The most glaring case study of the destructive envy can be observed today among individuals critical of celebrity billionaire Donald Trump and his beautiful wife and intelligent, attractive children, who in turn are now being assaulted by a lethal barrage of pathological envy and jealousy, not only by predictable envy-ridden non-White detractors, but also by more intelligent, jealous White rivals. The late French-Romanian philosopher of gloom and doom, Emile Cioran, a household name among Alt-Right and New-Right intellectuals and sympathizers, describes political rivalry as just shorthand for the envy contest:
More or less all humans are envious; politicians are absolutely envious. One becomes envious insofar as one can’t stand anybody next to himself or above himself. Engaging oneself in a project, a project of any kind, even the most trivial one, means sacrificing oneself to envy — the supreme prerogative of all humans.2
Undoubtedly the self-perception of Whites differs substantially from the perception of Whites by non-Whites. There is ample empirical evidence showing the lines of cognitive demarcation and IQ difference between different races, thus slowly but surely refuting the modern dogma of racial equality. But what about in-group rivalry resulting in envy and hostility between two White equals? To make matters worse even the most intelligent, the most cultivated, the least biased White man of strong character and of impeccable civic virtues, may become at times a victim of trendy power delusions, which in turn makes him a nuisance to his kind and ruins the community he lives in. Witness the timeless Shakespeare’s character Macbeth, becoming belatedly aware of the nullity of royal life without progeny, and who had turned from being a virtuous man into a mass killer:
Upon my head they placed a fruitless crown
Then to be wrench’d with an unlineal hand,
No son of mine succeeding.3
Due to the impossibility of quantifying someone’s character, the subject of character flaw still remains an uncharted field for racial theorists, aka “political anthropologists.” The late German anthropologist Ludwig Clauss, whose works were quite influential in Weimar and later on in National Socialist Germany, dismisses the idea that Whites are endowed with better character than non-Whites. Advocating racial difference should by no means amount to setting up a scale of White character compared to non-Whites, nor attributing White European notions of good vs. evil to non-Europeans. It is precisely the modern millenarians, egalitarians and multiculturalists who use this implicit discriminatory procedure against non-Whites: dismissing the race factor and advocating miscegenation on the one hand, while simultaneously resorting in all fields of life to White man’s standards on the other. Non-Europeans flooding Europe, or for that matter “Black lives matter” movements in America, are only able to gain self-legitimacy because they have been previously turned into subjects of victimization and self-pity by their self-hating White patrons.
To be Nordic, for example, does not mean to be a good man or a noble man. Not every Nordic man embodies Nordic values. A man of the Nordic style can also be a crook or a criminal. A Nordic miscreant differs from a Mediterranean, Alpine, or a Middle Eastern miscreant as clearly as a righteous Nordic man differs in this sense from righteous people of those races.4
To single out White miscreants is not difficult. One can always rely on the safe passages of comparative literature with its overcrowded gallery of White saints and White con men. Again and again we see the role of political and religious sentiments, the obsession with one’s self-appointed grandeur, let alone a genetic proclivity to lying or intellectual pilfering, or congenital melancholy, or inborn bent to suicidal cultural nihilism or philosophical pessimism. Or better yet, someone’s inherited tendency for hallucinatory spells about an abstract communistic Brave New World.
These are only a few among numerous character flaws that need closer reconsideration by evolutionary psychologists. Character flaws or strengths, unlike cognitive skills, or IQ, cannot by measured in numbers, nor can they be quantified by equations. In order to partially grasp the deep-hidden character defects among Whites one is obliged to resort to metaphor and literature more than to mathematics. The bloody in-group wars between Whites, starting from the mythical Trojan war, all the way to incessant inter-White bloodletting in Europe, and then to the relatively more recent carnage linked to the inter-White War of Secession in America, followed by the recent gory Spanish civil war, and the latest conflict among ex-Yugoslavia’s peoples — these internecine wars have all proved to be far more savage than all the past wars fought by Whites against non-Whites combined. Genetic proximity and racial kinship amongst Whites are in no way a guarantee for the absence of jealousy, bickering and wars, which, to be sure, in the eyes of non-Whites, are often seen as the main trademark of the Western civilization. Age-long infighting between Whites, be it on a family, local or a global level, must be surely looked at with a great deal of bemusement by incoming masses of non-White migrants.
In the Gallery of Saints and Con Men
The Judaic God Yahweh is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5), which he himself openly admits and brags about on several occasions. He is by definition a totalitarian God who tolerates no other Gods and by extension must reject any alternative version of truth, as well as all other systems of belief. His chosen people, just like himself, are therefore required to be jealous and vindictive, dismissing any form of critical introspection when residing amidst a host nation — as decreed by Moses in Deuteronomy (XVII). Yahweh is a far cry from the down-to-earth Gods and Goddesses in Homer’s Iliad, who take frequent turns at jealousy, fooling each other, cheating with each other’s spouses or siding up with opposing warring parties — yet never, ever holding lengthy grudges against each other. Achilles’s spiritual protector was the war Goddess Athena; his military rival Hector had the God Apollo as his guardian and guiding spirit.5
In ancient Rome and Greece, vanquished tribes were often subjected to terrible physical ordeals, albeit with one notable exception: neither the Greek nor the Roman armies ever thought about imposing their own systems of belief on the vanquished. The Gods, myths, lies, verities, or narratives of the vanquished were left intact. With the rise of Christianity, envy, jealousy and self-righteousness, handed down by the Jewish religious ukases in the form of the 10th Commandment, although brandishing envy as a major sin, had brought instead the White character flaws to their deadly paroxysm.
It would be silly to argue that sentiments of envy and jealousy were nonexistent in ancient pagan Rome. Those inborn, creeping, lowlife features of human behavior have always been common to our White ancestors, as seen in countless examples of bloody strife and civil wars, stretching from ancient Greece and Rome all the way to the present times. The school of Stoicism, however, with its most illustrious thinker Seneca, tried to set up some character strengthening devices in order to tame the feelings of envy. Blind discriminatory nature, however crucial it is in man’s phylogenesis, can hardly dispense with harsh and disciplined nurture.
Each man, according to his lot in life, is stultified by flattery. We should say to him who flatters us: “You call me a man of sense, but I understand how many of the things which I crave are useless, and how many of the things which I desire will do me harm.6
Seneca’s answer to aping sycophants in his entourage is simple: the less we crave for fame, the less we shall be envious of our look-alikes. Another heavyweight philosopher of doom and gloom, highly popular among scores of White nationalists and conservative thinkers, Arthur Schopenhauer, writes in his famed chapter On the Vanity and Suffering of Life:
An indirect but certain proof of the fact that people feel unhappy, and consequently are so, is also abundantly afforded by the terrible envy that dwells in all. In all the circumstances of life, on the occasion of every superiority or advantage, of whatever kind it be, this envy is roused and cannot contain its poison. Because people feel unhappy, they cannot bear the sight of one who is supposed to be happy.7
Probably Schopenhauer should have titled this ch
apter of his The Ode to Death, given that throughout the chapter he raves about the “blind will” causing ceaseless envy, only to end up in dismal despair. Neither could he hide his own immense envy against his contemporary rival, the philosopher Friedrich Hegel whose entire philosophy he derisively calls “Hegelei,” and who stole from him much of his craved academic glitz and glory during and after his lifetime. Why him, why not me? — these are timeless haunting questions hovering over all of us.
In the gallery of the envious one stumbles upon the inevitable late medieval poet Dante voyaging in his purgatory kingdom of the blind where shadows of the deceased are obliged to cleanse off their character flaws by having their eyes sewn shut with lead. Dante’s infernal allegories in his epics were a carbon copy of the hellhole of thirteenth-century northern Italy where religious and ideological fervor and serial slaughters between the imperial-minded Ghibellines and the papists Guelfs reigned supreme. A wretched character whom Dante meets during his passage through Purgatory tells him:
My blood was so with envy set on fire,
That if I had beheld a man make merry,
Thou wouldst have seen me sprinkled o’er with pallor.8
Similar feelings of envy resulting in mass killings, once akin to warring Ghibellines and Guelfs in medieval Europe, have gradually morphed into the proverbial hatred between European Left and Right, taking on today their finite form in the clash between the modern pontiffs of Antifascism and Multiculturalism and modern racial nationalists. Dante’s dismal premonitions were to be echoed seven hundred years later by his best disciple, the poet Ezra Pound, whose own apocalyptic Cantos were framed on the model of those of his medieval teacher, presaging his own intellectual and political proscription in the newly established post-World War II world. Pound’s gallery of the envious is manifest in the verses he wrote right on the eve of Europe’s breakdown:
… And then I slept
And, waking in the wasted air,
Saw and heard thus —
He whom I saw seemed like a cavalier,
And I heard this:
“Watching my people die
Does not satisfy
even if they broke their word,
Even if they deserve
to be governed by King Turd.
Roosevelt, Churchill and Eden
bastards to a man,
Liar, Jew and glutton...
have squeezed the people dry
like sheep!”9
Physical blindness and the verdict of ignorance, meted out to envious politicians in Dante’s epic poem, can often be bliss. Eyelessness can have advantages, as demonstrated by the blind, poor, uneducated, self-effacing, albeit very intelligent seer, Tiresias, who is brought to the court of King Oedipus, only to announce to him his eyeless future of blind destiny.10 For that matter willful ignorance and dismissal of the brainwashing curriculum in the modern educational system in the US and EU can be a sign of a healthy state of mind. What on earth is to be seen in the political process in multicultural America and Europe today? What good can be learned in multiracial colleges in Europe, whose program consists of lessons on White man’s guilt? For centuries, in order to avoid envy-inducing temptations, high-IQ young introspective White European males opted for monastic life. The harmful side of monasticism was that it prevented good genes to be passed on to future offspring, thus leaving the political arena open to an array of genetic and character misfits: the bad, the ugly and the envious.
Lengthy is the list of authors, usually associated with the heritage of cultural conservatism, who have prodded into the roots of envy-driven politicians. Highly envious politicians are usually very cunning individuals, with above average IQ, possessing, in addition, good skills at camouflaging their moral sleaziness with an aura of tearful humanitarian palaver. They also excel at expressions of sympathy for the plight of their future prey. This brings to mind the huge literature on so-called Jewish social mimicry, aka “trickster-do-good-Jews” (Mauscheljuden), popularized in National Socialist Germany by the works of Theodor Fritsch and Arthur Trebitsch, and scores of other writers.11 It would be a serious error, however, to reduce the art of impersonation to Jews only. Envy-ridden White politicians have thrived in abundance in Europe and America, and their best literary embodiment is found in Shakespeare’s Richard III, a supremely intelligent miscreant, who, when left alone with his monologues, takes extreme pleasure in calling himself a supreme villain, all set to eliminate his next of kin.
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain.12
Examples of virtue, passed down by sages and held for centuries as a symbol of moral goodness, are essentially an elegant cover-up for self-deception and fake commiseration. This is how the French seventeenth-century essayist François de La Rochefoucauld sees social reality in his satirical aphorisms about the army of jealous and envious politicians hiding beneath false charity and feigned compassion.
We are false in different ways. There are some men who are false from wishing always to appear what they are not. There are some who have better faith, who are born false, who deceive themselves, and who never see themselves as they really are; to some is given a true understanding and a false taste, others have a false understanding and some correctness in taste; there are some who have not any falsity either in taste or mind.13
La Rochefoucauld’s influence on future European cultural pessimists was immense. Friedrich Nietzsche’s own aphoristic style and his own acerbic words against the danger of the rising tide of egalitarian ideologies of the later nineteenth century, is closely patterned on La Rochefoucauld’s prose. Outbursts of feigned magnanimity — the hallmark of many French nobles of the seventeenth century — provide a timely example for understanding the similar make-believe humanism of the modern liberal ruling class, including modern American cuckservatives. On the one hand, they love to show off empathy for disfranchised fellow Whites; on the other, they are keen on keeping to themselves in their gated communities.
A critical approach to the pretend humanism of the elites was a popular subject among French authors in the seventeenth century. Traditionally their literary legacy was associated with the intellectual baggage of the so-called anarcho-nationalists and revolutionary conservatives; today, it is linked to the work of the New Right and Alt-Right respectively. Those French classics are important because their description of seventeenth-century elites hiding behind trendy facial mannerisms and grandiose self-righteousness can be projected on the corrupted behavior of contemporary homegrown elites in the US and EU. The unfolding chaos in the West, however, cannot be blamed on the incoming armies of Muslims or any other group of non-European migrants. Those who started the chaos and those who are now stoking it are decadent White elites who keep importing non-European migrants.
It is fairly easy to spot an envious villain if his character deformity is accompanied by physical depravity, as seen in Richard III. A similar envy-ridden character appears in Friedrich Schiller’s drama The Robbers in the person of the wicked, crippled, yet highly intelligent Francis, who endlessly schemes how to destroy his better looking and virtuous brother Charles and his entire family:
Why was the hideous burden of deformity laid upon me alone; of all my race on me alone? Hell and damnation! on me alone; as if she had formed me only of the scum, the very refuse of her stuff!14
The wicked Francis is an epitome of the in-group infighting among Whites. Such infighting has taken diverse forms of political expression over the last few millennia. In the face of ongoing foreign racial and cultural replacement, however, the laudable desire to reestablish White identity does not guarantee at all that Whites will dispense with their mutual envy, treachery and civil wars. Modern sociobiologists still need to examine why civil wars are more brutal than wars against well-demarcated and segregated out-groups. Far more dangerous than outgroups are character defects when they surface und
er the guise of the same phenotype, same idiom, and same racial entourage, as has been observed countless times in Western political history. In the same vein, many Whites make a major mistake by using insulting terms against African and Middle Eastern migrants storming into Europe, forgetting that the treacherous or self-hating Whites who are bringing them in are the ones to blame.
In the near future one can expect that feelings of mutual envy and hidden resentments will not disappear from transgenderized and miscegenated Europe and America; instead they will only take on alternate forms. Many intelligent remaining Whites will become indispensable leaders in dysfunctional non-White multiracial regimes. They will, however, be confronted with an age-old reality: they will either share their political power and work spaces with lower IQ, less individualistic non-Europeans, or they will face the haunting challenge of enduring the presence of envious, scheming, high-IQ White rivals. In America and in Europe it is a widespread practice in affluent White households to hire non-White handymen or nannies, the implicit assumption being that a non-White will never measure up to the cognitive appetites or excessive ambitions of a White employee. Feigned docility of South Asian and Latino women is often in demand by sexually frustrated White bachelors in Europe and America. Those non-White females, in quest of the improvement of their socio-racial status, know how to hide their envious behavior much better than single White females. White males, mistakenly, see them as no threat — as long as they stay out of White wedlock.
Historically, an implicit social consensus for a racially segregated society has functioned fairly well despite the bad press and academic vilification it has been subjected to over the last 50 years. In hindsight, the segregated American South and the apartheid regime in South Africa were functional and stable societies, where each racial group knew its place. It was the rise of egalitarian ideologies, imported from the West, which prompted non-Whites to start fantasizing that they could henceforth be whatever they wished to be. The tragic results, both for in-groups and out-groups, are visible today.
Titans are in Town Page 13
