My impression on Vidal’s “Julian”

Our times are as decadent as the 4th century Rome of the Common Era, an age of treason that dragged our civilization straight into a dark night of the soul that lasted a millennium.

Tom Sunic is surely right in inviting would-be nationalists to become familiar with literature that balances the purely left-hemisphere, intellectual approaches to our western malaise.

The best historical novels ever written are Gore Vidal’s Julian (1964) and Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose (1980), which cover the gap that my high school skipped over: the zeitgeist of the peoples during Christendom, with Vidal covering its origins when the “Galileans” conquered state power to advance their cult, and Eco its apex in the fourteenth century.

This is my translation of what I wrote in the novel’s blank pages by the end of 1991, when I read a magnificent, hardcover English-Spanish translation of Julian that my girlfriend gave me as a present in Barcelona.

With pencil I wrote:

Now that I read the book, its antichristian message surprised me. What did the book-reviewers could have said?

I would feel appalled to know if the assassination of Julian was historical. I’ll have to check it out…

But the antichristian message of the last pages represents the moral of the story: the first clearly antichristian novel that I know. I wish that Kubrick makes a film of it instead of his dream about a Napoleon movie.

If I interpret the novel correctly, the emergent Christian authoritarianism was the storms harvested after the sowing of winds (the Roman state had persecuted the Christians before). But what makes me furious is that there were no groups that defended Hellenism with their teeth and nails!

What impressed me the most about the book is that it really makes one hate the Christians. I wish it had been published in those times! However, if the assassination of Julian by a fanatic Christian was not historical, Vidal could be accused of fabricating facts in search for drama. This is the most important event of my reading. I’ll find out next Monday when they open the library or perhaps even write the author.

I did go to the library and wrote to Vidal two decades ago but did not receive an answer. According to the Wikipedia article of today, the novel is historically accurate.

I wish I could know whether other assertions of the novel were historical. For example, Vidal makes Julian say in a specific moment (I only have the Spanish translation that Anabel gave me, so I can’t quote the original text) that “thirty years ago” Rome’s archives contained several contemporary reports about Jesus’ life, but they disappeared, destroyed by instructions from Constantine.

But the real climax of the novel are the words of Libanius, telling to himself in painful soliloquy after his most beloved, young disciple deserted him after converting to Judeochristianity that no invention from man can last forever, not even Christ: man’s most noxious invention.

Libanius was a historical figure, the one who claimed that Julian had been assassinated by a Christian. The novel ends with an aged Libanius feeling utterly alone in a world gone mad, telling silently to himself in the solitude of his study that the light of the world was gone with Julian, the last hope for our civilization; and that there was nothing left but let the darkness fall on the West and await for a new sun. A new day. In the future…

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/hating-the-christians/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

6 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. As to what I said recently in another thread, that nationalists should shun out-of-the-closet homos, I concede that Gore Vidal has been an overt homosexual. But in 1959-1963, when he wrote the novel, he was more discreet.

    I find Vidal’s autobiography repulsive. But his Julian is great. “Take heed of a poet’s work, not of the poet’s life”.

  2. Chechar, what are your thoughts re, on the one hand, Christianity having abolished child murder, child sacrifices, and, on the other hand, the negative aspects that you point out, authoritarianism etc.?

    I’m always wondering what could have brought upon that Christianity was able to spread and dominate. It must have appealed to a great many people, isn’t it? Why did it so?

    On a different note, re G. Vidal’s homosexuality. Did I understand you correctly that you promote the killing of homosexuals? According to radicalism, Umwertung aller Werte? If so, what do you think of that approach in light of a homosexual being the author of a pivotally important book? What’s more important: to kill homosexuals or keep the chance for important books?

    Accidently I stumbled upon a comment over at CC: “Aryans learned long ago about the law of compensation and that scrawny men are often gifted mentally – and worth treating with some respect.”

    Law of compensation. A related thought here:

    Those born in the thirteen days of Yule (id est from the 21st or 22nd of December to the 2nd or 3rd of January), those born with a “victory shirt”, those born blind, those whose mother died during labour, those born with one blue and one green eye (like David Bowie, I may add), those born with a limp, or those born with some other “mark” were seen as predetermined to become Pagan priests and priestesses

    Those with some… deviances were used for special tasks.

    In a comment at CC that Johnson would not let pass (I hope, only for my insufficient English) I pointed out a very similar thing re Alan Turing, ingenious mathematician who may have contributed to the defeat of Gemany in WW II with his decryption methods.

