Day of Wrath, 5

Julian Jaynes and the bicameral mind

In recent decades several historians without any link to the deMausean school have written about thirty books on histories of childhood. I will mention only a couple of those published in 2005: When Children Became People by Odd Magne Bakke and Growing Up: The History of Childhood in a Global Context by Peter Stearns. DeMause has iteratively complained that books of this sort are presented to history students as if childrearing in the past had been as benign as Western childrearing in our times. Stearns for example is author and editor of more than forty books, but he attempts to absolve the parents by claiming that infanticide had an economic motivation; when it is well documented that in some periods infanticide was more common in well-off families.

Psychogenesis is the process of the evolution of empathy, and, therefore, of childrearing forms in an innovative group of human beings. In a particular individual it is an evolution of the architecture of his or her mentality, including the cognition of how the world is perceived. A “quantum leap” in “psychoclasses” depends on the parents’ breaking away from the abusive patterns in which they were educated; for example, stop killing their children: a prehistoric and historic practice that deMause calls “early infanticidal childrearing.”

A fascinating essay by Julian Jaynes throws light on how, by the end of the second millennium before our era, a huge alteration occurred in human mentality. In 1976 Jaynes published The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Jaynes calls “breakdown” the transit of bicameral mind—two chambers or brain hemispheres—to modern consciousness. The transit is relatively recent, and it represents a healing process from a divided self into a more unified or integrated one. Jaynes describes how society developed from a psychological structure based upon obedience to the god’s voices, to the subjective consciousness of present-day man. Like deMause’s psychohistory, Jaynes’ model caused many of his readers to see mankind from a new perspective. He elaborated a meta-narrative purporting to connect the loose pieces of previously unconnected fields—history, anthropology, ancient texts, psychiatry, language, poetry, neurology, religion, Hebrew and Greek studies, the art of ancestral societies, archaeological temples and cuneiform writing—to construct an enormous jigsaw puzzle.

Jaynes asked the bold question of whether the voices that people of the Ancient World heard could have been real, a common phenomenon in the hallucinated voices of present-day schizophrenics. He postulated that, in a specific lapse of history a metamorphosis of consciousness occurred from one level to another; that our present state of consciousness emerged a hundred or two hundred generations ago, and that previously human behavior derived from hearing voices in a world plagued with shamanism, magical thinking, animism and schizoidism.

In the Ancient World man had a bipartite personality: his mind was broken, bicameralized, schizophrenized. “Before the second millennium B.C., everyone was schizophrenic,” Jaynes claims about those who heard voices of advice or guides attributed to dead chiefs, parents or known personages. “Often it is in times of stress when a parent’s comforting voice may be heard.” It seems that this psychic structure of a divided or bicameral self went back to cavemen. Later in the first cities, the period that deMause calls “late infanticidal childrearing” (Jaynes never mentions deMause or psychohistory), the voices were attributed to deities. “The preposterous hypothesis we have come to is that at one time human nature was split in two, an executive part called god, and a follower part called man. Neither was conscious. This is almost incomprehensible to us.” Preconscious humans did not have an ego like ours; rational thought would spring up in a late stage of history, especially in Greece. However, orthodox Hellenists usually do not ask themselves why, for a millennium, many Greeks relied on instructions coming from a group of auditory hallucinating women in Delphi. To explain similar cultural phenomena, Jaynes lays emphasis upon the role that voices played in the identities, costumes and group interactions; and concludes that the high civilizations of Egypt, the Middle East, Homeric Greece and Mesoamerica were developed by a primitive unconscious.

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind describes the theodicy in which, three thousand years ago, subjectivity and the ego flourished. For the common man consciousness is the state of awareness of the mind; say, the conscious state at walking. Jaynes uses the term in a more restricted way: consciousness as the subjective universe, the self-analyzing or self-conscious mind; the “I,” the will and morality of an individual, as well as the development of the linear concept of time (which used to be cyclic to the archaic mind, perhaps due to the observation of the stations of the year). The man who left behind his bicameral thinking developed a more robust sense of the self, and Jaynes finds narrative evidence of this acting self in the literary record. He examines Amos, the voice of the oldest Old Testament text and compares it with the Ecclesiastes, the most recent one. Likewise, Jaynes scrutinizes the Iliad looking for tracks of a subjective self, and finds nothing. The Homeric heroes did what Athena or Apollo told them; they literally heard their gods’ voices as the prophets listened to Yahweh’s. Their psyches did not display brightness of their own yet. (If we remember the metaphor of my first book, the mentality of ancient man was similar to what astronomers call a “maroon dwarf”: a failed star like Jupiter, not a sun with enough mass to cause nuclear fusion so that it could shine on its own.) Matters change with the texts of Odysseus’ adventures, and even more with the philosophers of the Ionian islands and of Athens. At last the individual had accumulated enough egocentric mass to explode and to shine by itself. Jaynes believes that it was not until the Greek civilization that the cataclysm that represented the psychogenic fusion consolidated itself.

By Solon’s times it may be said that the modern self, as we understand it, had finally exploded. The loquacious gods, including the Hebraic Yahweh, became silent never to speak again but through the bicameral prophets. After the breakdown of divine authority, with the gods virtually silenced in the times of the Deuteronomy, the Judean priests and governors embarked upon a frenetic project to register the legends and stories of the voices that, in times of yore, had guided them. It was no longer necessary to hallucinate sayings that the god had spoken: man himself was the standard upon which considerations, decisions, and behaviors on the world rested. In the dawning of history man had subserviently obeyed his gods, but when the voice of consciousness appears, rebelliousness, dissidence, and even heresy are possible.

Through his book, which may be called a treatise of psycho-archeology, Jaynes follows the track of how subjective consciousness emerged. His ambitious goal is to explain the birth of consciousness, and hence the origin of our civilization. Once the former “maroon dwarfs” achieve luminescence in a group of individuals’ selves, not only religious dissent comes about, but regicide, the pursuit of personal richness and, finally, individual autonomy. This evolution continues its course even today. Paradoxically, when the West reaches the stage that deMause calls “helping mode” in child-rearing, it entails ill-fated consequences such as Caucasian demographic dilution and the subsequent Islamization of Europe (as we will see).

Although Jaynes speculates that the breakdown of the bicameral mind could have been caused by crises in the environment, by ignoring deMause he does not present the specific mechanism that gave rise to the transition. Due to the foundational taboo of human species, explained by Alice Miller in my previous book and by Colin Ross in this one, Jaynes did not explore the decisive role played by the modes of childrearing. This blindness permeates The Origin of Consciousness to the point of giving credibility to the claims of biological psychiatry; for example, Jaynes believes in the genetic basis of schizophrenia, a pseudoscientific hypothesis, as shown in my previous essay. However, his thesis on bicameralism caused his 1976 essay to be repeatedly reprinted, including the 1993 Penguin Books edition and another edition with a 1990 afterword that is still in print.

