Yesterday the image of The Fair Race still enjoyed the privilege of being up on the sidebar. Today I put Day of Wrath in its place and I would like to explain my reasons.

I did not write The Fair Race, I only chose the essays that appear between its covers. The Fair Race is for normies. It opens with an essay on how the founding myth of the post-WW2 West—the defamation of Germany—is lethal to the Aryan race. That essay, together with the review of Hellstorm that is also collected there, could perfectly be the first two stones for the normie to start crossing the psychological Rubicon. In The Fair Race there are many other essays by several authors that could be considered as the rest of the path stones that help the uninitiated to finish crossing the river.

Day of Wrath, on the other hand, describes the land at the other side of the Rubicon. Unlike The Fair Race, I wrote all the essays in Day of Wrath; most of them published in my two books in Spanish, and translated into English for Day of Wrath.

The typical normie needs the stones to be able to cross the river. I needed them myself. The normie would be frightened if we drove him to the other side without the proper preparation.

This uninitiated may need to listen to the proponents of Alt-Lite, who do not focus on racial issues, before moving on to the stone of race realism. But the latter consists of bare scientific facts that the normie will assimilate at some time, and he will want to know a meta-perspective that encompasses such facts; let’s say, the intellectual product of some pundits of the Alt-Right. Eventually it will be necessary to continue crossing the river and run into the Jewish question and White Nationalism. But White Nationalism is still a stone inside the dangerous waters. Only a few become familiar with the beach on dry land on the other side of the river, National Socialism. But the Third Reich was murdered almost in its origins by Anglo-Saxon traitors, and there is hardly anyone in the world who has explored the inland beyond the beach, on the other side of the Rubicon.

Day of Wrath explores these new lands. It is a text that carries the philosophy of Himmler and Pierce to its ultimate consequences. If one sees the images that I chose for the two books, The Fair Race and Day of Wrath, he will perceive that only by expelling non-whites from the continent (that the white god Quetzalcoatl has just discovered) it will be possible for nymphs as ethereal as the one painted by Parrish almost one hundred years ago, to flourish. In other words, the exterminationist ideology must come first, then the fourteen words will have a chance to be fulfilled: something that those who are stepping on the path stones cannot see.

For reasons that I do not understand, today I received the last edition of Day of Wrath by FedEx when I requested it by ordinary mail. As can be seen if we compare it with the image of the sidebar, only my initials appear in the November 2018 edition. It is a book about which only one review has been written. The review was very negative and I rebutted it (here). But the criticism had a valid point: my old version was riddled with syntax errors. I had to run a grammar correction program to correct them since English is not my mother tongue.

The corrected edition that came to me today, with its new glossy cover, looks better than the previous edition, distributed by Amazon. Compared to the racial issue, Day of Wrath addresses the greatest of taboos. As one German disciple of Alice Miller, whose father had an important position in the Third Reich, said, the subject of the psychic ravages caused by abusive parents ‘is the most potent taboo of mankind’.

On the other hand, racism was not a taboo for the white man. From the ancient Egyptians who put up signs so that negroes did not pass beyond certain latitudes, the Spartans so proud of their Nordic heritage and the Roman patricians, as well as the Visigoths who burned at the stake those who miscegenated in Hispania, until the first decades of the 20th century when eugenics was openly taught in the US, racism only became taboo since the Anglo-Saxons betrayed our dear Führer.

Yes, only for the new generations has racism become a taboo. But what has never been discussed before, until our times, is the horrific way in which parents have been treating their children—something that is still taboo today, as no one wants to see that those who become schizophrenic were driven mad by their own parents. (See e.g., the series on psychiatry that I’ve been reproducing every Friday.)

That is the central theme of Day of Wrath, combined with what I’ve said to bring Pierce’s exterminationism out from the mere novelesque genre: a great excursion, already inland, after we reach the other side of the river.


  1. César,

    I get crap from everybody – from clients, from people in general who irritate me, sometimes from people on here. Plus my nephew has just died.

    So I thought I’d have a look on your blog to see what you have posted, in the hope you’d cheer me up. I see I’m now getting crap from you as well. Anglo-Saxons didn’t betray the Third Reich. Maybe some of the leaders of Britain did – though even then, it was only some – but most Anglo-Saxons were simply doing as they were told, which is what ordinary people everywhere do. And at least they were doing what they were told in defence of their own country (even if the premise and propaganda was a lie).

    This is what it’s like being an Englishman – you get it in the neck for everything, for all the vicissitudes and problems of modernity. I’m surprised we’re not blamed for ‘global warming’, even for the weather.

    And who are these ‘Anglo-Saxons’ anyway? As an Englishman with what I imagine is pretty typical genetics, I am a presumed mixture of Celtic, Viking, Indigenous Briton, and yes, Anglo-Saxon. By the look of me, I shouldn’t be surprised if I have a bit of Mediterranean in me too, probably Italian if so, but maybe Spanish – perhaps we’re related?