    Can you even afford to not have that guy on your team regardless him being a homosexual? If he is able to win you a war? (that the wrong side won is not the issue here).

    Law of compensation: maybe there is some truth to it? We don’t know if there is a connection between deviant traits and certain uncommon aptitudes, but I think it’s conceivable.

    So why the radicalism? You define homosexuals as sick, or so. The old Germanic people found kind of sick babies, blind, limp etc.: why would they not kill them? They were not radical.

    • Chechar, what are your thoughts re, on the one hand, Christianity having abolished child murder, child sacrifices, and, on the other hand, the negative aspects that you point out, authoritarianism etc.?

      This is a very important, absolutely fundamental issue. Thanks for mentioning it. The answer is complex for a mere thread comment. I partly responded it in the fourth book of my Whispering Leaves.

      I’m always wondering what could have brought upon that Christianity was able to spread and dominate. It must have appealed to a great many people, isn’t it? Why did it so?

      I also tried to partly respond it there but have been thinking of writing another in-depth essay on Christianity and put it in this blog. I might do it but only after I finish with these “antichristian” series. For the moment, look for the quotations of psychohistorian Robert Godwin in my fourth book. I also mentioned it in a response to a question long ago raised by my father in Gitone’s magic: where I explain my philosophy about homosexuality.

      On a different note, re G. Vidal’s homosexuality. Did I understand you correctly that you promote the killing of homosexuals?

      No: you didn’t. I merely said that those out-of-the-closet, wildest homos who organize parades or S&M fairs in the San Fran streets would be punished with death during the race wars and in The Day of the Rope (you have to read Covington’s Quintet to understand the context of his inspirational novels).

      Law of compensation.

      Yup: there’s much truth in it.

      So why the radicalism? You define homosexuals as sick, or so.

      Depends on what sort of homosexuality. It’s not the same the vulgar sodomite, which comprise the overwhelming majority of homos, and the archangel Tadzio: the needle in the haystack. I see them as absolutely antithetical creatures. One deserves my pink badges for the camps, while the other deserves being model for Greek sculpturing or a featured film. Did you read what I said recently about the films Pulp Fiction and Death in Venice?

      Again, read my Gitone’s magic.

  3. Chechar
    The Immutable Law of Attraction & Repulsion applies, not prejudice.
    What logic would you apply to lesbians, hermaphrodites and transvestites?
    You ignore the obvious: Biology confirms that sexual orientation is determined in the womb by chemical synthesis which determines the degree of masculinity and femininity in the offspring.
    The human brain is androgynous since the left hemisphere in the male
    brain is female and the right hemisphere is male but neither hemispheres predominate over the other except in the extreme.
    This is why the balanced and the extreme exist in human nature.
    You also ignore the Law of Numbers:1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 in birth dates i.e: 1950-1951-1952-1953-1954-1955-1956-1957-1958-1959-1960 the deciding factor in destiny is the last numeral digit in the birth date.
    This is why many famous people who arise from obscurity to fame or wealth are born 9 and 0 years. Gandhi (9) Hitler (9) and so on.
    All numbers have a positive and negative influence on the degree of success or failure in all spheres of life.
    You also ignore celestial influence in human nature, planet earth is not separate or distinct from the planets within the solar system and we (humans) are not ALL ALONE.
    Any rationale the deviates from the ALL INCLUSIVE is the product of the asylum.

    Saintclair

    • I don’t believe in either the current dogma that “biology / genetics is destiny” or in astrology / numerology. Both bioreductionist and paranormal pseudosciences are mind-rotting bunk.

      • “Everything is genetic” is indeed a modern genre of fatalism. Fatalism was a very serious philosophy during the Middle Ages, it postulated that everything happening to men was the result of God’s will, and that God was omniscient and omnipotent.

        Note that I don’t specifically blame Christianity here, fatalism was also very present in the Islamic world.

        The psychological effect it produced on people was very simple: it replaced action by inaction. Everyone looked at his present situation, and told to oneself “I am where I am now because God wanted it, and there’s no way to improve my situation except by praying and being faithful to God”.

        Imagine the damage it produced on whole countries! The sudden stop in technological progress that happened after the fall of the Old World can be attributed by half to fatalism, by the other half to the intrinsic femininity (passivity) of the abrahamic religions.

        Today, the “everything is genetic” fatalism claims that Whites as a race are doomed to slavery or extinction because Jews are genetically superior to them…

        Yet history proved that one sufficiently strong-willed man could change the course of history. Of course, intelligence helps, but without belief and purpose this quality is useless.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: