Adunai responds

> ‘The Empire as such is run by and for Jews’.

In no way is America run by Jews. Had America been run by Jews, it would likewise have genocided all the Arabs, Russians and other Asians. And then would have liquidated itself.

No, America is run on the spirit of universal love towards mankind, towards every individual—as long as he professes to love his neighbour, to ‘live and let live’, to accept the god of the Jews into his heart.

Source: The Unz Review (comments section) here. And in a previous thread he had said:

What is the opposite of materialism? Idealism, in the case of the Western civilisation—Christianity. Therefore, I blame not some ephemeral, rootless ‘leftism’. The maggots under the carpet do not self-germinate from spontaneous abiogenesis, as Pasteur proved. Likewise did the egalitarian liberalist cult have a predecessor in the message of universal love spread by the old Jew Jesus.

And in another thread he also responds to a monocausalist:

> ‘(((God’s Chosen))) are the only winners of WWII’.

It’s the Americans, stupid. The Americans who were 99% Nordic in 1945. (I don’t consider Negroes or Italians American.) The Americans had all the power in the world to do as they pleased. The Westerners were only limited by their merciful nigger-breeding Christian morality, fatally so…

America could have gassed all Mexicans, all Pinoy, all Japanese. America had all the power in the world in 1945 methodically to cleanse Iraq, Turkey, India and China. But didn’t. The reason—Christian cuckoldry. This is as clear as day! There wasn’t a capitulation in history as large as the American one. That’s when they had the bombs each of which could burn a million Asiatics alive. This pitiful sight abhors me to no end. History, return, and make the Anglo kill himself!…

I’d like to remind everyone that the triumph of the Taliban over the Christian faggots in Afghanistan in 2021 CE is but a foretaste of the final victory of the Asiatics in Korea in the future. That’s what happens when you pit Jewish love against racist hatred—hatred always wins. The sooner, the better.

In Adunai’s latest post he responds to Robert Morgan’s claim that technology is the bad guy of our movie:

Name me one cultural counter-current that has challenged Christianity since Julian—you cannot, only Hitler tried to commence such a revolution. Technology is an amplifier of the already existing substance. That is the issue with you—you think there was an invisible coup d’état in culture where Europe stopped being Christian between 1789 and 1900. No, a true apostasy looks like The Holocaust.

Adunai’s italics. However, he uses a straw-man against me: ‘Chechar’s idyllia is lions eating straw with lambs’, something I’ve never claimed of course (the 4 words is something altogether different).

The iceberg

The Aryan problem is similar to what we cannot see from a ship when we spot an iceberg. That’s why racialists focus only on what they can see: the JQ, what is on the surface of the sea.

Kevin MacDonald’s recent article is splendid to understand my point of view: the Aryan problem is much more massive than the Jewish problem.

MacDonald quotes a recent Twitter thread of a young, blue-eyed blonde whose face might as well appear on this site’s sidebar, but who relishes that white people like her are becoming a minority in her country.

The serious thing is not so much this Tweet of a woman who hates her beautiful race. The worst part is that, as MacDonald points out, her Tweet garnered thousands of approvals from many other whites who hate themselves and yearn for them to become a minority. (I had already become aware of this phenomenon with the gigantic numbers of whites marching, on behalf of blacks, in various western cities in the wake of the BLM destructions.)

Neither in the comments section of The Occidental Observer nor in The Unz Review, where Ron reposted MacDonald’s article, is the professor’s diagnosis of what he calls ‘altruistic punishment’ questioned. MacDonald alleges in his diagnosis that such a phenomenon of self-hatred is related to individualism, and puts whites as genetical individualists.

If there is one thing that others and I have complained about MacDonald, it is that he analyses the West from the start of Christendom. Ancient Sparta and Republican Rome were not individualistic societies, and neither were the Vikings and Goths (and let’s not talk about Nazi Germany). MacDonald’s hypothesis collapses when we introduce the history before Christianity, and even more so when we see that open and shameless self-hatred began in 1945, as I haven’t tired of reiterating with the links in the article that the sticky post leads to.

Although MacDonald’s article is worth reading, there is universal blindness in racialists who comment on his article’s thread, both on his forum and Ron Unz’s site. Neither wants to see the havoc Christianity wreaked on the psyche of the Aryans.

When I lived in California in the 1980s, I was extremely surprised to discover the televangelists. One of them, Charles Stanley, said something before an audience of well-to-do white worshipers that I will never forget: ‘… because I deserve hell’. Obviously only his faith in Jesus could save him from everlasting torture, but the conviction with which he said that, and the expression of the faithful Aryans who listened to him, I have not been able to get out of my head.

Now that the Aryans are without their Jesus, insofar Christianity is in crisis, what remains has been malware of infinite guilt albeit in secular form. Several times I have pointed out that this is what Tom Sunic said, with milder words, in Hungary during that dinner at which the government (supposedly the most nationalist in Europe) put Richard Spencer in jail.

I don’t know how to reiterate it anymore, but the links in the sticky post contain the key to understanding this suicidal passion of the white man. It is unfortunate that very few are following me on this site. Let’s just compare the number of my followers, those fully aware of the CQ, with the number of neo-Christian whites who were fascinated by the Tweet of the pretty ethno-traitor.

What can save the white man from this suicidal drive which dwarfs the Jewish problem as in the image above? As I reiterated recently in one of the discussion threads: only an apocalyptic convergence of catastrophes! At the moment the only thing a desperate reader can do is trolling other racialist sites with, say, the essay on Judea versus Rome also linked in ‘The Iron Throne’.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 5

It cannot be repeated or emphasised enough: intolerance, religious or philosophical, is characteristic of devotees of ‘man’ regardless of any consideration of race or personality. As a result, it is the real racists who show the greatest tolerance.

No doubt racists demand from their comrades in arms absolute fidelity to the common faith. This is not ‘intolerance’; it is a question of order. Everyone must know what they want, and not adhere to a doctrine and then make reservations about it. Whoever has objections to formulate—and above all, objections concerning the basic values of the doctrine—has only to remain outside the community of the faithful, and not to pretend to be the comrade of those with whom he does not share faith entirely. No doubt also the racist is ready to fight men who act, and even who think, as enemies of their race. But he does not fight them in order to change them, to convert them. If they stay in their place, and stop opposing him and his blood brothers, he leaves them alone—for he is not interested enough in them to care about their fate, in this world or into another.

In the third Book of his Essays, Montaigne laments that the Americas were not conquered ‘by the Greeks or the Romans’, rather than by the Spaniards and the Portuguese. He believes that the New World would never have known the horrors committed to converting the native to a religion considered by the conquerors to be the ‘only’ good, the only true one.

What he does not say; what, perhaps, he had not understood, is that it is precisely the absence of racism and the love of ‘man’ that are at the root of these horrors. The Greeks and Romans—and all ancient peoples—were racists, at least during their time of greatness. As such they found it quite natural that different peoples had different gods, and different customs. They did not get involved in imposing their own gods and customs on the vanquished, under pain of extermination.

Even the Jews did not do this. They so despised all those who sacrificed to gods other than Yahweh, that they were content—on the order of this god, says the Bible—to exterminate them without seeking to convert them. They imposed on them the terror of war—not that ‘spiritual terror’ which, as Adolf Hitler so aptly writes, ‘entered for the first time into the Ancient World, until then much freer than ours, with the appearance of Christianity’.[1] The Spaniards, the Portuguese, were Christians. They imposed terror of war and spiritual terror on the Americas.

What would the Greeks of ancient Greece have done in their place, or the Romans or other Aryan people who would have had, in the sixteenth century, the spirit of our racists of the twentieth? They would undoubtedly have conquered the countries; they would have exploited them economically. But they would have left to the Aztecs, Tlaxcaltecs, Mayans, etc., as well as the peoples of Peru, their gods and their customs. Furthermore, they would have fully exploited the belief of these peoples in a ‘white and bearded’ god, civiliser of their country, who, after having left their ancestors many centuries before, was to return from the East, to reign over them—their descendants—with his companions: men of fair complexion. Their leaders would have acted, and ordered their soldiers to act, so that the natives effectively take them for the god Quetzalcoatl and his army.[2] They would have respected the temples—instead of destroying them and building on their ruins monuments of a foreign cult. They would have been tough, sure—as all conquerors are but they would not have been sacrilegious. They would not have been the destroyers of civilisations that, even with their weaknesses, were worth their own.

The Romans, so tolerant of religion, have on occasion persecuted adherents of certain cults. The religion of the Druids was, for example, banned in Gaul by Emperor Claudius. And there were those persecutions of the early Christians, which we talked about too much, without always knowing what we were saying. But all of these repressive measures were purely political, not doctrinal—not ethical. It was as leaders of the clandestine resistance of the Celts against Roman domination, and not as priests of a cult which might have appeared unusual to the conquerors, that the Druids were stripped of their privileges (in particular, of their monopoly of teaching young people) and prosecuted. It was as bad citizens, who refused to pay homage to the Emperor-god, the embodiment of the State, and not as devotees of a particular god, that Christians were persecuted.

If in the sixteenth century Indo-European conquerors, faithful to the spirit of tolerance which has always characterised their race, had made themselves masters of the Americas by exploiting the indigenous belief in the return of the white god, Quetzalcoatl,[3] there would have been no resistance to their domination, therefore no occasion for the persecution of the kind I have just recalled. Not only would the peoples of the New World never have known the atrocities of the Holy Inquisition, but their writings (as for those who, like the Mayans and Aztecs, had them) and their monuments would have survived.

And in Tenochtitlan, which over the centuries had become one of the great capitals of the world, the imposing multi-storey pyramids—intact—would now dominate modern streets. And the palaces and fortresses of Cuzco would still be admired by visitors. And the solar and warlike religions of the peoples of Mexico and Peru, while evolving, probably, in contact with that of the victors, at least in their external forms, would have kept their basic principles, and continued to transmit, from generation to generation, the eternal esoteric truths under their particular symbolism. In other words, they would have settled in Central America and in the former Empire of the Incas Aryan dynasties, whose relations with the conquered countries would have been more or less similar to those which they formerly had maintained, with the aristocracy and the peoples of India, the Greek dynasties who, from the third century BC to the first after the Christian era, ruled over what is now Afghanistan, Sindh and Punjab.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Note of the Editor: William Pierce’s Who We Are was published after Savitri Devi’s book. She didn’t grasp the full meaning that the Aryans of India would, over many centuries, succumb to what happened to the Iberian Europeans in a few centuries: interbreeding with the Indians. Since Savitri was female, because of her yin nature she couldn’t see tremendously yang issues, like what Pierce tells us about extermination or expulsion.

The yin wisdom of the priestess (her loyal Hitlerism, something that Pierce lacked) must be balanced with the yang input of the priest (an exterminationist drive, something that priestess usually lack).

______ 卐 ______

 
Unfortunately, Europe itself in the sixteenth century had long since succumbed to that spirit of intolerance which it had, along with Christianity, received from the Jews. The history of the wars of religion bears witness to this, in Germany as well as in France. And as for the old Hellenic-Aegean blood—the very blood of the ‘ancient world’, once so tolerant—it was won in the service of the Roman Church: represented, among the conquerors of Peru, in the person of Pedro de Candia, Cretan adventurer, one of Francisco Pizarro’s most ruthless companions.

I will be told that the cruelties committed in the name of the salvation of souls, by the Spaniards in their colonies—and by the Portuguese in theirs (the Inquisition was, in Goa, perhaps even worse than in Mexico, which is not little to say!)—are no more attributable to true Christianity than to Aryan racism as understood by the Führer, unnecessary acts of violence, carried out without orders, during the Second World War, by some men in German uniforms. I am told that neither Cortés nor Pizarro nor their companions, nor the Inquisitors of Goa or Europe, nor those who approved their actions, loved man as Christ would have wanted his disciples to love him.

That is true. These people were not humanitarians. And I never claimed they were. But they were humanists, not in the narrow sense of ‘scholars’, but in the broad sense: men for whom man was, in the visible world at least, the supreme value. They were, anyway, people who bathed in the atmosphere of a civilisation centred on the cult of ‘man’, whom they neither denounced nor fought—quite the contrary! They were not necessarily—they were even very rarely—kind to humans of other races (even theirs!) as Jesus wanted everyone to be. But even in their worst excesses, they venerated in him, even without loving him, Man, the only living being created, according to their faith, ‘in the image of God’, and provided with an immortal soul, or at least—in the eyes of those who in their hearts had already detached themselves from the Church, as, later, to those of so many list colonialists of the eighteenth or nineteenth century—the only living being endowed with reason.

Note of the Editor: Left, a monk pitying and loving a conquered Amerindian (mural by Orozco in Mexico).

They worshipped him, despite the atrocities they committed against him, individually or collectively. And, even if some of them, in the secrecy of their thoughts, did not revere him more than they did love him, not granting him, if he was only a ‘savage’, neither soul nor right soul—after all, there were Christians who refused to attribute to women a soul similar to their own—this does not change the fact that the ‘civilisation’ of which they claimed, and of which they were the agents, proclaimed the love and respect for every man, and the duty to help him access ‘happiness’, if not in this earthly life, at least in the Hereafter.

It has sometimes been maintained that any action undertaken in the colonies, including missionary action, was, even without the knowledge of those who carried it out, remotely guided by businessmen who did not have them in sight, only material profit and nothing else. It has been suggested that the Church itself was only following the plans and carrying out the orders of such men—which would partly explain why it seems to have been far more interested in the souls of the natives than in those of the conquering chiefs and soldiers—who, however, sinned so scandalously against the great commandment of Christ: the law of love. Even if all these allegations were based on historical facts that could be proven, one would still be forced to admit that colonial wars would have been impossible, from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century (and especially perhaps in the nineteenth), without the belief, then generally widespread in Europe, that they provided the opportunity to ‘save’ souls, and to ‘civilise savages’.

This belief that Christianity was the ‘true’ faith for ‘all’ men, and that the standards of conduct of Europe marked by Christianity were also for ‘all’ men—the criterion of ‘civilisation’—was questioned by no one. The leaders who led the colonial wars, the adventurers, soldiers and brigands who waged them, the settlers who benefited from them, shared it—even if, in the eyes of most of them, the hope of material profit was in the foreground less as important, if not more, than the eternal salvation of the natives. And whether they had shared it or not, they were nonetheless supported, in their action, by this collective belief of their distant continent, of the whole Christendom.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Note of the Editor: That is very true. For example, in the last decades of his life my very Catholic father became obsessed with the biography of a 16th-century Spanish monk who made several trips from the Old to the New World to protect the rights of the Amerindians; so much so that my father dedicated his magnum opus, La Santa Furia (Holy Wrath), to him. This is a composition with three series of woods, six horns, three trumpets, four trombones and tuba, two harps, piano and timpani, percussion instruments among which were some pre-Hispanic, as well as a solo vocal quartet, a sextet of men and a choir mixed with four voices: 115 choristers in total and 90 orchestral musicians: a one-hour symphonic work that can be watched on YouTube:

It was precisely my father’s behaviour—cf. my eleven books in Spanish—that prompted me to repudiate not only Catholicism but Christian axiology, becoming a true apostate of Christianity. Savitri concludes:

______ 卐 ______

 
It is this belief which—officially—justified their wars which, if they had been waged in the conditions in which they were waged, but solely in the name of profit, or even security (as had been the wars of the Mongolian conquerors in the thirteenth century), would have seemed ‘inhuman’. It was such conquest that, still officially, defined the spirit of their conduct towards the natives. From there this haste to convert him—willingly, by force or using ‘bribes’—to their Christian faith, or to make him share the ‘treasures’ of their culture, in particular to initiate him to their sciences, while making him lose all contact with his own.

_______________

[1] Mein Kampf, German edition of 1935, p. 507.

[2] Or, in Peru, for the god Viracocha. The Peruvians had initially called the Spaniards Viracochas.

[3] Or Viracocha in Peru.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 2

Chapter II—False nations and true racism

‘We have to distinguish between the state as a vessel and the race as the content. This vessel only makes sense if it is able to preserve and protect its contents; otherwise it is worthless’.

—Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf, 1935 edition, page 434)

Do not forget that it is considerations of race which distinguish a real people from a collectivity of men which does not deserve the name.

Such communities can be very different from each other. There are states where the population is a deeply mixed mass, where specimens of ‘pure’ appearance, if there are any, have children who do not resemble them; where children of the same family, who nevertheless seems ethnically homogeneous, are different races: one Negroid, the other Mediterranean, or almost, the third, marked with strong Amerindian characteristics. These are states, not peoples. There is, for example, a Brazilian state. There is a population (multiracial, and without segregation laws) who inhabit Brazil. There are no Brazilian people—nor, therefore, a Brazilian ‘nation’.

There are, on the other hand, states whose populations are made up of several peoples juxtaposed, but not fused together. This is the case of the United States of America [Editor’s note: Remember that this was written in the late 1960s], the Union of South Africa, Rhodesia, the Soviet Union, and India. It is by an abuse of language that one gives to the general population of any one of these States, the name of ‘people’ or of ‘nation’. There is, in fact, no natural link, no biological link, between an ‘American citizen’ of Anglo-Saxon, Irish or Mediterranean origin, and another ‘American citizen’ Negro or mestizo, or Jew…

Moreover, in the USA, as in the so-called ‘racist’ states of Rhodesia and South Africa, and more, Aryans and Negroes belong to the same Christian churches; are Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics or ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’, as the case may be, but always without distinction of race. Since the realm of the true Christian is not of this world, biological considerations cannot be included…

If, favoured by the diffusion of a uniform way of life as well as of a common ‘knowledge’, and especially of self-distant common anti-racist ‘values’, the gangrene of interbreeding is gradually gaining the entire population, it is, for this, the irremediable decadence: the end of all culture, the end of all disinterested creation, that is to say of any activity other than that which consists in ‘producing’ always more, in order to acquire more and more material well-being. If, on the contrary, it is the healthy tendency of each race to remain separate from the others that prevails, the population will retain its heterogeneity. It will not become ‘a people’—much less a ‘nation’. It will remain what it is, namely a juxtaposition of two or more races living in harmony with each other to the extent that their primary diversity is recognised and accepted. [Editor’s note: Again, writing in the 60s, Savitri ignored that that is impossible in the long run.]

The Union of South Africa, so decried by anti-Hitlerites around the world for its so-called ‘racism’, is not such a multiracial state, or only very incompletely, despite its official program of ‘separate development of races’. It is only very incompletely so because, just like Rhodesia which, for its part, denies exalting racism, and like the USA which, despite the continued resistance of its segregationists, is fighting it, it confuses, as I said earlier, ‘Aryan’ and ‘White’. [Editor’s Note: Living in Mexico I can say that the few Jews I have come to know are phenotypically white, sometimes completely indistinguishable from real Aryans except for their last names (see e.g., here). This means that from now on I will use the terms ‘Aryan’ and ‘White’ as Savitri used them; being the ‘Aryans’ those whites who don’t have Jewish blood, though many Ashkenazi Jews are white: something that Richard Spencer has acknowledged in one of his recent podcasts.]

Far, for example, from removing the Jews from key positions in the country and, in general, from any profession in the exercise of which they are likely to acquire political or cultural influence, it gives them, because of their colour alone, all the advantages enjoyed by the ‘Whites’, advantages that she refuses to the Aryans of Asia, however illogical that is, and that, even if, like most Brahmans and many ‘Khatris’ of Punjab, they are fair complexion. Crossbreeding between Aryans and Jews is not prohibited in the so-called racist Union of South Africa—any more than it is elsewhere. It has never been so in any country of Christian population, if the Jew—or the Jewess—had, by baptism, been received into the religious community of her partner. He was so only in the Third German Reich, a State whose true religion was that of Blood and Soil—and, it is again, since 1955, in the State of Israel, whose people believe themselves, to the exclusion of everything else, ‘chosen of God’.

It is true that wherever there are two or more human races, whose nations all or almost all adhere to a centred religion, like Christianity, in the long run a tendency of interbreeding emerges. All true racism implies the negation of the dogma of the immense value of ‘man’ whoever he may be; the negation of the ‘apart’ character of man, and his integration into all other living species; the negation of the legal equality of ‘souls’ as well as of men’s bodies.

______ 卐 ______

 
I will now tell you about India, so that you can once again be proud to be Aryan.

To understand the history of the peoples who inhabit this vast portion of the continent—which includes, in fact, in addition to the current ‘Indian Republic’, the two ‘Pakistans’[i] and the island of Ceylon; a surface, in all, equal to that of Europe minus Russia—you must refer to the distant time when the first Aryan tribes, coming from the North, descended in successive waves on the Pays-des-Sept-Rivières (the Sapta Sindhu of the Sanskrit Scriptures) by the famous Pass of Khaïber, the Voie des Couquérants.