    I will be buying your book, though, and I will give it a positive review regardless.

    • > “And who are these ‘Anglo-Saxons’ anyway?”

      It’s shorthand to refer to the Americans, the British and more. Remember, not only the United Kingdom but Australia and New Zealand declared war on Germany. The gringos were the most serious traitors.

      • But that is inaccurate at a very basic level. Anglo-Saxon and Saxon are palingenic synecdoches for English, not for British heritage peoples. It’s also the case that quite a lot of Americans are of other ethnicities entirely: especially German (in the Midwest particularly), Irish and Italian. White Australians include quite a lot of Irish.

        I am confused by these archaisms, which are imprecise and seldom used at any level of British society. On another thread here, somebody referred to ‘vile Saxons’. We’ll be hearing about drunk Vikings next.

        This is more than just quibbling. Take the trouble to define the target, please. We don’t normally attack Jews by calling them Semites, as the term is not precisely synonymous for Jewish people exclusively.

        The point is that the minute you have to define your target, you then realise (or should realise) that this stuff is just b.ollocks. I think the reason you and others use these silly archaisms is because deep down you feel insecure about the matter and you don’t want to name an actual people.

        It would be like me disliking Czechs but deciding that instead of simply making my attack on them factual and saying something like, ‘Czechs caused the War by provoking Hitler into an invasion and then lying about the Munich Agreement’, I would say something like, ‘Those Bohemians seriously betrayed Hitler! They’re all genetically Jewish!’. It’s just lazy twaddle.

        As an aside – you’ll know better than me, but I always thought ‘gringo’ was used by Spanish speakers to refer to any non-Hispanophone foreigner, not just Anglophones. Again, there’s confusion about terminology. If we assume by ‘gringos’ you mean British heritage peoples, they weren’t the biggest traitors. The British people did not betray Germany either in 1914 or 1939 (or anywhere around those dates). The leaders of Britain may have done – and I happen to think they did – but they were not typical of ordinary British people, as you well know. Ordinary British people just want the same things as other ordinary white people. You can’t seriously think that the ordinary Briton wanted war with Germany. Yes, some will have done, and yes most white Britons today are brainwashed and idiotic on this topic, but the typical attitude at the time was not this. It can’t have been: people facing a war, especially on that scale, never want it.

        Also, you mention nothing of the betrayal of Germany by the Czechs and Slovaks or the Hungarians or the Poles, all ethnicities that are genetically quite close to Nordics. This is rather significant because, while I do accept that Britain started the War, this was the result of diplomatic and military issues that were provoked by the Slavs and the eastern Europeans. The real betrayal of Hitler was actually around the Munich Agreement and its pretext, and its breach by the Poles and Czechoslovaks, who later got to claim they were victims. There are also the Russians to consider, who had quite a large white component to their population at the time. They betrayed Germany too and the Soviet Union was the biggest factor in Hitler’s defeat, in my view.

      • Five years ago on this site, a Briton named Roger opined about suicidal Britons: here.

    • “Anglo-Saxons were simply doing what they were told”

      You know, César visited Joseph Walsh in London, a few years back.
      When he got there, he took a taxi, and had a chat with the driver – a typical blond, blue-eyed English working classman. It went something like this:

      “So, how do you like London?”
      “Nice place… but the people… I don’t know… there’s a lot of Blacks and Arabs around…”
      “Yes, London’s got all types, from all over the world. It’s very multi-cultural.”
      “And what do you think of all these foreigners in your country?”
      “Me? Oh, I LOVE THEM.”

      The English will suffer what they must, just like every White country will suffer in this rotten modern world for “doing what they were told” 80 years ago.

      Look at it this way: the more your people suffer, the more they are scorned, the closer they will get to waking up, and eventually, redeem themselves. It’s like a worldwide arms-race, or in this case, a “suffering-race”. If the English are getting lambasted for past wrongdoings, it’s a sign that other peoples are waking up beforehand.

      P.S. My condolences for your loss.

      • Absolutely! If there’s something that I learned in my most recent trip to England and Scotland, it is that most of them are already Body-Snatched Pods, as even a half-kike who I used to like before my JQ awakening wrote!

      • Cesar was in Britain in 2014 and I invited him to stay at my place. Even back then, 4 years ago, I remember him being baffled about how no-one seemed angry and full of hate at what is happening. He was asking back then “Where’s your fucking hate?”. Instead he met a typical Englishman (the cab driver, not me) who loves his enemies.

        The English have felt the consequences of the majority of their forefathers waging war on National Socialist Germany for some time now. But they just adjust to the ever-worsening circumstances and stubbornly refuse to admit they did wrong by waging war on Germany. They compound their forefathers crime by—instead of making good for their mistake—continuing on with their wrongdoing. Consequently since Victory Day on the 8th May 1945 the British have been engaged in one gigantic act of national suicide. Whether there will eventually come a point at which they can endure no more national suicide I don’t know but I doubt it. If imminent national death doesn’t cause British men to fight for their nation nothing will. I suspect the British will go the way of the South Africans and just roll over and die. Many have emigrated and many more will continue to emigrate.

        By 2050 the English will be a minority in England. By 2030 (White) British babies will be a minority of all babies born in England and Wales. I think there is a high chance several long-established white nations will go down the drain of history and I think the English could be one of them (I doubt the USA will last beyond the 22nd century). If current trends persist into the 22nd century I’d say the English are finished. The population of the UK is projected to exceed 100 million next century which means the British would be an ever-decreasing ethnic minority. The death of a nation. From the birth of the English in the 4th century AD to the death of the English in the 22nd century AD.

        The UK is already a clown show. Parliament has 52 non-white MP’s and 20 Jewish MP’s. It has 206 female MP’s including the Prime Minister. This in a Parliament that once banned Jews and women from being MP’s. And it would have been unthinkable for non-whites to be MP’s. The second most powerful position in government, that of the Home Secretary, was given to a Paki Muslim. He deals with stopping terrorism in the UK! (and since he became Home Secretary the number of racist white people arrested has exceeded that of Muslim terrorists). The Shadow Home Secretary of the opposing Marxist Labour Party is a low IQ nigger named Diane Abbot who wants no restrictions on mass immigration. The UK police are a poitical police that enforce PC Marxist thought crimes and ‘hate crimes’ in between celebrating LGBT rather than dealing with actual crime. We have an enormous problem with Muslim pedophile rape gangs raping white girls all across Britain. Tons of mosques in the UK. Though Muslims are only 7% of the UK. Wonder what it will be like when they become 17% of the UK as they are projected to become by 2050? If trends continue eventually the number of Muslim babies will exceed that of British babies.

        I could go on and on but it is absolutely tragic what has happened to the British. I say this as someone slightly prejudiced in favour of the English/British as I am 1/4 English myself and have lived in England all my life. The greatness of Englishman like Shakespeare, Darwin, Mosley, Orwell, Tolkien finds great favour with me. From the heights of the Victorian era, from having conquered a quarter of the globe to the lowest depths of the early 21st century (and we no doubt have even lower depths to reach). What a tragedy. Though I’m sure many, both white and non-white, look at what has happened to us with glee and say we deserve it. Whether we deserve it or not I won’t speculate on for now.

      • Joseph: At midnight I’ll post a piece which endnote contains a brief reference to so-called ‘bipolar disorder’. Keep tuned.

      • For europe to survive , british race should perish , a small portion of them can live in their holy land Israel with their blood brothers.

        The death of Britain and its people is a necessary thing , if only Adolf has understood the truth about Anglos world would have been much better place.

        Adolf should have launched an attack of Britain instead of poland, had britain been obliterated and ethnically cleansed, world would not be plagued with the problems that we have today

      • >For europe to survive , british race should perish , a small portion of them can live in their holy land Israel with their blood brothers.

        We already have Bronze Age DNA from the Levant. They had no notable connection to Europe.

      • @Joseph Walsh

        Our forefathers did not wage any war against Imperial Germany or Nazi Germany. Their leaders did. The nuance is quite important.

        That ancestor of mine who drowned in the mud on the French beach was a 19-year-old. He didn’t declare war on anybody. He simply did as he was told.

        My grandfather, the navy gunner, came back from the War and spent the rest of his life as a drunk sleeping in bus shelters. Who did he declare war on? What did he benefit from any war?

        Yes, we can acknowledge that Britain started the War. I agree about that, but there’s room for some nuance and balance here. You don’t need to over-egg things in order to make the point.

    • A casual walk in any english town can teach a lot about Perfidious albion, for outsiders its clear who eternal an Anglo is and his behaviour.

      Just like a black man in africa cannot understand what nigger means, because he may identify with his tribe and the word nigger is unknown to him ,because to him such tribe never existed, but for any non african or european or perhaps arab can discover strange peculiarities in african racial and ethnic behaviors.

      Similarly an eternal Anglo cannot understand what that term signifies but for other european folk who are not as contaminated as anglos, they do understand they behavior that typifies an Anglo.

      If we presume that contamination of blood results in degradation of racial character , then we can conclude that an Anglo is not an European , he is completely a mongrel specimen alien to traditions of continental europe.

      In Gist , we can say an Anglo is much closer to Jew in his character,personality,sexuality and his genetic predisposition to treachery and mammon worship, the character traits we usually associate with semites.

      An anglo is less European and more Jew, trust him and you would regret for another 1000 years.

    • Brother Genetic tests are lying to you, if you are true english man, you would find your DNA has high correlation with Ashkenazim, Shepherd than vikings or Germans .

      Holy land of Anglos is Israel not UK or England.

      • Why do you seem to Believe that the English are Jews?

      • He’s a LARPer who’s ashamed of his heritage.

      • @ Aldon

        He’s not a “LARPer”. He’s just a c.unt.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: