Egalitarianism is evil

Or:

Equality, the immovable object that stands in our way

Now that I am following Tom Sunic in that an egalitarian mindset is behind the empowerment of the Jews, the article “Moral Barriers to White Survival” by Alex Kurtagic published in American Renaissance (reproduced below) makes much sense, in spite of the fact that Kurtagic has been very reluctant to blame Christian axiology directly. He rightfully blames Enlightenment values though, but does not go as far as the European New Right which seems to perceive the root of our woes in our parents’ religion.

Many race realists are frustrated by liberal resistance to empirical truths. They would like to think that any rational person will study the facts, reflect upon them, and modify his beliefs accordingly—not immediately, of course, nor without a healthy measure of skepticism, but surely over time. Yet, as I have often said, in discussions of race and race relations “the facts” are not as important as we would like to think, because when choosing sides on this topic people are motivated primarily by non-factual considerations. In this essay I will explore the reasons why liberalism, though rooted in the scientific revolution and coming from the rationalist and empiricist intellectual traditions, has proven so impervious to the science of race.

Any facts or arguments that are brought into a discussion about race and race relations are nearly always subordinated to social considerations. Some of these are the need to be liked by family and friends; the desire to be liked by those one likes and admires and by whom one wants to be liked and admired; the need for social status; and ethnic identification. These considerations, because they are important sources of essential human needs, may cause the same set of data to be interpreted by people in radically different ways, including ways that fly in the face of evidence and make no objective sense.

We have an obvious example in the liberal/Left’s assertion that race has no biological basis, when the senses tell us otherwise and there is even race-specific medicine. A liberal/Leftist is committed to a moral system that deems equality an absolute moral good, and in a Western society, his status, particularly among whites, depends on his being considered morally righteous. Therefore, he will readily accept convenient data but dismiss inconvenient data or make it conform to his requirements. Those who accept this convenient data are embraced by whites in Western societies as morally sound, while those who accept inconvenient data are marginalized as moral defectives.

Such bias is not exclusive to liberalism or the Left; it is everywhere. What changes according to ethnic identification and cultural context is the value assigned to a morality based on universal abstract principles: For whites in the West this is very important, for other groups, in the West and elsewhere, it is less so, as their moral systems tend to be particularist and ethnocentric rather than universalist—the good is what is good for them.

In Western societies, whites who hold unconventional views, even views that fall outside liberal morality, are not exempt from such bias either.


Critique of pure empiricism

Race realists are a product of modernity and Enlightenment philosophy. They realize that humans are motivated by moral and ethical sentiments rather than reason, but, at the same time, they act as if knowledge, understood as empirical evidence processed by reason, ought to be the basis for morality. In this sense they are the diametrical opposite of their opponents, for whom what ought to be determines what is.

Put in more simple terms, race realists forget that knowledge does not come into being in a moral vacuum. On the contrary, knowledge is sought and acquired by individuals committed, a priori, to a given moral code, and this knowledge is interpreted, disseminated, and then used in accordance with a moral code.

Liberal morality

The dominant moral system in the West is liberal morality. To understand this system we need to understand the structure of liberalism.

In liberalism, the historical subject is the individual. The individual is the measure of all things. The idea behind liberalism is to “liberate” the individual from anything that is external or transcendent to him, such as faith, tradition, and authority. The transcendent implies hierarchy: subordination of the individual to something higher. Absent this higher something, one is left only with the individual, and without faith, tradition, or higher authority, an individual becomes like any other individual. Thus, equality.

When individuals are equal, they have an equal claim to a slice of the pie. Thus the ideal type of government becomes democracy, in its most radical form. Concurrently, where there is equality, what applies to one individual applies to all equally, everywhere and always. This means universalism.

The abandonment of the transcendent leads to a worldview that is entirely secular, rational, and material. The way to happiness then becomes material increase, pursued by rational means. This results in production, consumption, and economics. It becomes necessary to produce and to find ways to maximize production. Individualism, equality, democracy, universalism, secularism, rationalism, materialism, and economism constitute the foundations of liberal morality.

Not all of these values have equal importance. Two of them—liberty and equality—are privileged above the others, and have produced two strands of liberalism in modern times. The strand that favors equality incorporates the Marxist critiques of liberalism formulated during the 19th and 20th centuries; this is the dominant strand of liberalism today.

The strand that favors liberty is closer to Classical Liberalism, and its purest expression is libertarianism; this represents an important oppositional view within liberalism. It is important to note, however, that both strands regard equality as an absolute moral good. In liberalism, in both its dominant form and its main oppositional form, the moral goodness of equality is taken for granted and stands beyond discussion or criticism. Liberal morality considers the questioning of the goodness of equality a serious moral defect.

Liberal morality therefore deems race realism an evil because race realism asserts the essential inequality of man. In this way liberal morality puts race realism outside the realm of acceptable discourse, and race realists outside the realm of civilized society.

Critiques of liberalism and its effects

During the 19th and 20th centuries, liberalism was subjected to critiques, from both the Left (Marxism) and the Right (Fascism/National Socialism). Liberalism, Marxism, and Fascism/National Socialism are the three primary ideologies of modernity. Fascism and National Socialism were defeated by Marxism and liberalism in 1945, and Marxism was defeated by liberalism in 1989. Of the three ideologies of modernity, only liberalism survives.

Fascism and National Socialism fell into discredit after the war and, due to their being inegalitarian ideologies, became shorthand for evil. Marxism was partially absorbed by modern liberalism because of its egalitarian morality, thus tipping modern liberalism even more heavily toward egalitarianism. As a result, modern liberalism is distinct from classical liberalism.

The triumph of liberalism has, in turn, made it invisible. Russian theorist Alexander Dugin claims that it has long since ceased to be political, and has gone on to become a taken-for-granted practice. We have certainly seen liberals branding critiques of liberalism as “ideological” without any sense that their own worldview is ideological.

Opposition of liberty and equality within liberalism

The triumph of liberalism, and the triumph of equality within liberalism, has meant that now, even liberty is subordinated to the requirements of equality. As communism and the multicultural experiment have demonstrated, liberty and equality are incompatible, so the ever-greater pursuit of equality results in the ever-greater erosion of liberty. A commitment to radical equality results in the proliferation of laws, state surveillance, police enforcement, prosecutions, incarcerations—and bureaucracies to administrate all of the above, and higher taxes to pay for all of it.

This is nowadays always justified with the argument that unlimited freedom leaves the field open to “fascism” (i.e., inequality), and that liberty must be curtailed in order to protect, guarantee, and maximize equality. We end up with a circular argument, then, whereby equality is good because it increases equality.

Immovable object?

Therefore, the single biggest impediment to the cause of Western man in the West is not lack of knowledge about race, but lack of a moral justification for valuing whiteness and everything it entails. Obviously, to value whiteness gives it a special status, which means inequality. In liberal morality, it is not acceptable to recognize whiteness, because it is a category that exists above the individual, and the individual is supposed to be the measure of all things, a tabula rasa, equivalent and interchangeable with any other individual.

In addition, modern liberalism incorporates a Marxist historiography in which whites are an oppressor class and people of color an oppressed class. This is explicitly the historiography of the postcolonial theory that is taught in Western universities, which privileges the voices of the colored “oppressed.” These voices subject whiteness and the West to radical deconstruction and criticism. Whiteness is, in fact, allowed recognition only when it is linked to oppression; in any other context, a black person has the specificity of his blackness, but a white person has the unspecificity of being simply a human, who is no different from or more special than anyone else.

Thus, belief in the moral goodness of equality is the seemingly immovable object that stands in the way. If politics is the art of the possible, then any campaign predicated on values outside the perimeter of what is morally acceptable—i.e. outside liberal morality—will not be politically possible.

The cause for Western man requires a fundamental shift in consciousness that would begin with a thorough discrediting of the notion that equality is a moral good. Until this has been achieved, ethnic politics privileging whiteness in the West will go nowhere, and it will remain easy for the liberals to shut down debate with the simple expression of outrage and name-calling.

Time horizons

Critics of this view may object that while it may be true that a change of politics will require a change of moral system, the time necessary to achieve this is too long and no longer available to us.

This objection assumes that challenging liberal morality is an entirely new project that must begin from zero. In fact, liberal morality, like all ideological moral systems, is merely a transient phenomenon, whose present dominance conceals the long tradition it once successfully challenged. Since ancient times and until the more recent part of the modern era, Westerners have considered quality more important than equality. Consequently, there is a vast philosophical canon to draw from, recover, reinterpret, and adapt to the modern world. Indeed, this has been the project of the European New Right, and The Fourth Political Theory, by Dugin, is an important contribution to this effort that outlines possibilities for a way forward, though any fourth political theory towards a post-liberal West would necessarily need to be home-grown and have a uniquely Western formulation.

The objection also partakes, inadvertently, in liberal cosmology, which conceives historical processes as linear progressions. In fact, as communism demonstrated, when power changes hands, the transition is not incremental but abrupt, with dissent gestating almost invisibly at first, under the surface, before growing exponentially, achieving critical mass, and producing a sudden change in state. This is also the way transformations occur in nature and the universe.

Liberal morality will eventually collapse. The question in the West is whether it will give way to another, autochthonous morality or to the morality of our conquerors. If the former, historians of the future will probably not see us as a rupture, but as yet another reinvention of European man within his wider metacultural tradition; they are likely to see liberalism as a political-moral-philosophical paradigm that came and went, the way others had come and gone before. Historians of the future may mark the periods of history differently from us, and by tracing the origins of our ideas, may decide that this reinvention was the culmination of a process that had begun centuries before.

Conservative commentators, such as Pat Buchanan, blame the multicultural society in the West on the Frankfurt School of Social Research and other such Freudo-Marxist subversion, and place the watershed moment of social transformation in the 1960s. Mr. Buchanan is, however, a liberal, albeit of a more classical or archaic sort than his critics, who are also liberals. We can trace the origins of the multicultural society much further back, to the Enlightenment, of which the United States (but not the colonies out of which it was organised) is an expression. European New Right intellectuals and historians trace it farther back still, to Christian metaphysics, which sees all men created in God’s image, with salvation available to all.

The question in the West is how much territory we will lose before we can successfully discredit liberal morality. Curtailing those losses will require the artificial precipitation within liberalism of a moral and intellectual crisis that puts current morality on the defensive, generates doubt and loss of confidence in its principles, and leads eventually to panic, overreaction, and loss of credibility. The speed at which this can be achieved depends on complex factors, not to mention a measure of good fortune, but modern technology enables us to communicate and disseminate ideas more rapidly, more widely, and more cheaply than ever before.

Theory into practice

In any movement there are five planes of operation: the intellectual, the strategic, the organisational, the activist, and the man in the street. The first four are the movement proper and the latter is its target, which can be divided into three categories: the committed, who cannot be persuaded either for or against; the persuadable, who are the primary target for recruitment; and the conformist, who is apolitical and will follow whomever looks like a winner.

The activist will be useless, even counter-productive, unless his message and his arguments are informed by a sound, appropriate, and articulable moral theory; unless he is organised to operate credibly and effectively; and unless his organisation has strategies that can translate abstract theory into a pragmatic, results-oriented program of action.

The discrediting of liberal morality will need to be a process that begins with theoretical tracts and ends with protests, sit-ins, strikes, boycotts, and a pattern of establishment compromises and capitulation. The general theory will need to find its way into an endless barrage of narrowly defined, single-issue, winnable campaigns. It will be up to each individual to decide his preferred tactic and field of operation, based on his own strengths, weaknesses, experience, and areas of expertise. In this sense the opportunities are endless.

In the battle for the West the main obstacle in the Anglo-American world has been its aversion to theory. Anglo-Saxon man is pragmatic by nature, not given to philosophical speculation. He prefers to deal in the concrete and the factual. This problem is compounded by the fact that the United States—the world’s dominant power—is an Enlightenment project, whose founding documents were formulated by classical liberals in accordance with their philosophy. United States institutions may have fallen into the hands of hostile elites, but the liberal values of liberty, equality, democracy, and progress remain strong, and are, in fact, exploited by these elites to advance their interests. Theory is important. A way around this is to focus on morality, because Anglo-Saxon man is deeply preoccupied with morality.

The breakthrough will have been achieved when homo equalis is filled with deep feelings of shame when he is confronted with his own beliefs.

Caveats

The destruction of liberal morality will cause the collapse of liberalism. However, the collapse of liberalism will not necessarily mean that the individual values that comprise it will henceforth all be beyond the pale. It may be that not all of liberalism is bad and some of its constituent parts can be repurposed within a different set of value relations. If so, they will not be recognized as part of liberalism.

Also, while theory is important, this does not mean that everyone reading this should become a theoretician. For the Marxist, his theory is everything, but the anti-racist thugs who disrupt conferences and other events, while a product of Marxism, are unlikely to have ever read Marx, for they can hardly read their own names.

Final words

Ultimately, the problem of race realism is reducible to a single idea: that it is not the facts, but how people feel about the facts. The barriers that have limited or prevented the communicability of our proposition will only start to fall away when the value of whiteness can be expressed in righteous tones.

___________________________

See also “The liberal axiom,”
which could be used as a corollary to Kurtagic’s piece.

Tomislav Sunić

“The role that the idea of liberty, equality and fraternity plays in your culture is well known. At depth, they are Christian ideas.”

—John Paul II

 
After watching the videos embedded below, “The Monotheist Mindset and its Secular Modalities,” with both David Duke and Kevin MacDonald attending the conference, I reached the conclusion that, presently, Tom Sunic (in Croatian, Tomislav Sunić) is our intellectual #1.

At that conference in Denmark celebrated in May 2011, Sunić said:

“Basically, my main thesis is that before we tackle our problems of immigration—in fact before we even tackle the problem of Jews and Judaism—, we have to tackle the major issue, which is egalitarianism.” [emphasis in Sunić’s voice]

It was Western egalitarianism what caused the catastrophic emancipation of Jewry in the first place. Sunić also mentioned St Paul’s epistles and the European revolutions of the modern age that created the Euro-Semitic Zeitgeist that is killing us.

Sunić is saying, basically, that Western egalitarianism is even worse than what we might call “a virus for the white mind.” Worse because, although Sunić doesn’t use my computer analogy, the “Operating System” of whites—which is a more fundamental problem than a mere virus infection—has been the altogether intolerant Judeo-Christian monotheism since the fourth century. And it is precisely this theological / axiological mindset that, in its secular form, is at the very core of the current mess. (This includes the American military interventions defending Jewry and Israel in this and the last centuries.)

Over the boards I have said more than once that the prize for saving the white race from extinction is apostasy. But by “apostasy” I don’t only have in mind the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed that I used to listen during the Mass every Sunday. I refer especially to the axiological side of Judeo-Christianity (incidentally, the first days of this month my axiological entry on Nietzsche’s quote received most of the hits).

After watching the above videos I realized that I must purchase Sunić’s books as soon as I can afford them. They will surely enrich my view, already stated at WDH, that “the Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem”: a hypothesis that some American white nationalists are still extremely reluctant to consider.

Nietzsche on the Aryan race

Excerpted from
Twilight of the Idols,
chap. The “Improvers” of Mankind:

1.-

My demand of the philosopher is well known: that he take his stand beyond good and evil and treat the illusion of moral judgment as beneath him.

2.-

A first, tentative example: at all times morality has aimed to “improve” men—this aim is above all what was called morality.

To call the taming of an animal its “improvement” sounds almost like a joke to our ears. Whoever knows what goes on in kennels doubts that dogs are “improved” there. They are weakened, they are made less harmful, and through the depressive effect of fear, through pain, through wounds, and through hunger, they become sickly beasts. It is no different with the tamed man whom the priest has “improved.” In the early Middle Ages, when the church was indeed, above all, a kennel, the most perfect specimens of the “blond beast” were hunted down everywhere; and the noble Teutons, for example, were “improved.” But how did such an “improved” Teuton look after he had been drawn into a monastery? Like a caricature of man, a miscarriage: he had become a “sinner,” he was stuck in a cage, tormented with all sorts of painful concepts. And there he lay, sick, miserable, hateful to himself, full of evil feelings against the impulses of his own life, full of suspicion against all that was still strong and happy. In short, a “Christian”…

3.-

Let us consider the other method for “improving” mankind, the method of breeding a particular race or type of man. The most magnificent example of this is furnished by Indian [Aryan] morality, sanctioned as religion in the form of “the law of Manu.” Here the objective is to breed no less than four races within the same society: one priestly, one warlike, one for trade and agriculture, and finally a race of servants, the Sudras. Obviously, we are no longer dealing with animal tamers: a man that is a hundred times milder and more reasonable is the only one who could even conceive such a plan of breeding. One breathes a sigh of relief at leaving the Christian atmosphere of disease and dungeons for this healthier, higher, and wider world. How wretched is the New Testament compared to Manu, how foul it smells!

Yet this method also found it necessary to be terrible—not in the struggle against beasts, but against their equivalent—the ill-bred man, the mongrel man, the chandala. And again the breeder had no other means to fight against this large group of mongrel men than by making them sick and weak. Perhaps there is nothing that goes against our feelings more than these protective measures of Indian [Aryan] morality.

Manu himself says: “The chandalas are the fruit of adultery, incest, and rape (crimes that follow from the fundamental concept of breeding).”

4.-

These regulations are instructive enough: we encounter Aryan humanity at its purest and most primordial; we learn that the concept of “pure blood” is very far from being a harmless concept. On the other hand, it becomes obvious in which people the chandala hatred against this Aryan “humaneness” has become a religion, eternalized itself, and become genius—primarily in the Gospels, even more so in the Book of Enoch. Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against “race”: the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love.

Semites and Vikings: no love lost

The following is the last part of Chapter 21 of
William Pierce’ book Who We Are:

One would expect to find a spiritual difference between a race bred a hundred generations in the marketplace, where survival depended primarily on a glib tongue and an eye for a bargain, and a race shaped by the killing winters of the North, accustomed to combat and hardship. This difference—the difference between the Jewish spirit and the White spirit—is manifested in the world around us in a thousand ways.

Perhaps nowhere has the contrast between the natural, healthy, adventurous spirit of our race and the spirit of the Jew been more sharply drawn, however, than in a couple of recent issues of the student newspaper published on the Los Angeles campus of California State College. In the first issue was printed a poem by Dr. Peter Peel, who teaches history there. The second issue contained a response to the poem from a Jew at the same college.

Here is the poem, which was titled “Goetterdaemmerung”:

When Spring lightly touches
With hand green and golden
The mountains and fjords,
Then shouts the sea rover,
“A-viking! A-viking!”

The hammers are busy
On weapon and harness.
Then flashes the broad blade
In every sea hamlet.
The dragon ships, thirsty
For bounding blue water,
Leap down to the seashore.

And Olaf of Norway
And Erik of Gotland
And Thorwald the Mighty,
Whose grandsire was Wotan,
Stand fast on the poop deck
With golden hair streaming,
With spear brightly glinting,
With eye fierce and blazing,
Sail out on the swan’s bath —
The grey widow-maker —
For England or Iceland,
Byzantium, Vinland,
Far land or ancient
And ripe for the plunder,
The burning of roof-trees,
The seizing of women,
The tooting of treasure,
The flowing of red blood,
And wine for the victors.

Ah, whence fled those great days,
The days of our fathers,
The days of the valiant,
Of gods and of heroes,
Or fair maids and foul dwarfs,
And lindworms and dragons,
Of Beowulf, Dietrich,
Strong Harald, grim Hagen,
Wolfhart and Siegfried,
The greathearts, the mighty?

Yea loathsome today is
The seed of their strong loins —
The petty, the small, the clod and
the crawler.

The music has gone from the souls of our people.
The thunder has vanished away with Valhalla.
Now meekness and weakness
And womanly virtues
Have shackled, degraded
And shamefully softened
The sons of our fathers,
The sons of the mighty.

And now have we traded
The lightning of storm gods,
The arms of Valkyries,
The halls of Valhalla,
The kiss of wish maidens,
For wings and a nightshirt,
A harp and a halo,
A psalmbook and psalter?
Oh, no, my Lord Bishop!

Hark, grey Galilean,
The Wolf Age is coming,
The great fimbul winter,
When all sick things perish.

A few days after this poem appeared, the following letter headed “Bloodthirsty Sickness,” showed up on the editorial page of the student newspaper:

Editor: The poem about the Vikings in the Nov. 25 issue by Peter H. Peel had real soul and beauty—the soul and the beauty of the bloodthirsty. Let it speak for itself:

With golden hair streaming,
With spear brightly glinting,
With eye fierce and blazing…
And ripe for the plunder,
The burning of roof-trees,
The seizing of women,
The looting of treasure,
The flowing of red blood,
And wine for the victors.

Murder! rape! loot, plunder blood and wine—the wanton destruction of the productive by bloodthirsty savages.

And what do these vicious predator-warriors denounce?

Now meekness and weakness
And womanly virtues
Have shackled, degraded
And shamefully softened
The sons of our fathers,
The sons of the mighty.

Yes, how could one be more degraded in the eyes of these savages than to become like those inferior creatures called women.

Beware you women, blacks, Latins and other lesser creatures. The Blonde Beast “With golden hair streaming” and warm, red blood dripping from his mighty sword shall rise again. Beware you weak and sick of all races for “The Wolf Age is coming… When all sick things perish.”

Meanwhile, I wait for the day when this bloodthirsty sickness of the Blonde Beast shall perish forever from the face of the earth.

—R.A. Klein

On Christianity

During the turbulent and eventful fifth century the Germans largely completed their conquest of the West. In the early years of that century German tribesmen, who had been raiding the coast of Roman Britain for many years, began a permanent invasion of the southeastern portion of the island, a development which was eventually to lead to a Germanic Britain.

In 476 Odoacer, an Ostrogothic chieftain who had become a general of Rome’s armies, deposed the last Roman emperor and ruled in his own name as king of Italy. Meanwhile the Visigoths were expanding their holdings in Gaul and completing their conquest of Spain, except for the northwestern region already held by their Suebian cousins and an enclave in the Pyrenees occupied by a remnant of the aboriginal Mediterranean inhabitants of the peninsula, the Basques.

And throughout the latter part of the century the Franks, the Alemanni, and the Burgundians were consolidating their own holds on the former Roman province of Gaul, establishing new kingdoms and laying the basis for the new European civilization of the Middle Ages. Everywhere in the West the old, decaying civilization centered on the Mediterranean gave way to the vigorous White barbarians from the North.

Oriental Infection. But the Germans did not make their conquest of the Roman world without becoming infected by some of the diseases which flourished so unwholesomely in Rome during her last days. Foremost among these was an infection which the Romans themselves had caught during the first century, a consequence of their own conquest of the Levant. It had begun as an offshoot of Judaism, had established itself in Jerusalem and a few other spots in the eastern Mediterranean area, and had traveled to Rome with Jewish merchants and speculators, who had long found that city an attractive center of operations.

It eventually became known to the world as Christianity, but for more than two centuries it festered in the sewers and catacombs of Rome, along with dozens of other alien religious sects from the Levant; its first adherents were Rome’s slaves, a cosmopolitan lot from all the lands conquered by the Romans. It was a religion designed to appeal to slaves: blessed are the poor, the meek, the wretched, the despised, it told them, for you shall inherit the earth from the strong, the brave, the proud, and the mighty; there will be pie in the sky for all believers, and the rest will suffer eternal torment. It appealed directly to a sense of envy and resentment of the weak against the strong.

Edict of Milan. By the end of the third century Christianity had become the most popular as well as the most militant of the Oriental sects flourishing among the largely non-Roman inhabitants of the decaying Roman Empire. Even as late as the first years of the fourth century, under Emperor Diocletian, the Roman government was still making efforts to keep the Christians under control, but in 313 a new emperor, Constantine, decided that, if you can’t lick ’em, join ’em, and he issued an imperial edict legitimizing Christianity.

Although one of Constantine’s successors, Julian, attempted to reverse the continuing Christianization of the Roman Empire a few years later, it was already too late: the Goths, who made up the bulk of Rome’s armies by this time, had caught the infection from one of their own slaves, a Christian captive whom they called Wulfila. Wulfila was a tireless and effective missionary, and the Goths were an uprooted and unsettled people, among whom the new religion took hold easily. Wulfila’s translation of the Bible into Gothic greatly speeded up the process.

Conversion of the Franks. Before the end of the fourth century Christianity had also spread to the Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards, Gepids, and several other German tribes. A little over a century later the powerful nation of the Franks was converted. By the beginning of the second quarter of the sixth century, the only non-Christian Whites left were the Bavarians, Thuringians, Saxons, Frisians, Danes, Swedes, and Norse among the Germans—and virtually all the Balts and Slavs.

One can only understand the rapid spread of Christianity during the fourth and fifth centuries by realizing that, for all practical purposes, it had no opposition. That is, there was no other organized, militant, proselytizing church competing effectively with the Christian church.

Athanaric the Goth. The Christians had many individual opponents, of course: among the Romans several of the more responsible and civic-minded emperors, such as Diocletian, as well as what was left of the tradition-minded aristocracy; and among the Germans many farsighted leaders who resisted the imposition of an alien creed on their people and the abandonment of their ancient traditions. Athanaric, the great Gothic chieftain who led his people across the Danube in 376 to save them from the invading Huns, was notable in this regard.

Athanaric and the other traditionalists failed to halt the spread of Christianity, because they were only individuals. Although there were pagan priests, the traditional German religion never really had a church associated with it. It consisted in a body of beliefs, tales, and practices passed from generation to generation, but it had no centralized organization like Christianity.

Folk-religion. German religion was a folk-religion, which grew organically out of the people and out of the land they occupied. The boundary between a tribe’s most ancient historical legends and its religious myths, between its long-dead heroes and chieftains and its gods, was blurred at best. Because German religion belonged to the people and the land, it was not a proselytizing religion; the German attitude was that other peoples and races likewise had their own folk-religions, and it would be unnatural to impose one race’s religion on another race.