In the bicameral kingdoms the hallucinated voices of ancient men were culturally accepted as part of the social fabric. But a psychogenic leap forward gives as much power to the new psychoclass as the Australopithecus character of 2001: A Space Odyssey grabbing a bone. “How could an empire whose armies had triumphed over the civilizations of half a continent be captured by a small band of 150 Spaniards in the early evening of November 16, 1532?” The conquest of the Inca Empire was one of a handful of military confrontations between the two states of consciousness. A deMausean interpretation would lead us to think that it was a clash between the infanticidal psychoclass and an intermediate state of ambivalent and intrusive modes of childrearing. The Spaniards were clearly up the scale of “psychogenic leaps” compared to the Incas.

This reading of history is diametrically opposed to Bartolomé de Las Casas, who in his Apologética Historia claimed that in some moral aspects the Amerindians were superior to the Spanish and even to Greeks and Romans. Today’s Western self-hatred had its precursor in Las Casas, who flourished in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In identical fashion, in the 21st century it is irritating to see in educational TV programs an American in Peru saying that the Incas of the times of the Conquest “were much smarter than the Spanish.” The truth is that the Incas did not even know how to use the wheel and lacked written language. They literally heard their statues speak to them and their bicameral mind handicapped them before the more robust psyche of the Europeans: something like an Australopithecus clan clashing with another without bones in their hands. The Spaniards were, certainly, very religious; but not to the point of using magical thinking in their warfare stratagems. According to a 16th-century Spaniard, “the unhappy dupes believed the idols spoke to them and so sacrificed to it birds, dogs, their own blood and even men” (this quotation refers to Mesoamericans, the subject-matter of the next section). The Peruvian Mario Vargas Llosa believes that his ancestors were defeated due to a pragmatic and basically modern European mentality in contrast to the magical thinking of the natives; and the Mexican Carlos Fuentes wrote that the conquest of the American continent was a great triumph of the scientific hypothesis over the indigenous physical perception.

Jaynes overemphasizes that the prophets of the Old Testament literally heard Yahweh’s voice. Because the minds in the Ancient World, like present-day schizoid personalities, were swarmed with sources of hallucination, humans still lacked an inner space for retrospection and introspection. Bible scholars have debated at length about what could have caused the loss of prophecy gifts in the Hebrew people after the Babylonian exile. I would say that the elimination of the sacrificial practice of infants meant a leap toward a superior psychoclass, with the consequent overcoming of the schizoid or bicameral personality.

But going back to Jaynes: Formerly terrestrial and loquacious, the later mute gods were transported to a heaven, making room for human divination: the consultation of human beings that (for having been raised by more regressive parents I may infer) still heard the fateful voices. Even though the divine voices made themselves unnecessary for the new kind of human, praying continued to a god who was incapable, centuries ago, of communicating through divine voices.

The entire succession of [Old Testament] works becomes majestically and wonderfully the birth pangs of our subjective consciousness. No other literature has recorded this absolutely important event at such length or with such fullness. Chinese literature jumps into subjectivity in the teaching of Confucius with little before it. Indian hurtles from the bicameral Veda into the ultra subjective Upanishads. Greek literature, like a series of steppingstones from The Iliad to the Odyssey and across the broken fragments of Sappho and Solon toward Plato, is the next best record, but still too incomplete. And Egypt is relatively silent.

Jaynes’ book is dense, closely argued, and despite its beautiful prose often boring. But the chapter on the Hebrew people titled “The Moral Consciousness of the Khabiru” is must reading. If he is right, it was not until the fifth century before the Common Era when the bicameral mind began to be seen as the incapacitating disorder that is presently labeled as psychosis. In contrast to the mystic psychohistorian Robert Godwin, I am closer to Jaynes in that one of the most persistent residues of bicameralism is our religious heritage.

Jaynes, who died in 1997, may be the proverbial author of a single book, but many people continue to read The Origin of Consciousness. Tor Norretranders, a popular author on scientific subjects, expanded the bicameral hypothesis in a book published a year after Jaynes died, The User Illusion, and he cites more recent investigations than those collected by Jaynes.
Popperian falsifiability

Despite the book’s popularity and the fact that Jaynes taught in Princeton University and did archaeological work, his colleagues did not pay him much attention. Many academics reject theories that have been presented through literary books. It is understandable that a book with such lyric passages has been ignored by the dry science taught in the psychology departments; by neurobiologists, and by evolutionary theorists. Jaynes, basically a humanist, had not presented his theory in a scientific or falsifiable format.

Adepts of social sciences grant such authority to the hard sciences that, when they run across a text that emphasizes the humanities, they want to see everything translated to the language of science. They do this in spite of the fact that, in the reign of subjectivity, hard sciences are incapable of producing something truly significant. Notwithstanding this scientific demand, I concede that if we humanists make claims that could be interpreted as scientific hypotheses, it doesn’t hurt to present them in such a way that they may be refuted, if per chance they are wrong. Consequently, I must make it very clear that the trauma model is falsifiable.

For instance, it occurs to me that, if the model is correct, in the Israeli kibbutz children cannot be easily schizophrenized. The cause of this would be, naturally, that in the kibbutz they are put farther away from potentially schizophrenogenic parents than the children in nuclear families. Something similar could be said about Jaynes’ ideas. His hypothesis can be presented in falsifiable form always provided that the presentation is done through a deMausean interpretation of it, as we will see almost by the end of this book.

Once it is conceded that even humanists who venture into foreign lands can present their theories in falsifiable form, I must point out that very few academics, including psychologists, are willing to delve into the darkest chambers of the human psyche. To them it is disturbing that prehistoric man, and a good deal of the historic man including their ancestors, had behaved as marionettes of hallucinated voices or nonexistent gods. Jaynes’ ideas represent a serious challenge to history as it is officially understood and even more to religion, anthropology, and psychiatry. He seems to postulate that a scant connectivity of the two brain hemispheres produced voices, and that the changes in consciousness caused the brain to become more interconnected through the corpus callosum. In case I have interpreted him correctly, I am afraid it is not possible to run tomographs on those who died millennia ago to compare, say, the brain of the bicameral pythoness against the brain of the intellectual Solon. Let’s ignore this non-falsifiable aspect and focus on hypotheses that may be advanced by epidemiologists in the field of social sciences. Studying the changes of incidence patterns of child mistreatment through history or contemporary cultures is a perfectly falsifiable scientific approach.

In the book reviews of The Origin of Consciousness available on the internet it can be gathered that the experience of many readers was as electrifying as a midnight ray that allowed them to see, albeit for a split second, the human reality. If the ultimate test for any theory is to explain the most data in the simplest way, we should not ignore the psychohistories of Jaynes and deMause. If they are right, the explanatory power of an unified model would help us understand part of the human mystery, especially religion and psychosis.


The objective of the book is to present to the racialist community my philosophy of The Four Words on how to eliminate all unnecessary suffering. If life allows, next time I will publish here the section on schizophrenia theorist Silvano Arieti. Those interested in obtaining a copy of Day of Wrath can request it: here.

Three-eyed raven, 4

Editor’s note. This is exactly what contemporary white nationalists, unlike those American eugenicists of yore, are still unwilling to acknowledge.

This should be the ABC of racial studies, but when will nationalists be willing to travel with the Raven and learn the lessons of the remote past?


As the prosperity of Athens grew, more and more foreigners crowded into Attica, with intermarriage inevitably occurring. A temporary halt to the pollution of the Athenian citizenry by the offspring of aliens came in 451 B.C., when the great Pericles pushed through a law restricting citizenship to those born of an Athenian father and an Athenian mother. Only four decades later, however, in order to make up the enormous losses suffered in the Peloponnesian War, Athens bestowed citizenship on tens of thousands of foreigners.

And in the fourth century, although the citizenship law of Pericles remained on the books, every variety of Levantine mongrel was claiming Athenian citizenship. The banking industry of Athens, for example, was entirely in the hands of Semites, who had taken Greek names and were awarded citizenship for “service to the state,” much in the way Jews and Negroes have been elevated to the British “nobility” by the score in recent decades.

Intermarriage was rife, and the darkening of the Hellenes of Athens was well under way. Racial, moral, and cultural decline went hand in hand. The second-century historian Polybius described his countrymen as “degenerate, pleasure-seeking beggars, without loyalty or belief, and without hope for a better future.”

In the reign of Augustus, the Roman writer Manilius reckoned the Hellenes among the dark nations (coloratae genies). And so the Athenians, like the Spartiates, passed from the pages of history.

If it is difficult to believe that as great a state as Athens could pass from Nordic genius and glory to mongrelized squalor in a few centuries, just think for a moment of the racial transformation of America which has taken place in a single century. And imagine what America will be like two or three centuries hence (barring a White revolution), when Whites are a minority, outnumbered by both Blacks and Chicanos. America’s technology and industry may coast along for a century or two on the momentum acquired from earlier generations, as Athens’ culture did, but the American people—the real Americans—will have passed from the pages of history.

The passing of the Hellenes must be regarded as one of the greatest tragedies of our race. A great-hearted and noble people, filled with genius and energy, they seized upon the resources in labor, material, and land which their conquest of the conservative Mediterranean world offered, and they wrought one of the most progressive civilizations this earth has yet seen. Indeed, many of their creations remain unsurpassed to this day.

This catastrophic mixing of bloods has occurred over and over again in the history and prehistory of our race, and each time it has been lethal. The knowledge of this has been with us a long time, but it has always failed us in the end. 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.


Note: The above quotations of William Pierce’s book are contextualized in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (available: here). If life permits, next Tuesday I will comment on another passage from the history of the white race coming from the pen of the American ‘Raven’.

Three-eyed raven, 2

Indented paragraphs are taken from Who We Are by William Pierce:

The four centuries between the Dorian invasion and the flowering of the literate Classical civilization are referred to by most historians as “the Dark Age,” for much the same reasons that the period between the fall of Rome, more than fifteen centuries later, and the flowering of Mediaeval civilization is also called “the Dark Ages.”

In both cases a people of an older civilization, who had begun to succumb to racial mixing and decadence, was overwhelmed by a more vigorous and racially healthier but culturally less advanced people from the north. And in both cases a period of gestation took place over a dozen generations or so, during which a synthesis of old and new elements, racial and cultural, occurred, before a new and different civilization arose from the ruins of the old.

Unfortunately, most historians tacitly assume that the records of political and cultural activity which have come down to us from periods of civilized literacy provide all the data needed to yield an understanding of the historical process. The state of development and degree of organization and complexity of city life are taken as a yardstick by which to evaluate the significance or historical importance of a particular period. And if one’s standards of value are geared to such things as the volume of commerce, the gross national product, or even the intensity of scientific, literary, and artistic activity, such a yardstick may seem, at first glance, to be proper.

But there are other standards of value, such as those of the National Alliance, which differ somewhat from the customary ones. For it is not in the external forms of organization and activity of a people that we see the most important criteria for making a judgment as to the significance of a particular period, but rather in the actual racial constitution of a people and in the dynamic processes which, for better or worse, are influencing that racial constitution.

Unfortunately, those are not the standards of white nationalists. For instance, it is common among anti-nordicist WNsts to use the card of the Iberian conquests of the 16th century and the Iberian colonisation in the following centuries as proof that Iberians were equal to the English—completely ignoring the fact that in those centuries Iberians were polluting their blood both in the Americas and in the peninsula itself; in the case of Portugal, even with Negroes.

Although the basic racial constitution of a people is always intimately related to that people’s achievements in commerce, science, industry, art, politics, and warfare, still the two sets of criteria can lead to fundamentally different evaluations of a given historical period. This is a consequence of the fact that race building and decay are usually strongly out of phase with civilization building and decay.

Thus, the long ages between the periods of maximum civil activity—ages which the historian customarily ignores as being of only slight importance—may very well be periods of the greatest interest from a standpoint of racial dynamics.

It is, of course, true that the periods of maximum civil activity are precisely those which yield a maximum of written records, artifacts, and the other raw materials from which the historian builds his tale. But relative abundance of evidence should not be interpreted as equivalent to relative historical significance, regardless of the historian’s value criteria.

The record of the rise and fall of pure races constitutes the primary history of mankind, and the rise and fall of civilizations occupy a place of secondary importance. This statement may seem self-evident to those already accustomed to looking at history from a racial viewpoint, but it is by no means generally accepted by historians today. Until it is, much historical writing will continue to be flawed in a fundamental way.

This meta-perspective radically changed my normie POV of History. Now I see that the Early Middle Ages (or early medieval period), lasting from the 5th to the 10th century CE, is pivotal to understand Europe. Without the Raven’s powers of retro-cognition and his chapters on Greece and Rome, it would never have occurred to me that the periods when the race is consolidating in its purity are the fertile ground on which the best Aryan culture will grow. It is enough to compare English-speaking countries in this continent with those speaking Spanish and Portuguese to prove it. (Unlike ignorant white nationalists I don’t use “North America” because this term, in fact, includes Mexico.)

Something similar could be said about Europe. The anti-nordicism among many white nationalists is so religiously blind that they have not even been able to assimilate the genetic catastrophe that happened in Portugal. Anti-nordicism is one of the many reasons why I believe that white nationalism must die in the United States in the pursuit of a new religion for whites that embraces the ideals of German National Socialism.

