym of Christ, then all are synonymous? Instead, we often think it “cool” or compelling that Arthur is “Dragonborn,” the son of Pendragon (“head dragon”) and represented by the mysterious red Dragon of Wales. “Very Celtic and Norse, very pagan” we tell ourselves proudly like drooling imbeciles.
Any hero immediately becomes in our minds a metaphor for Aryan plight, whether Christ, King David, King Arthur, The Mercurial Odin, Superman or the even über-Semitic “red pilled” Neo of the Matrix. Likewise, every adversary becomes a metaphor for Judaism, whether the clearly Aryan Skynet or the clearly Aryan Darth Vader. Rather the attitude is, “No one can guess what it means” or “whatever the intention, it can mean what I want it to mean! I want it to mean this! This will inspire me!”
This taken to its logical conclusion, in the political realms, specifically through the fabulous World War II myths, leads to such hilarious idiocy as “Obama as the real Hitler” or “Hitlery.” In such examples, as in the comic books this study reviews, Jews are triumphalist, knowing that intellectually lazy, vain Aryans will assume their triumphal Jewish characters also to be Aryans or usefully unspecified. Yet they are specified as this study shows.
Likewise, one will say of the ancient myths by which he has been seduced, if it is even remotely plausible “of course, my superior Aryan forbearers developed it. We have continued and celebrated these things for centuries and they would never have been such asses to celebrate JEM.” The truth is much more painful.
Everywhere, my correct interpretations will be resisted because “I did not notice that. Therefore it is false, for I am no blind fool!” This irritation proves the Aryan fully senses the importance of Art. Yet, nevertheless, here he vacillates between dismissing the importance of Art and assuring people he is an expert in it. “Those artists can’t do anything I don’t understand.” Actually, they’ve been doing it for millennia.
Soon he will find himself agreeing with Jews, “There is nothing nefarious here. How paranoid! Relax and live life will you!” It is the denial of a man whose lovely, smiling wife has been unfaithful for centuries, while he missed every single clue. It is the fear of a man believing he is powerless to do anything about it. But, of course, the latter is the opposite of the case.
The long survival of something, whether the Hebrew Bible, Shakespeare or Homer, guarantees in the Aryan’s mind its impeachable, sacred value. Here he pretends to have considered these works deeply and, of course, to comprehend them fully. Who needs this undiscriminating idiot’s opinion on anything when he applies such blind criteria, when he says simply “I adore the Classics”? Thanks for your input.
Essentially, all of this boils down to an absence of fastidiousness, to which Jews as a people are simply not prone. By this, as well as other metrics, at least as they might currently be assessed, they show themselves more capable of meaningful rule, of psychological domination.
The tendency to embrace myths anonymously developed by Semites doesn’t merely result in endless, unwitting, “cultural appropriation.” Since Rome it makes of “our Western culture” something akin to a homeless man’s shopping cart — shabby, disorganized, full of weighting detritus, and depressing in the utmost. It is, in fact, the design of these esoteric works to demoralize and direct towards paths which are not our own. Again, in each example we are made unwitting cheerleaders of Jewish or proto-Jewish ascendancy. Jewish esotericists are assured that with such adversaries, who needs friends?
Our understanding of Art and Religion needs to become sophisticated again, as must also, more importantly, our production of it. Our art must occupy both exoteric and subconscious spaces. It is not enough to say “Oh a Jew has created it, we should shun it.” While that is, of course, one necessary step, we will, in fact, never know, in the future, who exactly has created this or that story or parable, regardless by what apparent channel or person it arrives to us.
Indeed, we should guess at this moment, Jews are, in some cases, returning or have returned to a crypsis and will be unwilling to sign their names to parables of their creation lest they not be imbibed by Aryans. This is when the real danger begins. Likewise, given how atrophied our sense of Art has grown, without a return to sophistication, some of our own works will unintentionally contain JEM or JED.
If we fail to achieve sophistication, by first and foremost developing an acute understanding of these “frivolous” things of Art, Culture and Religion than any gains we make, will be impermanent, seasonal. No people can rule as righteous, simple drinking barbarians or peasants, who judge things prima facie in all instances, without shortly being duped and ruled by others.
Indeed, we can think of recent historical examples where a failure in culture and symbolism was central. “But that was a military failure,” people will contest. “In fact, the culture and symbols made the effort possible in the first place.” No, that there was war at all among brothers, and the most prodigal hitherto, is because the culture was not won and our race intuitively mistrusted the sophistication of would be rulers, whilst trusting the sophistication of those who would continue to rule.
This is not to suggest things could have gone otherwise. Rather, that conflict more than any other points out the need for a common Culture, Art, Religion and Language, symbolic and otherwise. We must charm and enlist our own people first and foremost before we fight an enemy. Rather the fight is won merely by this. The real and abiding solutions are the peaceful ones. Love it or hate it, the most sophisticated always rule. Just ask the animals.
 This was a term used to refer to Democratic Politician Hillary Clinton by marginal conservatives.