And because German religion was rooted in the land as well as in the people, it lost some of its viability when the people were uprooted from their land. It is no coincidence that the conversions of the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards, Franks, and many other German tribes took place during the Voelkerwanderung, a period of strife, disorientation, and misery for many of those involved: a period when whole nations lost not only their ancient homelands but also their very identities.

Fire and Sword. After the Voelkerwanderung ended in the sixth century, the Christianization of the remaining pagan peoples of Europe proceeded much more slowly—and generally by fire and sword rather than by peaceful missionary effort. Whereas the Franks had become Christians more or less painlessly when their king Clovis (Chlodweg) converted for political reasons at the end of the fifth century, it was another 300 years before the Frankish king Charlemagne (Karl the Great) was able to bring about the conversion of his Saxon neighbors, and he accomplished that only by butchering half of them in a series of genocidal wars.

Early Christianity, in contrast to German religion, was as utterly intolerant as the Judaism from which it sprang. Even Roman religion, which, as an official state religion, equated religious observance with patriotism, tolerated the existence of other sects, so long as they did not threaten the state. But the early Christians were inspired by a fanatical hatred of all opposing creeds.

Also in contrast to German and Roman religion, Christianity, despite its specifically Jewish roots, claimed to be a universal (i.e., “catholic”) creed, equally applicable to Germans, Romans, Jews, Huns, and Negroes.

The Christians took the Jewish tribal god Yahweh, or Jehovah, and universalized him. Originally he seems to have been a deity associated with one of the dormant volcanoes of the Arabian peninsula, a god so distinctly Semitic that he had a binding business contract (“covenant”) with his followers: if the Jews would remain faithful and obedient to him, he would deliver all the wealth of the non-Jewish peoples of the world into their hands. Observant Jews even today remind themselves of this by fastening mezuzoth to the door frames of their homes, wherein the verses from their Torah spelling out the Jews’ side of their larcenous deal with Yahweh are inscribed (Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21; Yahweh’s reciprocal obligations are in the verses immediately following).

Nevertheless, the early Christian church, armed with an effective organization and a proselytizing fervor, and armored with a supreme contempt for everything non-Christian, was able to supplant Jupiter and Wotan alike with Yahweh.

The Germans, however, recreated the Semitic Yahweh in the image of their own Wotan, even as they accepted the new faith. The entire Christian ritual and doctrine, in fact, were to a large extent “Aryanized” by the Germans to suit their own inner nature and lifestyle. They played down the slave-religion aspects of Christianity (“the meek shall inherit the earth”) and emphasized the aspects which appealed to them (“I come bearing not peace, but a sword”). The incoherence and the multitude of internal inconsistencies of the doctrine made this sort of eclecticism easy.

Yule, Easter, Harvest Festival. In general, the Germans accepted without difficulty the Christian rituals—especially those which, like Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving were deliberately redesigned to correspond to pagan rituals and festivals of long standing—and the myths (parthenogenesis, turning water into wine, curing the blind, resurrection from the dead, etc.), and they ignored the ethics (turn the other cheek, all men are brothers, etc.).

A Frank of the seventh or eighth century would tremble in superstitious awe before some fragment of bone or vial of dried blood which the Church had declared a sacred relic with miracle-working powers—but if you smote him on the cheek you would have a fight on your hands, not another cheek turned.

As for the brotherhood of man and equality in the eyes of the Lord, the Germans had no time for such nonsense; when confronted with non-Whites, they instinctively reached for the nearest lethal weapon. They made mincemeat out of the Avars, who were cousins to the Huns, in the seventh century, and the Christianized Franks or Goths of that era would know exactly what to do with a few hundred thousand rioting American Blacks; they would, in fact, positively relish the opportunity to do what needed doing.

It could not have been expected to be otherwise. In the first place, a totally alien religion cannot be imposed on a spiritually healthy people—and the Germans were still essentially healthy, despite the dislocations caused by the Voelkerwanderung. Christianity had to be modified to suit their nature—at least, temporarily. In the second place, the average German did not have to come to grips with the alien moral imperatives of the Sermon on the Mount. All he had to do was learn when to genuflect; wrestling with Holy Writ was exclusively the problem of the clergy.

It was not until the Reformation, in the sixteenth century, that the laity began studying the Bible and thinking seriously about its contents. Even then, however, the tendency was to interpret alien teachings in a way that left them more or less compatible with natural tendencies.

Slave Morality. But Christian ethics—the slave morality preached in the Roman catacombs—was like a time bomb ticking away in Europe—a Trojan horse brought inside the fortress, waiting for its season. That season came, and the damage was done. Today Christianity is one of the most active forces working from within to destroy the White race.

From the Christian churches came the notion of “the White man’s burden,” along with the missionaries who saw in every African cannibal or Chinese coolie a soul to be saved, of equal value in the eyes of Jehovah to any White soul. It is entirely a Christian impulse—at least, on the part of the average American voter, if not the government—which sends American food and medical supplies to keep alive swarming millions of Asiatics, Africans, and Latins every time they have a famine, so that they can continue to outbreed Whites.

The otherworldly emphasis on individual salvation, on an individual relationship between Creator and creature which relegates the relationship between individual and race, tribe, and community to insignificance; the inversion of natural values inherent in the exalting of the botched, the unclean, and the poor in spirit in the Sermon on the Mount—the injunction to “resist not evil”—all are prescriptions for racial suicide. Indeed, had a fiendishly clever enemy set out to concoct a set of doctrines intended to lead the White race to its destruction, he could hardly have done better.

The “White guilt” syndrome exploited so assiduously by America’s non-White minorities is a product of Christian teachings, as is the perverse reverence for “God’s chosen people” which has paralyzed so many Christians’ wills to resist Jewish depredations.

Moses Replaces Hermann. Not the least of the damage done by the Christianization of Europe was the gradual replacement of White tradition, legend, and imagery by that of the Jews. Instead of specifically Celtic or German or Slavic heroes, the Church’s saints, many of them Levantines, were held up to the young for emulation; instead of the feats of Hermann or Vercingetorix, children were taught of the doings of Moses and David. Europeans’ artistic inspiration was turned away from the depiction of their own rich heritage and used to glorify that of an alien race; Semitic proverbs and figures of speech took precedence over those of Indo-European provenance; Europeans even abandoned the names of their ancestors and began giving Jewish names to their children: Samuel and Sarah, John and Joan, Michael and Mary, Daniel and Deborah.

Despite all these long-term consequences of Christianity, however, the immediate symptoms of the infection which the conquering Germans picked up from the defeated Romans were hardly noticeable; White morals and manners, motivations and behavior remained much as they had been, for they were rooted in the genes—but now they had a new rationale.

Today’s Christian Patriots. And it is only fair to note that even today a fairly substantial minority of White men and women who still think of themselves as Christians have not allowed their sounder instincts to be corrupted by doctrines suited to a following of mongrelized slaves. They ignore the Jewish origins of Christianity and justify their instinctive dislike and distrust of Jews with the fact that the Jews, in demanding that Jesus be killed, became a race forever accursed (“His blood be on us and on our children”).

They interpret the divine injunction of brotherhood as applying only to Whites. Like the Franks of the Middle Ages, they believe what suits them and conveniently forget or invent their own interpretation for the rest. Were they the Christian mainstream today, the religion would not be the racial menace that it is. Unfortunately, however, they are not; virtually none are actively affiliated with any of the larger, established Christian churches.

 

_____________________________

The above is my abridgement of chapter 18 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are. These days I have been reproducing abridged chapters of Pierce’s book at WDH’s addenda: here.

A postscript to Dies Irae

Or:

On the morality of dispatching
500 million of degenerate whites

The following are excerpts from Andrew Hamilton’s November article, “Flawed Racism,” potentially the most axiological-shattering article that, without the knowledge of its readership including the author himself, has been published at Counter-Currents:

1

The depth of evil

The mass media and state-controlled education have displaced the family in the formation and transmission of attitudes, beliefs, behavior, and culture. In addition, the mass media winnows candidates for public office at every level, thereby exerting effective control over the (formerly) democratic political process.

There are many unexplored reasons why TV, movies, video games, pop music, and other forms of media exercise such tremendous influence over our ideas and behavior. A “simple” one, I believe, is the (literal) hypnotic effect they have on us. Hypnosis is associated with heightened suggestibility.

The Jews, as William Pierce recognized, control the mass media of news and entertainment (which he invariably denominated the “controlled media”). There is perhaps no other truism of modern life that he emphasized so repeatedly. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that he never developed, or at least never publicly articulated, a theory of media control, or analyzed the nexus between media messages and human psychology and behavior. Instead, he stated his case axiomatically:

By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence… To permit the Jews, with their 3000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide…

William Pierce also taught that the vast majority of whites are neither good nor evil; they will think and behave in whatever manner the powers that be direct them to. Most people that is, will conform and obey, no matter what. (Pierce called them “lemmings.”)