Changing the subject, on Skype I have discussed with my friends about the Nazi symbols. Correct me if I am wrong: but it seems to me that you do not believe that we should use the symbols of the Germans of the last century.

My answer is that the swastika is a universal symbol for the Aryan race. Why not create a pro-white movement on both sides of the Atlantic using flags with the colours of the flag of each nation? From this angle, the swastika flag of American nationalists will include red, blue and white—in contrast to red, black and white in the flag that Hitler devised.

Note: The above quotations of Pierce’s book are contextualized in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (available: here). If life permits, next Tuesday I will comment on another passage from the same visionary chapter on Greece coming from the pen of the American Raven.

Three-eyed raven, 1

(The Raven almost seemed to be a part of the tree himself, tangled up in the roots as he was. Being stuck in a tree didn’t seem to matter to the old man much as he could consciously leave the body and make observations, and also have retrocognitive visions at will.)

How guilty are whites for their condition is easy to find out if we would only heed the visions of the only American who has written a story about the white race. Elsewhere I have said that in his weekly lectures, William Pierce gave the impression of subscribing to what I call type A bicausalism. But Who We Are, a mental voyage into the past of the white race, gives the strong impression that he was inclined to B type bicausalism.

I have already quoted long excerpts from his book on this site, on the Addenda and in the collection under the cover of the printed book The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. Yesterday it occurred to me that once a week I could comment on certain passages of Who We Are. For example, in the chapter on ancient Greece, Pierce tells us:

And there were also the non-Greek Pelasgians, the Mediterranean aborigines, who occupied the lowest stratum of Greek society and substantially outnumbered the Hellenes in Mycenaean times. As pointed out in the last chapter, the Mycenaean Greeks were influenced culturally by these Mediterraneans—and, as time passed, racially as well.

‘Three-eyed crow’, in the epic fantasy novels A Song of Ice and Fire, is an honorary title for the rarest paranormal visionary man among the hyperborean visionaries. I chose the title of the Raven for this new series because Pierce was, in my opinion, the mind that saw with greater clairvoyance the past, the present and glimpses of the future of the white race. It’s a real misfortune that Who We Are has not become a bestseller among American racists. That’s because, I believe, what the three-eyed raven saw most white nationalists do not want to see.

We could illustrate it with a scene filmed below the heart tree in Castle Winterfell in the latest episode of Game of Thrones. Sansa Stark left her brother Bran, who inherited the visionary powers of the previous ‘raven’, under the heart tree because of a disturbing revelation: Bran had seen exactly how Sansa looked on her wedding day. He had not been there physically: it was an out-of-body experience of something that actually happened miles away in the real world.

Like Sansa, white nationalists also leave the scene when confronted with a vision by a three-eyed raven. Consider this passage of Who We Are for example:

The Dorians, who had settled in central Greece a few years earlier, proceeded to conquer the Achaeans, occupy the Peloponnesus, and extinguish Mycenaean civilization. But, in so doing, they prepared the way for the rise of a new civilization which would greatly surpass the old one. Displaced Achaeans, Aeolians, and Ionians migrated to new areas, sometimes displacing those people already there and sometimes amalgamating with them.

As we can observe in the forums of white nationalists, they do not want to distinguish between Nordics and Mediterraneans to say openly that there should be no genetic admixture between them. Unlike not only Pierce but also the National Socialists, nordicism scares them. For example, not long ago Greg Johnson, commenting precisely on this chapter, criticised Pierce’s value judgments on a conquest that had exterminationist tones of these mingled Greeks when the nordish Dorians started to migrate southwards. Pierce continues:

The Dorians were blonder than the Achaeans they conquered, but that is only because the Achaeans had been mixing with the Mediterranean aborigines for several centuries before the Dorians arrived; originally the two tribes had been of the same racial composition. But the Achaeans were certainly more civilized than the rude, new arrivals from the north, and it was 400 years before Greece recovered from the cultural shock of the Dorian invasion.

All of these passages from Pierce’s book are duly contextualized in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (available: here). If life permits, next Tuesday I will comment on another passage from the same visionary chapter on Greece coming from the pen of the American Raven.

Guide to investing in gold & silver, 1

by Mike Maloney


Chapter One:
The Battle of the Ages

Throughout the history of civilizations an epic battle has always been waged. It is an unseen battle, unknown by most of the people it affects. Yet, all feel the effects of this battle in their daily lives. Whether it be at the supermarket when you notice that a gallon of milk is a dollar more than it was last time, or when you get your heating bill and it has unexpectedly jumped by $50, you are feeling the effects of this hidden battle.

This battle is between currency and money, and it is truly a battle of the ages.

Most often this battle takes place between gold and silver, and currencies that supposedly represent the value of gold and silver. Inevitably people always think that currency will win. They have the same blind faith every time, but in the end, gold and silver always revalue themselves and they always win.

To understand how gold and silver periodically revalue, you first need to know the differences between money and currency.

Throughout the ages many things have been currency. Livestock, grains, spices, shells, beads, and paper have all been forms of currency, but only two things have been money. You guessed it: gold and silver.

A lot of people think currency is money. For instance, when someone gives you some cash, you presumably think of it as money. It is not. Cash is simply a currency, a medium of exchange that you can use to purchase something that has value, what we would call an asset.

Currency is derived from the word current. A current must keep moving or else it will die (think electricity). A currency does not store value in and of itself. Rather, it is a medium whereby you can transfer value from one asset to another.

Money, unlike currency, has value within itself. Money is always a currency, in that it can be used to purchase other items that have value, but as we’ve just learned, currency is not always money because it doesn’t have value in and of itself. If you are having a hard time grasping this, just think about a hundred-dollar bill. Do you think that paper is worth $100?

The answer is, of course, no. That paper simply represents value that is stored somewhere else—or at least it used to be before our money became currency. Later we will study the history of our currency and the gold standard, but for now all you need to know is that the U.S. dollar is backed by nothing other than hot air, or what is commonly referred to as “the good faith and credit of the United States.” In short, our government has the ability to, and has been, creating money at will without anything to back it up. You might call this counterfeiting; the government calls it fiscal policy. The whole thing is what we refer to as fiat currency.
Fiat currency

A fiat is an arbitrary decree, order, or pronouncement given by a person, group, or body with the absolute authority to enforce it. A currency that derives its value from declaratory fiat or an authoritative order of the government is by definition a fiat currency. All currencies in use today are fiat currencies.

For the rest of this book I will use these proper definitions. At first it will sound strange to you, but it will only serve to highlight, and bring greater understanding of, the differences between currency and money.

Hopefully, by the end of the book you will see that it is the general public’s lack of understanding concerning this difference between currency and money that has created what I believe will be the greatest wealth accumulation opportunity in history What you will learn about currency and money in this book is knowledge that probably 99 percent of the population has no clue about or desire to learn. So congratulations, you will be way ahead of the game.

When I talk about inflation or deflation I’m talking about the expansion or contraction of the currency supply. The symptom of monetary inflation or deflation is rising or falling prices, which I will sometimes refer to as price inflation or price deflation. Regardless, one thing is for sure. With inflation everything gets more valuable except currency.
Adventures in currency creation

Fiat currencies don’t usually start out that way, and those rare cases when they have were very short-lived. Societies usually start with high value commodity money such as gold and silver. Gradually, the government hoodwinks the population into accepting fiat currency by issuing paper demand notes that are redeemable in precious metals. These demand notes (currency) are really just “certificates of deposit,” “receipts,” or “claim checks” on the real money that is in the vault. I would venture to say that many Americans think this is how the U.S. dollar works today.

Once a government has introduced a paper currency, they then expand the currency supply through deficit spending, printing even more of the currency to cover that spending, and through credit creation based on fractional reserve banking (something we’ll cover later on). Then, usually due to war or some other national emergency, like foreign governments or the local population trying to redeem their demand notes (bank runs), the government will suspend redemption rights because they don’t have enough gold and silver to cover all of the paper they have printed, and poof! You have a fiat currency.

Here’s the dirty little secret: Fiat currency is designed to lose value. Its very purpose is to confiscate your wealth and transfer it to the government. Each time the government prints a new dollar and spends it, the government gets the full purchasing power of that dollar. But where did that purchasing power come from? It was secretly stolen from the dollars you hold. As each new dollar enters circulation it devalues all the other dollars in existence because there are now more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services. This causes prices to rise. It is the insidious stealth tax known as inflation, robbing you of your wealth like a thief in the night.

Throughout the centuries, gold and silver have battled it out with fiat currency, and the precious metals have always won. Gold and silver revalue themselves automatically through the free market system, balancing themselves against the fiat currency in the process. This is a pattern that has been repeating and repeating since the first great currency crash in Athens in 407 B.C. Whenever an investor detects the beginning of one of these battles, the opportunities (according to history) to accumulate great wealth in a very short period of time are enormous.

It always seems to start the same way. Energy builds as the currency supply is expanded, and then, through natural human instincts, the coming crash is felt by the masses, and suddenly, in an explosive move and in a relatively short amount of time, gold and silver will revalue themselves to account for the currency that has been created in the meantime, and then some. If you see the writing on the wall and then take action before the masses do, your purchasing power will grow exponentially as gold and silver grow in value relative to an inflated currency. If you don’t, you’re in for a wipeout.

These heavyweight bouts between fiat currency and gold and silver can end one of two ways:

  1. A technical decision, where the fiat currency becomes an asset backed by gold or silver again.


  1. A knockout blow that is the death of the fiat currency.

Either way, gold and silver are always declared the victors. They are always the reigning heavyweight champions of the world. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Let’s see what history has to say.
It’s all Greek to me

Winston Churchill once said, “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” So in the spirit of Churchill, we are going to look back… way back to the time of the Greeks.

Gold and silver have been the predominant currency for 4,500 years, but they became money in Lydia, in about 680 B.C. when they were minted into coins of equal weight in order to make trade easier and smoother. But it was when coinage first made its appearance in Athens that it truly flourished. Athens was the world’s first democracy. They had the world’s first free-market system and working tax system. This made possible those amazing architectural public works like the Parthenon.

Indeed for many years the Athens star shone brightly. If you’ve studied your history, then you know they are considered one of the great civilizations of all time. You’ll also know that their civilization fell a long time ago. So what happened? Why did such a great and powerful civilization like Athens fall? The answer lies in the same pattern we can see time and time again throughout history: too much greed leading to too much war.

Athens flourished under their new monetary system. Then they became involved in a war that turned out to be much longer and far more costly than they anticipated (sound familiar?). After twenty-two years of war, their resources waning and most of their money spent, the Athenians came up with a very clever way to continue funding the war. They began to debase their money in an attempt to soldier on. In a stroke of genius the Athenians discovered that if you take in 1,000 coins in taxes and mix 50 percent copper in with your gold and silver you can then spend 2,000 coins! Does this sound familiar to you? It should… it’s called deficit spending, and our government does it every second of every day.

This was the first time in history that gold or silver had a price outside itself. Before the Athenians’ bright idea, everything that you could buy was priced in a weight of gold or silver. Now, for the first time, there was official government currency that was not gold and silver, but rather a mixture of gold or silver and copper. You could buy gold and silver with it, but the currency supply was no longer gold and silver in and of themselves.

Over the next two years their beautiful money became nothing more than currency, and as a consequence it became practically worthless. But obviously, once the public woke up to the debasement, anyone who had held on to the old pure gold and silver coins saw their purchasing power increase dramatically.

Within a couple of years the war that had started the whole process had been lost. Athens would never again enjoy the glory they once knew, and they eventually became nothing more than a province of the next great power, Rome.

And the very first regional heavyweight bout between currency and money goes to the “real money,” as gold and silver are crowned the “heavyweight champions of Athens”.
Rome is burning

Rome supplanted the Greek empire as the dominant power of its day, and during its centuries of dominance, the Romans had ample time to perfect the art of currency debasement. Just as with every empire in history, Rome never learned from the mistakes of past empires, and therefore they were doomed to repeat them.

Over 750 years, various leaders inflated the Roman currency supply by debasing the coinage to pay for war, which would lead to staggering price inflation. Coins were made smaller, or a small portion of the edge of gold coins would be clipped off as a tax when entering a government building. These clippings would then be melted down to make more coins. And of course, just as the Greeks did, they too mixed lesser metals such as copper into their gold and silver. And last but not least, they invented the not so subtle art of revaluation, meaning they simply minted the same coins but with a higher face value on them.

By the time Diocletian ascended to the throne in A.D. 284, the Roman coins were nothing more than tin-plated copper or bronze, and inflation (and the Roman populace) was raging.

In 301, Diocletian issued his infamous Edict of Prices, which imposed the death penalty on anyone selling goods for more than the government-mandated price and also froze wages. To Diocletian’s surprise, however, prices just kept rising. Merchants could no longer sell their wares at a profit, so they closed up shop. People either left their chosen careers to seek one where wages weren’t fixed, or just gave up and accepted welfare from the state. Oh yeah, the Romans invented welfare. Rome had a population of about one million, and at this period of time, the government was doling out free wheat to approximately 200,000 citizens. That equaled out to 20 percent of the population on welfare.

Because the economy was so poor, Diocletian adopted a guns and butter policy, putting people to work by hiring thousands of new soldiers and funding numerous public works projects. This effectively doubled the size of the government and the military, and probably increased deficit spending by many multiples.