Only a tiny handful, he said, are truly good or evil—he estimated 1 to 3 percent in either direction. For some reason he believed the number of “good” people, though exceedingly small, was roughly double the number of intrinsically bad people.

My own inclination is perhaps closer to the Christian belief that humans are afflicted with original sin, and can only be saved (become good) through a process of change and redemption.

What I failed to realize for many years was the depth of the evil and the resistance to individual redemption. Obviously, if people are evil when evil people rule, and good only when good people rule, they are not really good.

Nevertheless, people’s beliefs and behaviors can change radically. Change (for the worse) during my lifetime has been massive. Of course, it is easier to destroy than to build.

Unfortunately, if Pierce’s assumptions are correct—and, apart from his optimistic overestimation of the number of good to evil people, they appear to be—then it is comparatively easy with modern technology and dedicated ruthlessness for a small, domineering elite to continuously identify and destroy the tiny handful of good people on the margin, as they did under Communism and have continued to do in the post-WWII era.

As a result, whites opposed to genocide or totalitarianism have failed to gain any traction.

2

My thoughts

“What I failed to realize for many years was the depth of the evil and the resistance to individual redemption. Obviously, if people are evil when evil people rule, and good only when good people rule, they are not really good,” wrote Hamilton.

In other words, people, including the overwhelming majority of whites, are not really good.

If they are not good what could be wrong with the genocidal fantasy in my previous post, with a vindictive Star Child calling home 500 million whites (and of course, all non-whites, including Jews) to, paradoxically, make sure that Lane’s words be fulfilled?

Had the Star Child spared the degenerate whites, how could we be sure that, say, a deranged liberal would not advance the idea of freezing a few of the non-white dead bodies for future cloning to recreate the multiracial utopia—with another surviving white, say a Christian billionaire, sponsoring the project after no non-whites were left alive in the world?

The fact is that, insofar as moral values are inverted throughout the West, the depth of evil among present-day whites is something that, with the honorable exception of William Pierce, no white advocate that I am aware of has been willing to digest.

3

From Pierce’s immortal novel

Then we formed the people into labor brigades to carry out a number of necessary functions, one of which was the sanitary disposal of the hundreds of corpses of refugees. The majority of these poor creatures were White, and I overheard one of our members refer to what happened to them as “a slaughter of the innocents.”

I am not sure that is a correct description of the recent holocaust. I am sorry, of course, for the millions of White people, both here and in Russia, who died—and who have yet to die before we have finished—in this war to rid ourselves of the Jewish yoke. But innocents? I think not. Certainly, that term should not be applied to the majority of the adults.

After all, is not man essentially responsible for his condition—at least, in a collective sense? If the White nations of the world had not allowed themselves to become subject to the Jew, to Jewish ideas, to the Jewish spirit, this war would not be necessary. We can hardly consider ourselves blameless. We can hardly say we had no choice, no chance to avoid the Jew’s snare. We can hardly say we were not warned.

Men of wisdom, integrity, and courage have warned us over and over again of the consequences of our folly. And even after we were well down the Jewish primrose path, we had chance after chance to save ourselves—most recently 52 years ago, when the Germans and the Jews were locked in struggle for the mastery of central and eastern Europe.

We ended up on the Jewish side in that struggle, primarily because we had chosen corrupt men as our leaders. And we had chosen corrupt leaders because we valued the wrong things in life. We had chosen leaders who promised us something for nothing; who pandered to our weaknesses and vices; who had nice stage personalities and pleasant smiles, but who were without character or scruple. We ignored the really important issues in our national life and gave free rein to a criminal System to conduct the affairs of our nation as it saw fit, so long as it kept us moderately well-supplied with bread and circuses.

And are not folly, willful ignorance, laziness, greed, irresponsibility, and moral timidity as blameworthy as the most deliberate malice? Are not all our sins of omission to be counted against us as heavily as the Jew’s sins of commission…?

I cannot think of any segment of White society, from the Maryland red-necks and their families whose radioactive bodies we bulldozed into a huge pit a few days ago to the university professors we strung up in Los Angeles last July, which can truly claim that it did not deserve what happened to it. It was not so many months ago that nearly all those who are wandering homeless and bemoaning their fate today were talking from the other side of their mouths.

Not a few of our people have been badly roughed up in the past—and two that I know of were killed—when they fell into the hands of red-necks: “good ol’ boys” who, although not liberals or shabbos goyim in any way, had no use for “radicals” who wanted to “overthrow the gummint.” In their case it was sheer ignorance.

But ignorance of that sort is no more excusable than the bleating, sheep like liberalism of the pseudo-intellectuals who have smugly promoted Jewish ideology for so many years; or than the selfishness and cowardice of the great American middle class who went along for the ride, complaining only when their pocketbooks suffered.

No, talk of “innocents” has no meaning. We must look at our situation collectively, in a race-wide sense. We must understand that our race is like a cancer patient undergoing drastic surgery in order to save his life. There is no sense in asking whether the tissue being cut out now is “innocent” or not. That is no more reasonable than trying to distinguish the “good” Jews from the bad ones—or, as some of our thicker-skulled “good ol’ boys” still insist on trying, separating the “good niggers” from the rest of their race.

The fact is that we are all responsible, as individuals, for the morals and the behavior of our race as a whole. There is no evading that responsibility.

4

From Pierce’s “Why the West will go under”

The essential aspect of what is happening to the West is spiritual. It is decadence which has sealed the fate of the West, not the birthrate in the Third World. It is the absence of a common purpose which has sapped the West’s viability, not just the scheming of the Jews. It is the loss of racial consciousness which has left the West defenseless, not the growing strength of our enemies.

What is important is that the corruption of the West’s spirit will continue in the years ahead—perhaps for decades—while the increasing anarchy, the more frequent breakdowns of order and flareups of violence, the economic disintegration, will be only incidental. There undoubtedly will come a great bloodletting, a time of mass throat-cutting and mass rape, when the West’s internal enemies will have free rein for a while. But the West will already have sunk before then.

And most of the inhabitants of the West will have sunk too, to the point where little of value will be left to be lost in the bloodletting. This is a point worth emphasizing again: the majority will perish with the civilization to which they are inseparably bound.

The problem is not to cull out the mongrels, the Judaized, the degenerates, the moral prostitutes from a healthy mass, so that the cull can be destroyed and the mass saved. The problem is to pick the few who embody the best of what the West once was and to take the necessary measures to see that that which they embody does not perish with the mass.

Those who would survive—more correctly, those who would have a hand in determining which genes and which values survive, for the time scale of the West’s sinking is such that no individual now alive can be sure of living to see the new age dawn—must have these qualities:

They must be both willing and able to fight for the right to determine the shape of the future; the meek and the disarmed will vanish without a trace.

They must be free of the superstitions and prejudices of this age; those who are mentally bound to this age will go down with it.

They must be pure in spirit and strong in will; this is the age of egoism and materialism, of self-indulgence and permissiveness, but the passage into the new age demands both selflessness and self-discipline.

They must be united in an organization which combines their strengths and focuses their wills; in this age of atomized individuals, where each person is submerged in the mass, without identity and without power, only those who are united can prevail.

They must be motivated by a single purpose, the overwhelming importance of which is always foremost in their minds; it has been the purposelessness of this age on which the West has foundered, but the new age will be illuminated and shaped by a common purpose transcending all other considerations: namely, the purpose of bringing forth a higher type of man and attaining thereby a higher level of consciousness in the universe.

Dies Irae

“The Hellenes of Sparta and Athens both strove to keep their blood pure, but both ultimately perished. The only way they could have survived would have been to eliminate the entire indigenous population, either through expulsion or extermination, from the areas of the Mediterranean world in which they settled.”

—William Pierce

For three years I have been reading white nationalist literature and have come to the conclusion that William Luther Pierce ought to be considered the central intellectual figure of the movement (George Lincoln Rockwell on the other hand was perhaps the noblest individual on this side of the Atlantic). Besides his superb essays Pierce inaugurated the novelesque genre of a revolutionary takeover of white societies, and his axiological ruminations about the history of the white race that he was concluding when he died, like the above epigraph, are still unsurpassed. Present-day pro-whites on the other hand are still comfortably living under the sky of Christian and/or liberal axiology, as I will try to demonstrate in this article. For example, Greg Johnson, the editor-in-chief of Counter-Currents Publishing, has been ambivalent on Pierce. He wrote:

Some time later, on April 22, 2000, I purchased [the novels] The Turner Diaries and Hunter from Dent Myers at his Wildman’s Shop in Kennesaw, Georgia. Frankly, I found them repulsive, The Turner Diaries in particular. Pierce may have been inspired by National Socialism, but his model of revolution was pure Lenin and his model of government pure Stalin. If he had the power, he would have killed more people than Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined. He epitomizes everything about the Old Right model that I reject: one party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide. At the time, I remarked that as a novelist and political theorist Pierce was a first rate physicist.

I regarded him as a monster…

Take note that Johnson’s webzine is considered by some the crème de la crème of white nationalist blogsites, something like the haute culture magazines for the sophisticate, and that he presents himself as a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche to the webzine’s readership.

The trouble with Johnson is not only that he’s living a double life, but that politically he wants to have it both ways: sometimes he seems to be in favor of revolutionary fighting but other times he condemns violence. In Johnson’s own words in his manifesto, “New Right vs. Old Right”, “The only gun I want to own is made of porcelain.”

Doesn’t this amounts to say that his “New Right” rejects winning, since throughout history there has been no nation-building without violence? This is Alex Linder’s most recent pronouncement on Johnson: “His attempt to claim heir to the legacy of Hitler and Mussolini while renouncing actual fighting, and going beyond that to denounce those men’s movements in pretty much the same terms jews do [“I regarded him as a monster…”] is simply bizarre. And that, in particular, he should not be allowed to get away with. Of course, he won’t allow criticism at his site, where I have tried to make it a couple times, so about all I can do is post here.” (For a more complete retort to Johnson’s “porcelain” manifesto see here.)

In my previous post I quoted Nietzsche’s Zarathustra having in mind Johnson’s feminized Nietzscheanism. But what would a genuine Zarathustran voice sound like? Simply put it, someone who advocates the transvaluation of some values back to the pre-Christian mores in the West. I say some and not all as Nietzsche said because, unlike the anti-Christians at VNN Forum I see some important positives in Christian axiology, like trying to abolish the infanticidal exposure of healthy babies in the ancient world.

This said, what stands between Moses’ Old Tables and Zarathustra’s new, half-written Tables—the new ethical code that, ideally, will rule white behavior in a coming thousand-year Reich? At Radio Free Mississippi, Linder recently blamed Christian scruples by means of an example. My paraphrases: What would be our first felling when watching an adult, African-American male in a park replete with blond, unprotected toddlers? Pulling the trigger on the intruding nigger of course! Linder then asked rhetorically what on Earth is functioning as a virus for the white mind that impedes all of us from following our primitive, natural instincts? His answer: “It’s Christianity,” in the sense of our basic moral grammar or “axiology”—not in the sense of doctrine or creed—: a sort of hypertrophy of our sense of decency from a strictly survivalist point of view.

I think that Linder is basically right as to where the virus of the mind comes from, especially now that even Brad Griffin, a self-proclaimed Christian known with his penname “Hunter Wallace” has been unearthing citations of the Yankee mentality in antebellum America. Griffin’s conclusion is that abolitionism was caused by “a moral, religious, and ideological revolution in worldview,” and that “the twin doctrines that are to blame for our decline, which brought about this critical shift in moral outlook, are the Enlightenment’s ideology of liberal republicanism and the spread of evangelical Christianity,” i.e., Neochristianity and Christianity. In my own words, the ingrained meta-ethics within our psyches that place limits to the fourteen words comes from our parents’ religion. Of course, presently this unconscious axiology, that strongly reminds me Asimov’s First Law in I Robot, comes from Christianity’s secular offshoot, liberalism or as I like to say, “Neochristianity.”

Billions will die, We will win

Are you a Nietzschean or a Christian / secular Neochristian? The following is my litmus test to gauge who, despite claims to the contrary, is still internalizing the meta-ethics of our parents’ religion instead of doing a quantum leap into full-blown Nietzscheanism.

In the coming racial wars of the twenty-first century that will come under the apocalyptic sign of Mars and Hephaestus, how many racial enemies do you think will have to be slain to fulfill the fourteen words?

This is my direct answer: If I have to kill five people to fulfill our most cherished words I kill five people. If I have to kill five billion I kill five billion.

Unlike the reactionary writers and pseudo-apostates of Christianity in the movement I consider myself a genuine son of Zarathustra who finds himself sitting and waiting—old Mosaic, broken tables around me and also new, half-written tables—, wondering when cometh mine hour. Present-day Christians and liberals on the other hand are still infected with a virus of the mind that compels them to place limits after the first few thousand killings.

The current paradigm that enslaves almost all whites is like a Red Giant star that has already exhausted its hydrogen core (Christianity). To boot, after the French Revolution the enormous inertia of Christian ethics engendered a meta-ethical monster, now producing carbon from helium. This giant, secular, red shell of liberalism is but the sign of an approaching death in all stars of that size. Though inflated and tenuous, the red shell is still very hot and makes the star’s radius immense. Presently liberalism is covering, and slowly engulfing and burning, the entire West.

As explained in the previous link, if the Red Giant is the present, secularized form of a Christianity that has exhausted its creed, in this moribund stage Christian axiology is paradoxically reinforced in liberal society at the expense of traditional religious doctrine.

Conversely, Nietzscheanism, or genuine white nationalism (all nations are born out of war, iron and blood), is not even one of our firmament’s stars. Like a tiny gaseous sphere already leaving the cradle of the nebulae, white nationalism is accumulating more and more mass that is forming a center of higher density to form a protostar. When enough pressure in the interior rises—when a considerable mass of Nordish Aryans wake up and fight in the real world (like the Golden Dawn)—, it will increase the density and temperature until the gas turns to plasma. Only then a nuclear fusion will be initiated at the core and a new, baby star will be visible in the canopy of heaven.

What prevents nationalists from attracting, by the sheer force of their gravitas, increasingly more spiraling mass to make nuclear reaction possible? Simple. Most whites, including nationalists, still gravitate around the dying Red Giant that, by the next century, will become a mere white dwarf. They’re not really gravitating around the nebulae that’s forming the new star even when Christianity is dying and will certainly be death in the next century. My goal at The West’s Darkest Hour is to point out at the firmament the new constellation of ethics (axiology) that is being formed before any serious discussion can even take place on how to fulfill the fourteen words, our half-written Tables.


The Star Child

One of the earliest reviewers of 2001: A Space Odyssey wrote in 1968 that it was the first Nietzschean movie in history, and it is too bad that Arthur C. Clarke’s literary agent, Scott Meredith, showed Clarke the green bill in the early 1980s to tempt the author into betraying his philosophy and original movie script by writing cretin sequels to his magnum opus. Anyway, before the sequel prostitution took place, in the epilogue to The Lost Worlds of 2001 Clarke wrote:

What lies beyond the end of 2001, when the Star Child waits, “marshaling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers,” I do not know. Many readers have interpreted the final paragraph to mean that he destroyed the Earth, perhaps in order to create a new Heaven. This idea never occurred to me; it seems clear that he triggered the orbiting nuclear bombs harmlessly…

But now, I am not so sure. When Odysseus returned to Ithaca, and identified himself in the banquet hall by stringing the great arrow bow that he alone could wield, he slew the parasitical suitors who for years had been wasting his estate.

Why should we expect any mercy from a returning Star Child? Few indeed of us would have a better answer, if we had to face judgment from the stars. And such a Dies Irae may be closer than we dream…

In the climatic scenes of the film Kubrick’s use of Also Sprach Zarathustra, Richard Strauss’ tone-poem after Nietzsche includes the returning, placental child.

♣

If something has any resemblance to science-fiction’s cathedral it is what in my daemonic soliloquies I call “Neanderthal extermination,” exemplified by Pierce in both the novel The Turner Diaries and in all seriousness in a few passages of Who We Are. Der Juden saw it all right with their Book of Joshua: only ethnic cleansing protects the race from the interbreeding that invariably occurs with time, and the moral I gather from Kevin MacDonald’s second trilogy book is that whites should imitate the tribe by adopting an endogamous form of collectivism in our naïve, individualist societies.

In a recent radio debate on exterminationist anti-Semitism Griffin told Linder that we must describe the Jewish problem like MacDonald does: never hinting to final solutions for fear of being called evil Nazis. But even MacDonald hints to a solution not only to the Jewish problem, but to the many other racial problems that are afflicting the race—though he shall never formulate it openly for fear of losing his tenure:

The Greek and Roman pattern of conquest and empire-building, unlike that of the Israelites described in the Tanakh [Pentateuch], did not involve genocide followed by the creation of an ethnically exclusivist state… [A People that Shall Dwell Alone, page 368]

In his trilogy MacDonald also says that National Socialism mirrored Judaism insofar as providing a symmetrical, albeit antithetical, evolutionary strategy for Aryans and that National Socialism has been “the most dangerous enemy that Judaism has confronted in its entire existence.” What MacDonald refrains from telling Pierce already said in Who We Are (see my ongoing, step-by-step abridgement of Pierce’s last book here).

But let’s elaborate my litmus test even further where I left it (“wondering when cometh mine hour…”).

A thought-experiment

When driving your car in the routine journey to your job imagine you are given a one-week, Star Child powers over planet Earth like the one described by Arthur Clarke above and indulge yourself a little in a thought-experiment: that you are the metamorphosed astronaut Dave Bowman that returns to your home planet after a journey beyond the stars. What would you do…?

Monday. After your second coming to Earth, this time above the clouds and with great power and glory, the first thing that comes to your mind are the traitors in charge of the white nations, so firmly decided to exterminate your people through genocidal levels of immigration, and a feminism run amok that condemns white males to perennial bachelorhood. You condemn to death 5 heads of Western states. At any event, there’s no human power that matches yours…

Tuesday. But is this enough to secure the existence of your people and the future of white children?, enough to be sure that they will survive the West’s darkest hour after your one-week, Overlord power is over? What about terminating 50 of the most notorious, powerful enemies of whites, especially those in charge of the civil, anti-white associations that have been poisoning the well for so long?

Wednesday. “But that’s still too short” you wake up and say to yourself in anguish during these nights of virtual insomnia. After all, you want to be sure that the fourteen words are not threatened by ulterior human behavior in the centuries to come. What about eliminating 500—you say to yourself in the morning—or, still better, 5000 you conclude in the afternoon, of the most notorious leftist academics: those who have been trying to deconstruct the West and have corrupted the minds of the young?

Thursday. Alas for the earthlings!: You’re still confronted by the voice of your consciousness! This day you have to be bold enough and get rid of 50,000 of the media staff that have been demonizing whites and your culture through the world’s mainstream media and Hollywood.

Done… In the end, they had been probably whites’ most serious enemy.

Friday. But aren’t you still too short on numbers?, your inner daemon asks. What about those who believe that the best of the goyim must be destroyed, i.e., the white Aryans? They’re still breathing… What about calling home 500,000 non-gentiles or even, more conclusively, 5,000,000; —oh no!—, better fifteen million for a final solution of the non-gentile problem, you conclude in the evening.

Saturday. Alas. You find out that you’re still too short to be a hundred percent sure that our most sacred words will be fulfilled after your power evaporates by tomorrow midnight. You just remembered that the Red Giant is still covering the whole West with the suicidal flames of Neochristianity. And you are not a monocausalist after all… Wiping out the subversive tribe was not enough, not barely enough you are starting to suspect, in a world where most whites have been turned into body-snatched pods. In this weekend that your powers will vanish you must confront the view that the Zeitgeist that has been destroying your people since the Second World War is ultimately based on Christian ethics, and that this hypertrophy of the white super-ego has virtually infected all whites. You don’t want to take any chances unless and until they have been cured from their suicidal, malignant lunacy—which won’t happen by itself within your weekend of Overlord power. Why not calling home once and for all 500 million of the infected whites, the deranged, out-group altruists?

Sunday, The Day of The Lord. Not enough! (sob…). Your dwindling powers are not enough to see the future and be certain that the conservative whites whose lives you just spared will have the nerve to deport those millions of non-whites who have been breeding like rats throughout your lands. So you take a fateful, ultimate decision. You will make of this final day a scorched-Earth moment, a wrathful and vindictive day since only full revenge has the power to heal a wounded soul… Only thus you will make it sure that the racial aliens won’t be invited again by the potential altruists who, unbeknownst to you, escaped from your wrath yesterday and may fall into their old habits in the far future. After all, doesn’t the mental disease of whites, universal moralism, predates Christianity? And after Christianity started to expand a thousandfold into Neochristianity, didn’t your people’s sense of fairness and pity towards non-whites became infinitely more threatening for your goal than the depredations of the (now defunct) tribe? Presently you remember the last chapter of the Zarathustra, “The Sign,” when Zarathustra rises in the morning and finds a lion outside his cave, which he takes to be a sign that the Overman is finally coming. This new Zarathustra—you—rises triumphantly, realizing you have overcome your final sin: pity. And so you don’t want to take any chances with the surviving Neanderthals—not in this big day of yours! You go for the only figure that really solves the problem in a single stroke. You play God. You take the lives of 5 billion or a little more of non-whites experiencing the same remorse that you experienced when you took the first 5 lives almost a week ago…

A favor

How far would you go chasing over Dave’s 14 words—white children for the endless ages to come before the Sun really turns into a Red Giant? I ask you this favor: Indulge yourself in the above thought-experiment when you go to work and suffer the sight of those non-Aryan faces that the system socially-engineered for you (but please first watch 2001 in one of your days off so that you may grasp the film’s religious message unmolested by any external noise).

Don’t respond here which number of deaths, or until which day of the week, you imaginary chose to intervene in mankind’s destiny. My Gedankenexperiment only gauges your internal morals for you.

César Tort

Mexico City

On exterminationist anti-Semitism

Or:

The art of having my cake and eating it too

Last year, at Counter-Currents Greg Johnson wrote:

To win this battle, it might be necessary for some of us to become monsters who cannot return to normal society to enjoy the fruits of victory. We need leaders who are willing to sacrifice their immortal souls to this cause. I don’t believe there is an immortal soul, but psychologically speaking what passes for it are immortal scruples or absolute principles other than victory. All these need to be slain and sacrificed on the altar of victory.

Sounds pretty Linderite to me! Himmler and his SS henchmen would be proud of Greg’s words at the esoteric meetings celebrating the summer and winter solstice in Nuremberg.

But at Alex Linder’s own forum a few days ago Greg rebuked me for taking seriously William Pierce’s ethnic cleansing fantasies once the white revolutionaries take over (“…and Pierce’s absurd Nordicism and repugnant exterminationism have only reinforced my sense that something about your critical faculties is not quite right”).

I am tempted to argue in coming entries, perhaps at the Addenda, that the late Pierce, not the more conservative figures in today’s pro-white movement, held the upper moral ground. But first I’d like to say something more about

Greg Johnson

Unlike the later Nietzsche, it seems that Greg still subscribes Christian doctrine and, inadvertently, Christian axiology too, i.e., the inversion of values. This is the diametric opposite of the indented quotation above. Consciously or unconsciously, I believe that Greg lies to himself and his readership by claiming that he already left Christianity behind.

See for example what he said in a December, 2010 lecture at the Swedenborgian Church of San Francisco. Alas for Greg, the lecture was recently “outed” in the pro-white community, much to his embarrassment. At the Swedenborgian meeting Greg Johnson said:

“What most inspired me was his [Swedenborg’s] discussion of the life of Christ and the meaning and the mystery of that… Swedenborg gave us the means to understand that mystery.”

After quoting Scripture Greg asked, “What does it mean to say that ‘God is with us’?” and went into a theological peroration where he added:

“…a child was born. A child that somehow was the God of eternity. This unique incarnation is the great mystery. It is the conundrum of theologians and metaphysicians. Why was Jesus born? Why did God become man? Swedenborg claims that this was not part of Plan A… Jesus was Plan B… because of certain contingencies that [should not have] happened.”

Greg then used autobiographical vignettes mentioning his childhood and his father to illustrate “Plan B,” presumably what God felt obliged to do when mankind fell into the original sin. He even mentioned the word “salvation.” At some point Greg seemed to endorse the infinitely monstrous—the real monstrosity, not my endorsement of Pierce’s views—belief that it’s within God’s freedom to send us to Hell. (As an aside, see my theological piece on eternal damnation here.) After speculating on the Second Coming, Greg finished his lecture with an “Amen” and the Swedenborgians started to pray.

Listen to the audio linked above to hear, in Greg’s own voice, the above thoughts. Greg’s lecture sounds like the Catholic doctrine I was taught as a kid before my First Communion.

Apparently, Greg has two personas. He is a Nietzschean at Counter-Currents and a pious Christian at his church in San Francisco. He literally had it both ways before his activities with the Swedenborgians were outed. As to his other persona, take note of what Greg Johnson commented this year at The Occidental Observer:

[Christianity] did undermine racial exclusivity for nearly 2,000 years. Racial and subracial differences were no bar to marriage, as long as both parties were Christian.

And at another blog:

Christianity will not be dead until its secular offspring, liberal universalism, is dead as well. But you know that, don’t you? Christian fanatics are precisely the ones who believe that blood differences don’t matter.

I wonder what would his Swedenborgians friends say if they hit in the internet these impious comments (see my brief collection of anti-Christian comments authored by Greg here).

My purpose here is not to psychoanalyze Greg but to show that, with his kind of closet Christianity, he is not the genuine Nietzschean that I previously thought. Given his doublethink I even doubt that Greg can be a consistent leader in advancing the nationalist agenda. Just compare his Himmler-like advice that could have been taught at Wewelsburg Castle (“To win this battle it might be necessary for some of us to become monsters…”) with his more recent pronouncements (“…and Pierce’s absurd Nordicism and repugnant exterminationism”).

OK, were it not absolutely necessary to transvaluate the inverted values back to “master” (not “slave”) morality in order to save whites from extinction, I wouldn’t have extended on Greg’s duplicity above. But see the opening words of chapter 56, “Old and New Tables” of Thus Spake Zarathustra, the new Moses:

Here do I sit and wait, old broken tables around me and also new half-written tables. When cometh mine hour?

Not yet at Counter-Currents… I’m afraid to say that its editor-in-chief seems to specialize in the mischievous art of having my cake and eating it too.

Brad Griffin

Brad Griffin (“Hunter Wallace”) is the administrator of the popular blogsite Occidental Dissent that focuses on the conflict between his beloved Dixie and the treasonous Yankees. In his recent discussion with Alex Linder, Brad challenged his opponent’s exterminationism with a very tough question:

Let’s suppose you were handed a Glock. There is a 6 year old female Jewish child in the room across the hallway. Could you walk into the room next door, point the gun at the child’s face, and pull the trigger? If so, how many times could you do it?

How many people here [VNN Forum] could do it? Anyone?

In the last few years Brad has also called Alex a “sociopath” precisely because of Alex’s “exterminationism” on a purely intellectual plane. And it’s worth noting that a couple of years ago, in an interview that Jim Giles apparently deleted, Brad issued the same challenge to Jim but this time imagining a hypothetical seven year-old Jewess (I remember so well the edge in Brad’s voice). Independently of what Alex and his henchmen at VNN Forum have said about Brad’s tough question, I’d like to respond to Brad directly:

I would not shoot the girl.

This said, final solutions on the millions of adults who pose serious threats to the fourteen words must be considered. My own preferred solution to the Jewish problem is stopping all Jewish immigration; designating Judaism as a political, endogamous, racial evolutionary strategy hostile to the West—instead of a just another “religious faith”—and placing legal restrictions on it throughout the White world; initiating Jew out-migration, and the quarantine of the Jewish people within Israel.

However, what bothers me, as I confessed in “Vanguardist poll,” is that apparently Jews have the right to openly and unabashedly fantasize about exterminating us (“The best of the Goyim must be destroyed”—The Talmud), while, at the same time, whites feel extremely dismayed when one of us dares to return the favor.

Kevin MacDonald

Yesterday Jim Giles interviewed Kevin and directly asked the professor what does he think about Alex’s exterminationist anti-Semitism. The show reminded me Jim’s now deleted interview of Brad two years ago, when Brad pleaded to save the little, thoroughly hypothetical Jewess with anguished edges in his voice. Since then, Jim has revisited his previous tolerance of Alex’s exterminationism and is now dismayed that Alex and a few of his VNN commenters openly advocate permanently getting rid of the subversive tribe.

In yesterday’s interview, Kevin told Jim that Alex’s exterminationist position is “pretty crazy and counterproductive.” The good professor also said: “That’s the kind of thing that I think is absolutely detrimental,” and used the term “black eye” as to how would nationalists be seen in public relations after such pronouncements.

VNN Forum of course takes the opposite stance. In one of the threads commenting these inter-blogs exchanges a Serbian wrote, “White nationalism shouldn’t be about ‘appealing’ to the impotent, superstitious, feminine and mentally sterile. Whites need leaders who think like jews, not christ morons.”

Well, while I see the point in the recent Jim Giles show, it still bothers me that the West tolerates exterminationist anti-Whitism pronouncements by the Jews while, at the same time, it freaks out when hearing that someone of us advocates exterminationist anti-Semitism.

A chutzpahthic double-standard!

Iberians’ gross blunder

Half a year ago the admin of a Catholic, counter-Jihad website in Spain commented in this blog.

Mexico’s backwardness has been the result of its governments after independence, which has been mostly in the hands of whites. Its historical demise is due to the fact that the whites are not breeding, as it is the case, unfortunately, of so many white nationalists.

I quote this friend because his Catholic views reflect exactly the ideology that ruined this part of the American continent: blaming the few whites in charge of a nation consisting of a sea of brown people and sparing the Catholic, Universal ethics that caused the non-white population explosion in the first place.

Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans is a comprehensive book about the odyssey of the white race, presently available only in printed format. After a long transcontinental research Kemp concludes that colonization is only successful when the colonizers ensure that they demographically replace the native population. “Anything less than that will cause the colonial experiment to fail.” Kemp demonstrates his thesis not only through the paradigm of his native Rhodesia, but of every other geographical entity that had been conquered by whites in the last millennia only to be re-conquered by the natives after overwhelming the white conquerors demographically.

Although William Pierce died before he could manage to put an insightful work on the history of the white race in book form, Who We Are, fortunately his manuscript is available on the net. Pierce arrives to similar conclusions: ethnic cleansing is the only way to succeed, and, as he hinted in other texts, to do that we must abandon Christian meta-ethics altogether.

Over the boards I’ve said it many times and will say it again: Pace my Christian friends, the price to save the West is to give up Christian axiology, and its secular offshoots, that presently are infecting our minds and our sense of decency.

♣

Excerpted from the 22nd article of William Pierce’s “Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race”:

The native Amerinds found by the Spaniards in the West Indies were, like those of the mainland, of Mongoloid derivation, being the descendants of Mongoloid peoples who had begun crossing the Bering Strait from Siberia to North America some 12,000 years ago and had then gradually propagated throughout the empty North and South American continents and the adjacent islands.

Since the Spaniards’ entire purpose in the New World was economic exploitation, not the propagation of their own race, they did not deliberately liquidate the native population. In some areas, however, that was the inadvertent effect of the Spanish conquest. The Indians were not constitutionally suited to the unremitting slave labor in the gold and silver mines and on the sugar plantations which was forced on them by their new masters, and they died like flies under the Spanish yoke.

An enormous toll was also taken by smallpox, a disease endemic among the Europeans but one to which the Amerinds, isolated as they had been for thousands of years, had no natural immunity. It virtually depopulated the Caribbean islands and then wreaked havoc among the mainland Indians. (The Indian revenge was syphilis, a New World disease entirely new to the Europeans—at least, in the new and virulent form in which it existed among the Amerinds.)

Beginning of the Black Tide

Because of the inadequacy of the Indians as a local labor force, the Spaniards almost immediately began importing Negro slaves from West Africa. The latter belong to a race ideally suited to the plantation labor of that era. The Blacks were first used in the West Indies, then on the Brazilian mainland. Approximately a million of them were imported in the period 1550-1650, and by the latter date they had completely replaced the Amerind natives as a slave labor force on the Caribbean islands.

(Spanish-English translation of the painting footnote: Spaniard, Mestizo, Indian)

Approximately 150,000 Spaniards and Portuguese had migrated to the New World by the middle of the 17th century, and natural increase had raised their number to about 400,000. They ruled over about 9,000,000 Indians—and a growing population of mestizos (Indian-White mixed breeds), Blacks, mulattos, and Indian-Black mixed breeds. Only on the island of Cuba was there anything approaching a truly White Spanish or Portuguese community.

Northerners Arrive

From the beginning of the 17th century, however, Northern Europeans—English, French, and Dutch—began seriously contesting the Iberians’ claims on the New World. By 1650 nearly 50,000 English (and a few thousand French and Dutch) immigrants were settled on Caribbean land wrested away from the Spaniards, and another 50,000 had landed in North America.

In sharp contrast to the Spanish and Portuguese colonists, the great bulk of the Northern Europeans came to the New World not to exploit non-White labor and make money, but to settle and work the land themselves, in all-White communities. Thus, colonialism acquired two quite distinct meanings in the 17th and 18th centuries: a strictly economic meaning, which applied to all the Southern European and some of the Northern European colonies; and a racial meaning, which applied almost exclusively to the colonies of the Northerners.

The Pollution of the South

Today the only countries in South America which are substantially White are Uruguay (nearly 100 per cent), Argentina (between 80 and 90 per cent), and Chile (approximately 50 per cent).

Women and Plows

Most of the Northern Europeans who came to the New World had quite different motives than did the Spanish and Portuguese. Most of the latter came only to make money, and relatively few brought their women with them; from the beginning miscegenation was common in the areas controlled by the Iberians.

The Northerners, on the other hand, came for the land and the opportunity for a new life on a new frontier. They brought their women and their plows with them, and for the most part, they did their own labor. They saw in the Indians no opportunity for economic exploitation, but only a danger to their families. Until missionaries began making Christians of the Indians and taking their side against the Whites, the latter just pushed them aside, took their land, and formed all-White communities of farmers, craftsmen, and tradesmen, as they had in Europe.

♣

Note:

I’ve written extensively
on the Spanish conquest of Mexico here

Quotable quotes

The Left is all about Christian ethics.

♣

The [third world] population explosion is not caused by liberalism, it is caused by Christianity.

♣

Unless we leave Christian ethics, we will perish.

(Conservative Swede)