When you add the cost of paying all these troops to the swelling masses of the unemployed poor receiving welfare and the rising costs of new public works projects, the numbers were staggering. Deficit spending went into overdrive. When he ran short of funds, Diocletian simply minted vast quantities of new copper and bronze coins and began, once again, debasing the gold and silver coins.

All this resulted in the world’s first documented hyperinflation. In Diodetian’s Edict of Prices (a very well preserved copy of which was unearthed in 1970), a pound of gold was worth 50,000 denari in the year A.D. 301, but by mid-century was worth 2.12 billion denari. That means the price of gold rose 42,400 times in fifty or so years. This resulted in all currency-based trade coming to a virtual standstill, and the economic system reverted to a barter system.

To put this in perspective, fifty years ago the price of gold was $35 per ounce in the United States. If it rose 42,400 times, the price today would be just under $1.5 million per ounce. In terms of purchasing power, that means if an average new car sold for about $2,000 fifty years ago, which they did, the average car today would sell for $85 million.

This signaled the second great victory for gold and silver over fiat currency in history. So there you go, gold and silver are now 2 and 0.

In the end it was currency debasement and pure deficit spending to fund the military, public works, social programs, and war that brought down the Roman Empire. Just as with every empire throughout history, it thought it was immune to the laws of economics.

As you will see, debasing the currency to pay for public works, social programs, and war is a pattern that repeats throughout history. It is a pattern that always ends badly.

Who we are

Originally published as a series in his newspaper and magazine, Who We Are is the final work of Dr. William Pierce, founder of the National Alliance.

Starting with the evolutionary origin of the White race, this book explores the classical Greek and Roman civilizations, the White peoples of the Mediterranean basin, the rise of the Germanic powers, the Vikings, Christianity, and National Socialist Germany—leading to a profound examination of the Second World War and the racial crisis facing the European race and the civilization it created today.

Who We Are contains, characteristically for the author, a highly critical appraisal of Jewish influence in Europe, and ends with a proposal of how the essence of the West can be saved.

This edition contains the entire text and almost all the illustrations which accompanied the original. It has also been fully indexed.

The scourge of male feminism

in the WN movement

by Andrew Anglin

Male feminists refuse to explain why a book—written by a woman for women about BDSM is now the best-selling book of all time. I get a lot of hate from white knights (who should really be called “male feminists”) for my straightforward commentary on the collective behavior of women.

The fact that women are sexually aroused by the idea of rape and abuse is extremely difficult for a lot of men to process. In particular, men have a hard time processing this in relationship to the female obsession with flooding the West with men who are shockingly prone to rape and abuse of women.

However, although I have laid out my arguments for this phenomenon in great detail, as of yet, no male feminist has bothered to give a counter-argument. Instead, they attack me personally, claim I must have some personal problem, or else I wouldn’t even care about the data which supports my claims.

It doesn’t matter what people think of me. If I was concerned about the opinions that random anonymous people on the internet have of me, I would have chosen a different profession. My concern is with the concept itself, that of shaming men who dare question the behavior of women.

By attacking me, these male feminists are sending a message to all men: if you question women, we will turn against you, we will insult and attack your masculinity. This is called “Man-Shaming.” It is the same exact system that the Jews used to silence men opposed to homosexuality: “If you’re against the gays, you must secretly be one yourself.”

The reason that white men will shame other white men with feminist garbage is that they themselves are emotionally incapable of dealing with the fact that their girlfriends and wives (or their objects of romantic interest) are not the princesses they imagine them to be.

This is objectively true. If they simply disagreed based on data, they would present counter-arguments and relevant data. Instead, they personally attack the man making the argument that causes them to feel the uncomfortable emotions.

I am absolutely disgusted by the idea that white men are willing to shame other white men, to question their virility and masculinity, in order to protect their own fragile emotions. This needs to stop. Man-shamers within the white nationalist movement are inhibiting free and open discussion of ideas, which can only be good for our enemies.

Beyond this, they are also creating a narrative that will harm men who are trying to have successful relationships with women. In order to have a successful relationship with a woman, a man must understand that they are fundamentally non-loyal (as opposed to disloyal), amoral (as opposed to immoral) and have a strong need to be dominated and controlled (in the modern system, where this need is not being fulfilled because men have been taught to treat women as “equals” with “valuable input,” their desire to be dominated and controlled expresses itself through pathological sexual desire).

I take criticism well

I am very good with criticism, and am fine with the idea that I might be wrong about certain things. I don’t consider myself infallible, and am always open to discussion and debate. However, because the feminist arguments are emotional and not based on data or logic, they do not engage in constructive criticism or debate, instead resorting to name-calling: woman-hater, MGTOW, etc.

All insults, no data or logic. My point, continually, has been that these concepts have nothing to do with me, and attacking me for presenting the concepts shows that the attacker lacks a rational, data-based defense.

I understand that this is a sensitive issue for many men, and I do my best to understand men where they are. I believe that the bonds between men are what make up the foundation of any society, and so I do my best to remain as sympathetic to the men who are taken in by feminism as the men who are able to acknowledge that they are victims of the Jewish-feminist agenda.

Nevertheless, it is the male feminists who are in the wrong, and who are harming others with their man-shaming agenda. Attack me all you want. It doesn’t matter. I care about my brothers, and sticking up for my brothers. We are all victims of feminism, whether we acknowledge it or not. All you have to do is look around you. In all likelihood, your own mother destroyed your life and the life of your father, for no explainable reason. Your friends have family members [who] have had their lives destroyed by women.

You are told that “somewhere out there” there are women who are different. But you keep looking, and you do not find them.

For the sake of the movement

It is very important to our personal lives that we understand women and their behavior. But our personal lives, individually, are irrelevant in the face of our agenda. And our agenda suffers very greatly if we do not take a realistic approach to the female issue. For one, if we allow women to assert influence on the movement, it will never go anywhere.

Perhaps even more importantly, we want this movement to expand, and we are not going to do that by being a movement of a bunch of losers who can’t get women. As such, it is important to me to teach men to be the kind of men who are successful with women, and the kind of man who fantasizes about women as princesses is not the kind of man who is successful with women.

The ironic thing about all of this is that while I am accused by the male feminists of “alienating women” and “limiting our movement to men only,” I am in fact doing the opposite of this. The only women who are ever going to truly feel adamantly about right-wing politics are women who do so because they have a boyfriend or a husband who is involved in the movement.

Women do not have moral convictions and do not have ideologies. These are masculine concepts. All philosophers understood this fact (literally, all of them, so there is no need to cite an individual philosopher here).

Given that women do not naturally possess their own beliefs, they adopt the beliefs of who they view as their natural physical protector. So in our modern situation, women adopt the beliefs of the state. The way we will get women “into the movement” is by getting girlfriends for the men already in the movement. Not by trying to cater an ideological message to women.

Single women who get involved in the movement do it either to find a man, or for attention whoring/funding purposes (in certain cases, they may also find it fashionable). Not because they were moved by a logical or ideological argument. As the woman exists for the sole purpose of producing children, her entire orientation is geared towards gathering resources and/or acquiring a man/men who will gather resources for her.

As such, the way to get women involved in the movement is very simple: Create a movement of men who are desirable to women. The female partners of those men will then, by default, be involved in the movement.

Male feminists are inhibiting our ability to do this, by attempting to shame men who take on a character that is attractive to women. Men who “respect women” are not attractive to women. They are viewed as weak and pathetic. That is not the kind of movement we want.

You cannot compare this to leftism

One cannot say “we have to follow the pattern of the leftists and recruit single women into our movement ” because the concepts are totally different. Women are naturally drawn to leftism, for innumerable reasons. In part, it is because they are natural communists.

One should read the ancient Greek play Assemblywomen by Aristophanes, about women taking over the government (or at least the Wikipedia synopsis of it). In 391 BC, this man was able to predict that women, if given the chance create a government, would institute communism. This is because women do not have the ability to gather their own resources, so they prefer that they are distributed based on “equality” rather than merit.

In the play, the women also dissolve the family, and require that the most attractive men be forced to have sex with all of the women in the city, so that unattractive women are also able to have a chance to mate with attractive men. It has always been understood that the sexuality of women is deranged by any male, moral standard.

Modern leftism is also satisfying the sexual desires of women by importing men whom they find sexually desirable. They manipulate weak, beta males (the type of males who are drawn to leftism to begin with) into helping them import brown people who they view as sexually dominant.

Blaming Jews for the behavior of women isn’t helping anything

There is a saying: “the only thing worse than a white knight is a white knight who blames Jews for the behavior of women.”

This is accurate. Of course, Jews should be blamed for the liberation of women. It was, on the whole, their idea. However, the behavior of women is the behavior of women. As I mentioned above, men in the 4th century BC understood that women, if given the chance, would do exactly what they are doing now.

If Jews released thousands of tigers out onto the streets of New York City, and they started mauling people, you would say “Jews are responsible for the fact that these tigers are mauling people on the street,” but you would not say “Jews are responsible for the fact that tigers are natural predators.” Claiming that Jews are responsible for the behavior of modern women simply confuses the issue.

Jews are responsible for creating a culture in which the worst, primitive instincts of women are celebrated as virtue, and the natural male desire to protect women is redirected into protecting her ability to indulge in these destructive, primitive behavior patterns.


It is time to act like men, and to take responsibility for the situation we are in, which includes taking responsibility for our women. Claiming that women are not a problem is simply a way of passing off male responsibility.

Our movement needs to be sexy. We want men to look at us, and say “that’s something I want to be a part of.” A huge part of that is being something that is attractive to women. And women are not attracted to men who “respect women.”

Call out the man-shamers for what they are: subversives who are harming this movement in order to fulfill a sad emotional need to believe in the virtue of women.

On Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos”

In these hard days for me I’ve tried to distract myself with my favorite television series when I was much younger: the thirty episodes of The Champions and the thirteen of Cosmos by Carl Sagan.

Since I wrote about those TV series I’ve changed my mind. For example, I now see with respect the efforts of the late Alexandra Bastedo, one of the stars of The Champions, to create an animal sanctuary in West Sussex, England. The Champions was a detective fiction series in the late 1960s, but the anti-Nazi propaganda that appears in at least five episodes was something that I did not give importance to as a child.

The fame of The Champions in the late 1960s and early 70s pales compared to the fame of the series of scientific dissemination Cosmos a decade later. Sagan was of Jewish descent, something I did not know when, at the 1994 conference of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in Seattle (known in that year as the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) I met him personally and shook his hand. Then I was as liberal as Sagan. Now I am a national socialist, so in my recent revisit to Sagan’s famous series I have new eyes.

In the final episode of Cosmos Sagan could not resist talking about the progress of liberating women, and that a new planetary consciousness was being created (referring in part to liberalism and progressivism). He criticized the ethnocentrism of Plato and Aristotle, who spoke of “the barbarians” when humanity is one for a hypothetical enlightened extraterrestrial. More than once in the series Sagan spoke of slavery as a cancer, sometimes giving the impression that it was the cause of the decline of the Greco-Roman world.

He mentioned the word racism as a bad thing, and in two of his programs they filmed a room with American children of all races: something inconceivable when Sagan was a kid. In Cosmos Sagan chose a negress kid for a lesson during that class of integrated children contemplating photos of the planets. Speaking about humanity in general, he or the producers inserted images of the people of India and colored children while Sagan’s voice in off described the high virtues of mankind: as if the colored were legitimate representatives of the white man’s will to decipher the universe.

There is a more general criticism I can elaborate about Cosmos. Since I loved the series in the early 1980s, when I liked science-fiction and the themes of space, I have changed radically. Now, like Nietzsche, I believe that we must be faithful to the Earth.

Most of Cosmos is an introduction to astronomy. But what good is studying the stars of the firmament when the Aryans, deceived by movie stars, commit ethno-suicide? The science that children and adolescents should know in this dark age should not be Byzantine but relevant. Children, adolescents and young people, as Bastedo saw well, should watch over the well-being of our cousins. In addition, whites must recognize the 14 words. Arthur Kemp summed up very well what the focus of knowledge should be on a Red Ice TV interview. The focus must be on history, more specifically, on how interbreeding has been the nemesis of the West throughout the millennia.

When I finished seeing Cosmos in my mature age it occurred to me that, if I had a young son, I would edit it by censuring not only the liberal propaganda, but most shots about astronomy with the exception of what Sagan calls the Cosmic calendar. That would mean significantly reducing the Cosmos series to practical and positive terrestrial messages, and the youth could see it in a couple of programs.

The recent events in my life have turned me into a priest of what I have now baptized as “the four words,” which I will explain in future articles. For the moment it is enough to say that in a future school, the priest of the 4 and 14 words could show the children these scenes taken from Cosmos:

From episode 1, what Sagan says about Eratosthenes and the beautiful ancient city of Alexandria.

From episode 2, what he says about a majestic tree (an oak) and man: we are related.

From episode 3, one of my favorite scenes of Cosmos: the recreation of the life of Johannes Kepler.

From episode 4, dedicated to the planet Venus, I would only rescue how some westerners self-deceived themselves by speculating there must be dinosaurs on Venus just because they saw through the telescope that it was covered in clouds.

From episode 5, dedicated to the planet Mars, I would only rescue something very similar: how the astronomer Percival Lowell self-deceived himself into believing that there were canals constructed by Martians.

From episode 6, the magnificent staging of the enlightened Netherlands in times of the densest darkness in large parts of Europe.

From episode 7, Sagan’s presentation of Democritus and Pythagoras, and his criticism of the latter’s mysticism.

From Episode 8, what Sagan says about Leonardo da Vinci but not what he says about Einstein. (Only the biographers of the future will be able to conclusively show whether or not this Einstein Jew stole his discoveries from white scientists.)

From episode 9, the didactic presentation of the periodic table of the elements.

From episode 10, only the recreation of the scenes of astronomer Milton Humason in his observatory.

From episode 11, the introduction to the science of the human brain, including the shots inside a cozy library.

From episode 12, the recreation of the life of Champollion, including his travel to Egypt.

From episode 13, what I consider the most important of the series: the tragedy of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the horrible murder of Hypatia by St Cyril’s mob. This is something that those white nationalists who cling to the religion of their parents do not dare to see.

A DVD containing this highly edited version of Cosmos could be educational for a young mind who wants to get initiated in the mysteries of the world and science. This would be for home-schooled kids of course: not for the kind that will protest Richard Spencer at Auburn tonight.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 36

19th October 1941, night

Two scourges of the modern world—
Christianity the shadow of coming Bolshevism.

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine.

Yet Rome to-day allows itself to reproach Bolshevism with having destroyed the Christian churches! As if Christianity hadn’t behaved in the same way towards the pagan temples.

Published in: on September 20, 2015 at 9:37 pm  Leave a Comment  

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 37



21st October 1941, midday
Prophetic sense of Julian the Apostate—The Aryan origin of Jesus—Distortion of Christ’s ideas—The Road to Damascus—Roman tolerance—Materialism and the Jewish religion—Christian problem—The mobilisation of the slaves—St. Paul and Karl Marx—Final solution.

When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn’t know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity and Christians. You should read what he says on the subject.

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bohshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it’s certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded him as the son of a whore—of a whore and a Roman soldier.

The decisive falsification of Jesus’s doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galilean’s object was to liberate his country from Jewish oppression. He set himself against Jewish capitalism, and that’s why the Jews liquidated him.

Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely. When he learnt that Jesus’s supporters let their throats be cut for His ideas, he realised that, by making intelligent use of the Galilean’s teaching, it would be possible to overthrow this Roman State which the Jews hated. It’s in this context that we must understand the famous “illumination”. Think of it, the Romans were daring to confiscate the most sacred thing the Jews possessed, the gold piled up in their temples! At that time, as now, money was their god.

On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could succeed in ruining the Roman State by causing the principle to triumph of the equality of all men before a single God—and by putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which he alleged to be divinely inspired. If, into the bargain, one succeeded in imposing one man as the representative on earth of the only God, that man would possess boundless power.

The ancient world had its gods and served them. But the priests interposed between the gods and men were servants of the State, for the gods protected the City. In short, they were the emanation of a power that the people had created. For that society, the idea of an only god was unthinkable. In this sphere, the Romans were tolerance itself. The idea of a universal god could seem to them only a mild form of madness—for, if three peoples fight one another, each invoking the same god, this means that, at any rate, two of them are praying in vain.

Nobody was more tolerant than the Romans. Every man could pray to the god of his choice, and a place was even reserved in the temples for the unknown god. Moreover, every man prayed as he chose, and had the right to proclaim his preferences.

St. Paul knew how to exploit this state of affairs in order to conduct his struggle against the Roman State. Nothing has changed; the method has remained sound. Under cover of a pretended religious instruction, the priests continue to incite the faithful against the State.

The religious ideas of the Romans are common to all Aryan peoples. The Jew, on the other hand, worshipped and continues to worship, then and now, nothing but the golden calf. The Jewish religion is devoid of all metaphysics and has no foundation but the most repulsive materialism. That’s proved even in the concrete representation they have of the Beyond—which for them is identified with Abraham’s bosom.

It’s since St. Paul’s time that the Jews have manifested themselves as a religious community, for until then they were only a racial community. St. Paul was the first man to take account of the possible advantages of using a religion as a means of propaganda. If the Jew has succeeded in destroying the Roman Empire, that’s because St. Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a supra-temporal religion, which postulates the equality of all men amongst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This is what caused the death of the Roman Empire.
Raphaels_study_St Paul Athens

Raphael’s studio on Saul predicating in Athens

It’s striking to observe that Christian ideas, despite all St. Paul’s efforts, had no success in Athens. The philosophy of the Greeks was so much superior to this poverty-stricken rubbish that the Athenians burst out laughing when they listened to the apostle’s teaching. But in Rome St. Paul found the ground prepared for him. His egalitarian theories had what was needed to win over a mass composed of innumerable uprooted people.

Nevertheless, the Roman slave was not at all what the expression encourages us to imagine to-day. In actual fact, the people concerned were prisoners of war (as we understand the term nowadays), of whom many had been freed and had the possibility of becoming citizens—and it was St. Paul who introduced this degrading overtone into the modern idea of Roman slaves.

Think of the numerous Germanic people whom Rome welcomed. Arminius himself, the first architect of our liberty, wasn’t he a Roman knight, and his brother a dignitary of the State? By reason of these contacts, renewed throughout the centuries, the population of Rome had ended by acquiring a great esteem for the Germanic peoples. It’s clear that there was a preference in Rome for fair-haired women, to such a point that many Roman women dyed their hair. Thus Germanic blood constantly regenerated Roman society.

The Jew, on the other hand, was despised in Rome. Whilst Roman society proved hostile to the new doctrine, Christianity in its pure state stirred the population to revolt. Rome was Bolshevised, and Bolshevism produced exactly the same results in Rome as later in Russia.

It was only later, under the influence of the Germanic spirit, that Christianity gradually lost its openly Bolshevistic character. It became, to a certain degree, tolerable. To-day, when Christianity is tottering, the Jew restores to pride of place Christianity in its Bolshevistic form.

The Jew believed he could renew the experiment. To-day as once before, the object is to destroy nations by vitiating their racial integrity. It’s not by chance that the Jews, in Russia, have systematically deported hundreds of thousands of men, delivering the women, whom the men were compelled to leave behind, to males imported from other regions. They practised on a vast scale the mixture of races.

In the old days, as now—destruction of art and civilisation. The Bolsheviks of their day, what didn’t they destroy in Rome, in Greece and elsewhere? They’ve behaved in the same way amongst us and in Russia.

One must compare the art and civilisation of the Romans—their temples, their houses—with the art and civilisation represented at the same period by the abject rabble of the catacombs.

In the old days, the destruction of the libraries. Isn’t that what happened in Russia? The result: a frightful levelling-down.

Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. To-day, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday, the instigator was Saul: the instigator to-day, Mardochai. Saul has changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx.

By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.