It was, according to Bal Gangadhar Tilak, commonly called Lokamanya[ii] Tilak; this Brahmin of Maharashtra, both scholar and mathematician, who demonstrated it by astronomical considerations—before the fourth millennium before the Christian era, therefore at the time of the very first Egyptian dynasties, several centuries before the construction of the pyramids of Giza; at the time when, in Mesopotamia, the Sumerian civilisation flourished in its oldest centres: in Erech, in Nippur, in Eridu, some fifteen hundred years before Sargon of Akkad. And the Aryas—which, in Sanskrit, means ‘those who command’, in other words, the men of the race of the lords—came, still according to Tilak, from the far North. They were the brothers of those who, closer to the common cradle of the race, were one day to be called the Germans, the Hellenes, the Latins, and whose languages presented deep similarities with theirs. Their ancestors had lived beyond the Arctic Circle, at a time when the lands of this region still enjoyed a temperate climate—that is to say before the axis of our planet tilted further; twenty-three degrees. They had awaited in worship the return of the Sun—the victory of the Day after the long nights streaked with aurora borealis—and they had sung the splendour of the sky and venerated the stars (the ‘brilliant’ or ‘Devas’) which did not go to bed.

During the centuries that they had taken to cover, in stages, the immense distance which separated them from the divine arctic homeland, the Aryas had preserved some of these hymns. Their bards had composed others, and soon, during the gradual conquest of the hot lands, where to improvise new ones. For a very long time transmitted from mouth to mouth, 1009 of these poems—finally written—have come down to us. The whole constitutes the Rig Veda: the oldest sacred text in India, which pious Brahmans still chant today.

The Aryas were a few thousand—perhaps, over time, a few tens of thousands—in front of all these hostile peoples and tribes, which they called Dasyus, or dwellers of the woods, or the Rakshasas or demons. It is possible that they found, already in force in the society of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, a hereditary system of a division of labour. But it was they who gave such a system, if it existed, racial significance, and classified the population of India into immutable castes. They could not do otherwise if they wanted to preserve their physical and moral characteristics for their Aryan race, in other words, if they wanted to survive.

They probably began by mixing freely, if not with the Aborigines at least with the Dravidians, technically more advanced than them until they grasped, in all its tragic horror, the danger of interbreeding. It was then that the caste system was formed: the division of the population of the Indies into a minority of dwijas or twice-born Arya (because they had to know this ‘second birth’ which the spiritual initiation represents), and an immense majority of Shudras, people with dark skin, intended for servile work. At the bottom of the scale—out of all caste—were rejected the Negroids, Negro-Mongoloids and people of the Munda type: the oldest inhabitants of Indian soil. The ‘twice-born’ shared power. Spiritual authority was henceforth the privilege of the Brahmans; temporal power, that of the Kshatriyas; and this power which already gave, in a society much less attached than ours to material goods, wealth, born of commerce, the prerogative of the Vaishyas.

Disinterested scientific knowledge and above all spiritual knowledge was reserved for the Aryas, and very soon only for the Brahmans and Kshatriyas. It was unthinkable that a young Soudra, even exceptionally gifted—and all the more reason a Chandala, below any caste—were taught the supreme truths, or that he was taught to recite, even that recited before him the most beautiful invocations to the Devas or the most powerful ritual formulas. Frightful penalties awaited those who would have dared to transgress this defence, and those in favour of whom, it would have been transgressed.

Since then, many things have happened, many transformations have upset Indian society, like all societies. In spite of everything, forbidden unions took place; children were born whose parents did not belong to the same caste…

One could photograph and classify specimens of all both racial and professional groups in India. We would thus obtain a huge collection of types gradually going from Negroid or even Australoid to pure Aryan—an Aryan often purer than the majority of his brethren in Europe (at least in Southern Europe). There is maybe, very light, with brown or gray eyes (exceptionally blue or blue-green), hair ranging from black to reddish brown, with perfectly Indo-European features. It is little, one will say. This is a lot if we remember that at least sixty centuries separate the present day from the time when the first Aryan tribes emerged from the Khyber Pass.

In any case, the facts that I have just recalled here clearly show that the Indies are no more ‘a people’ than are the United States of America, the Soviet Union or the South African Union.

But there is a difference: while in each of these countries a common dogmatic faith, the dissemination of which is encouraged—and a clearly anti-racist faith, or one concerning the other world and indifferent to racial issues, let it be it is Marxism or any form of Christianity whatsoever—tends, in spite of everything, to bring the races together; constitutes, in any case, a permanent brake on the instinct of segregation, in India, it is the opposite which occurs. There the religious tradition itself proclaims the congenital inequality of ‘souls’ as well as of bodies, and the natural hierarchy of races, dominated by the Aryan race—in exactly the same spirit as Hitlerism—and thus encourages segregation.

Over the centuries, we have tried, either in the name of a philosophy denying Life, or in the name of ‘practical necessities’, to kill this racist tradition. We did not succeed. Buddhism referred its followers to monastic life, but had in practice as a result of mixing the castes without causing the extinction of the human species. He ended up being swept from India. Guru Govinda Singh, the founder of the Sikh warrior sect, had wanted to take his followers from all castes, claiming to take into account only the individual worth of each man. But this concern for combative efficiency, this requirement for essentially Aryan qualities such as the spirit of sacrifice, the sense of responsibility, the joyful acceptance of discipline, even a very hard one, etc., have resulted in it being mostly Hindus from Aryan castes who came to him. One only has to look at the Sikhs to see it. No Government of the present ‘Indian Republic’ will succeed where Guru Govinda Singh and, centuries before him, the Buddha himself, failed…

In other words, India will never be ‘a nation’. Nor will they—hopefully at least—be ethnic chaos without a racial elite: the caste system, even with its current weaknesses, will save them from such a fate. They will remain an association of peoples and races, united by the only common civilisation which is in accord with their natural hierarchy. Because Hinduism is more than a religion in the sense in which we hear this word today in the West. It is a civilisation; a civilisation dominated by Aryan racism, made acceptable to many non-Aryan races, thanks to the dogma of karma and the transmigration of souls.

If one day Hitlerism succeeded in conquering Europe, it seems to me almost certain that over the following centuries the mentality of the average European would come closer and closer to that of the Orthodox Hindu of any caste. I will tell you, as an illustration of this, an episode from my life in India.

It was during the glorious year—1940—shortly after the start of the French campaign. I was living in Calcutta—unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I had not managed to return to Europe in time. And I had a young servant named Khudiram, a fifteen year old teenager, Shudra, from the Mahishya sub-caste (West Bengal farming community), very dark skinned, with slightly slanted eyes, with a flat face—not Aryan at all!—and perfectly illiterate. One morning, coming back from the fish market (where he went every day to buy something to feed the cats) this boy said to me triumphantly: ‘Mem Saheb, I worship your Führer, and wish with all my heart that he wins the war!’

I was speechless. ‘Khudiram’, I said, ‘do you worship him only because you know, like everyone else, that he is victorious? You don’t know anything about the story of his life and his actions’.

‘It may be’, the teenager replied, ‘that I’m just ignorant. But this morning I got to know a grown-up at the market who is at least twenty years old and can read. And he told me that your Führer is fighting, in Europe, in order to root out the Bible, which he wants to replace with the Bhagavad-Gita’.

I was speechless again. I thought, in the blink of an eye: ‘The Führer would be very surprised if he knew how to interpret his doctrine in the Halls of Calcutta!’ Then I recalled a passage from Song I of the Bhagavad-Gîta, as I knew it in the beautiful translation of Eugène Burnouf: ‘From the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of castes—therefore of races. From the confusion of castes comes the loss of memory; from the loss of memory comes the loss of understanding, and of it all evils’.[iii] And I thought, What else has Adolf Hitler done, but repeat these eternal words, and act according to their mind?

I said to Khudiram: ‘The ‘great’ you speak of was right. Repeat what he taught you to anyone who wants to hear you. I give you a day off for this purpose—and a rupee to pay for a cup of tea for your friends. Go, and use your freedom for a good Cause!’

The kid, very happy, was about to leave the kitchen where this interview had taken place. I couldn’t help but hold him back for a moment and ask him what made him so enthusiastically want this ‘New Order’ which, however, hardly favoured people of his race. ‘Do you know, Khudiram’, I said to him, ‘that to replace the Bible with the Bhagavad-Gita in distant Europe and in all the countries which come under its influence, would be equivalent to extending to practically the whole earth a caste system parallel to that of the Indies? And do you know that as Shudra you wouldn’t have any chance of promotion in my Führer’s New Order? And do you love him despite that?’

I will never forget the teenager’s response—the response of the non-Aryan masses in India, loyal to a racist Tradition that goes beyond them, from the mouth of an illiterate youth: ‘Certainly I know that. I want your Führer to win because the order he tries to establish wherever he can is in accordance with the spirit of the Shastras; because it is the divine order; the true order. No matter what place he gives me, to me! I am nothing; I do not count. It’s the truth that counts. If I was born into a very humble caste, it is because I deserved it. I have faulted, and seriously, in my past lives. If, in this life, I remain faithful to the rules of my caste: if I do not eat prohibited foods; if I marry a girl among those that are allowed to me, and do not desire any of the others, I will be reborn a little higher in the scale of beings. And if I persevere, from life to life, in the path of purity, who knows? One day—in many centuries—perhaps I will be reborn as a Brahmin? Or among these new Aryas of Europe who also worship your Führer?’

In successive waves, descended the Khaïber Pass. The child of the Tropics paid homage to them after sixty centuries. And I thought of my German comrades—my brothers in the Hitlerite faith—whose armored divisions then followed each other along the roads of France. The child of the Tropics paid homage to them too, because their faith is the modern expression of the Aryan Tradition of always.

______ 卐 ______

 
England’s real crime against India is not to have exploited the soil and the people on an unprecedented scale, but was to have inculcated into the heads of thousands of Hindus of higher castes, anti-racialist democratic principles, anti-traditionalist principles, along with an ominous humanitarianism when not an out-and-out anthropocentrism; and finally to have introduced into the administration of that vast sub-continent such measures as tended to promote the least valuable racial elements of the population.

The whole system was conceived in order to take away from the Hindus, in general, and especially from the high-caste Hindus—i.e., from the Aryan elite of India—every scrap of political power, already within the more and more ‘Indianised’ administration that the British were setting up themselves, before their departure, which they had felt was unavoidable. It was enforced by the authority without appeal of the colonial power. One could not change it. One only could, from an Aryan racialist standpoint, try to limit the mischief that would result out of its applications. And in order to do that, one had to act as though one accepted the absurd principle of the ‘right’ of any majority to power, regardless of its value, simply because it represents the greatest numbers and strive to make the Hindus a majority at the expense of other communities. (Editor’s note: With their obsession with JQ, white nationalists have been blinded to seeing the beam in their own eye – in this case, the egalitarianism imposed on this colony of the British Empire.)

One therefore had to try to give to the most backward of the most degenerate of Aborigines—to the half-savages of the hills of Assam—a (false) Hindu consciousness. One had to bring them to proclaim themselves ‘Hindus’, sincerely, by telling them how tolerant Hinduism is, but by forgetting to mention the caste system that it upholds. One had to try to bring (or rather bring back) the Indian Christian or Muslim (both, as a rule, sprung from low-caste Hindus converted to one of the two foreign creeds) to Hinduism. And for that one had to surmount the repugnance of most Hindus to accept them, for never yet had Hinduism taken back into its fold anyone who had left it or had been expelled from it (and declared Untouchable). One could fall out of one’s caste and land into Untouchable. One could not re-enter it. But one had to change that, if power was not to pass entirely into the hands of the non-Aryan majority of the population of India. For alone could a (false) nationalism—a European style nationalism, necessarily false in the case of any multiracial society—bring about the change and unite the Hindus under a no less false parliamentary system imposed up in them against their tradition, and against the Aryan Tradition, of which their elite had remained up till then the sole depositary.

I was then employed as a lecturer and as a ‘missionary of Hinduism’ by the ‘Hindu Mission’, a half-religious, half-political organisation which, for more than thirty years already, had been striving to recover from Hinduism all those who were (or whose fathers were) out of it, for whatever reason. Full of bitterness towards historical Christianity because of the role it played in the West—ardent admirer of Emperor Julian and Hypatia, no less than of Wittekind—I once introduced myself to the President of the Mission, Swami Satyananda. I had offered my services to him. He asked me what attracted me to India, and I quoted him, translating them into Bengali:

Rama, Daçarathide honoured with the Brahmans,
You whose blood is pure, You whose body is white,
Said Lakshmana, hi, sparkling tamer
Of all the profane races! [iv]

I had told him that I was Hitlerist and Pagan—still regretting the conversion, by snatch or by force, of my native Europe to the religion of Paul of Tarsus—and that I wanted to work to prevent the one and last country to have kept (in part at least) the Aryan Gods—India—from following the bad example of the West and from falling, too, under the spiritual influence of the Jews. I told him I wanted to help make India our ally, in the fight against false ‘values’.

He had accepted me and given me full freedom of expression provided that he told me, I place myself, in my speeches to crowds, ‘from the Hindu point of view’ and that I ‘take into account the particular circumstances from the country’. ‘I consider’, he added, ‘Your Master as an Incarnation of Vishnu, an expression of the divine Force which preserves what deserves to be preserved. And his disciples are in my eyes our spiritual brothers. But you will have to make concessions here, at least as long as the English are there; otherwise you will not be able to compete with the propaganda of Christian missionaries who preach “man”, regardless of race. Think about it!’

I had to ‘think about it’! No appeal to a mass, and especially to a multiracial mass, is possible without certain compromises. We could not ask the Shudras (or the Untouchables) converted to religions of equality, to come out and reintegrate Hinduism, without giving them the impression that they would lose none of their acquired ‘rights’…

The English administration, antiracist in principle (despite a racial segregation limited to worldly relations, and which did not apply to Jews, moreover) made no difference between a Brahmin, Indo-European by blood and mentality, and the last of the Nagas or Koukis of Assam, especially if the latter represented in the Assembly either the Christians or the ‘shudra castes’, that is to say the Untouchables, of his province. It was not my fault if she had this attitude, and if she tended to ‘Indianise’ as much as she could the legislative bodies and the public services, in this spirit that was other than that of decadent Europe; of that Europe which would soon reject Hitler’s renaissance with the stupid vehemence we know.

______ 卐 ______

 
If we had won the war, India—that she would have remained ‘British’, which is unlikely, despite the Führer’s desire (before the war) not to touch the British colonial empire—or that it had become independent—would have very quickly got rid of the democratic reforms introduced by the English and would have returned to its immemorial tradition: to the Tradition of the Aryas…

I have often wondered to what extent the few Englishmen who seriously wanted their country’s collaboration with the German Reich—those Englishmen who were, almost all, from the start of World War II, interned ‘preventively’ in the name of the Law 18 B, realised the magnitude of the transformation this would have brought about, and the repercussions it would have on the future of their people and the world. I knew one well—Elwyn Wright, physically and mentally, one of the most beautiful specimens of Aryan that I have met—who was aware of it, and who wanted this collaboration precisely because of that. But how many were there like him?…

One of the tragedies of our time is that, taken en masse, it is the enemies of Hitlerism, and in particular the Jews, and intelligent Christians, who have understood this best. They hated him, no doubt; but they detested him precisely for what makes him greatness and eternity: for his scale of values, centred not on ‘man’, but on life; for its possibility of becoming very quickly—once associated with rites—a real religion. They hated him because they felt, more or less confusedly—and sometimes very clearly—that his victory would mean the end of everything that, for at least two thousand years (if not two thousand and four hundred), the Western world has known and loved; the negation of the values which, for so long, helped him to live.

It should be noted that at least one of the most brilliant French collaborators—and one of those who paid with their life for their friendship for regenerated Germany—Robert Brasillach, himself was aware of the character essentially ‘Pagan’, from Hitler mysticism. He collaborated with Germany despite this; not because of it. And he has on several occasions, in particular in his novel Les Sept Couleurs, underlined the impression of disorientation, of somewhat frightening strangeness, which he felt in his neighbours across the Rhine, in spite of all the weather. Admiration he had for their rebirth, both political and social. ‘It is’, he writes, speaking of Adolf Hitler’s Germany, ‘a strange country, further from us than the most distant India or China, a pagan country’…

Among the French collaborators as well as among the English 18 B’s I have only met very few people who are sincerely Hitlerites, although they are aware of the philosophical implications of Hitlerism. I will say more: there were, even at the time of the greatest glory of the Third Reich, very few true Hitlerites among the millions of Germans who acclaimed the Führer. One of the purest that I have had the joy and the honour of knowing—the Oberregierungs-und Schulrat Heinrich Blume—told me in 1953 that the number of Germans who had given themselves entirely to the Movement knowing fully this they were doing, never exceeded three hundred thousand. We are far from the ninety-eight and a half percent of the voters of the Reich, who had brought the Führer to power! The vast majority of these had voted for the reconstruction of the German economy and the regeneration of the social body, not for the return to the fundamental truths of life and for the ‘fight against time’ that Hitlerism involved, and of which they did not even realise. (Editor’s note: This explains why the Allied denazification process was so easy.)

Even more: there are Germans who—like Hermann Rauschning, the author of the book Hitler Told Me—withdrew from the Movement as soon as they realised the pagan character of Hitler’s Weltanschauung. And it should be noted that they did not realise this until they had gained the Führer’s confidence enough for him to admit them into his small circle of insiders or partially insiders. For there was a difference between the teaching given to the people in general and that which the disciples received; a difference, not in content, but in clarity. For example, Point 24 of the famous ‘Twenty-five Points’ specifies that the Party, while proclaiming the widest religious tolerance, sticks to a ‘positive Christianity’—in other words, to there is something ‘positive’, that is to say true, in conformity with tradition, in historical Christianity—but that it condemns and combats any religion or philosophy ‘which shocks the moral sense of the Germanic race, or which is dangerous to the State’.[v] He (no doubt deliberately) omits to recall that any religion which turns its back on the realities of this world, and in particular on the biological realities, to the point of allowing the marriage of people of different races, provided they are members of the same ‘church’, as well as any religion or philosophy who exalts ‘the man’, even deficient, even to the last degree of physical or moral (or physical and moral) degradation, can only be a public danger, in the National Socialist State.

The Führer defends himself in Mein Kampf from aiming in the least at religious reform. ‘It is criminal’, he writes, ‘to try to destroy the faith accepted by the people, ‘as long as there is nothing that can replace it’.[vi] He further writes that the mission of the National Socialist Movement ‘does not consist of religious reform, but of a political reorganisation of the German people’.[vii] But what he does not write—what he could not write in a book intended for the great mass of a people Christianised since the ninth century and believing himself, at least for the most part, to be Christian—is that any regime based, as was the National Socialist regime, on the negation of the intrinsic value of everything man, regardless of his race and his individual worth, is necessarily the antithesis of a Christian social order. Because every Christian society has for principle the respect of ‘the human being’ created, whatever it is, ‘to the image and likeness’ of a transcendent and personal God, essentially a friend of man. What Adolf Hitler could not tell the masses is that any political regime based on a doctrine centred on Life and its eternal laws necessarily has a more-than-political meaning. His own success depended on the voice of the masses, because we must not forget that he took power ‘legally’, that is to say ‘democratically’.

This more-than-political significance of Hitlerism, only in Germany fully grasped the Führer himself and the National Socialist elite: the initiates of the Thüle-Gesellschaft; the teachers and the best pupils of the Ordensburgen, where the members of the SS were formed. The mass of the people did not feel it, and would have been astonished, if someone had shown it to them, with all its implications; if, for example, someone had made him understand that Christianity and Hitlerism are two different and incompatible paths, open to the Eternal, and that the same person cannot follow both, but must choose. (Editor’s note: Therefore, white nationalists have chosen evil.)

Outside of Germany—and outside of India, of Aryan tradition—a thinking elite loved or feared or hated Hitlerism because of its true nature. The Jewish elite cursed him for reasons far more profound than the secular secret hostility which opposed Israel to the Germanic world. The enormous mass of men from all countries—indifferent to ‘politics’—feared him without knowing exactly why, in reality because they vaguely felt in him the negation of all anthropocentrism; the ‘Starry Space Wisdom’ (as I have called it myself) as opposed to ‘the love of man’ and the concern for his happiness, in this world or in another.

_______________

[i] This was written before East Bengal ceased to be called ‘Pakistan’, to become ‘Bangladesh’, which simply means ‘Bengal’.

[ii] ‘Honoured with men’.

[iii] Bhagawad-Gîta, I, verses 41 and following.

[iv] Leconte de Lisle (The Arc of Çiva; Ancient Poems).

[v] ‘Wir fordern die Freiheit Aller religiösen Bekenntnissen im Staat, solang sie nicht dessen Bestand gefährden oder gegen das Sittlichkeits—und Moralgefühl der germanischen Rasse verstoßen’.

[vi] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf German edition 1935, pages 293-294.

[ [vii] Adolf Hitler, Ibid, page 379.

The wolf and the lion

‘The Wolf and the Lion’ is the fifth episode of the first season of the HBO medieval fantasy television series Game of Thrones, first aired on May 15, 2011.

The episode opens with beautiful shots of King’s Landing and a manly conversation between Ned Stark and a prominent member of the royal guard. Inside the castle, Ned’s studio, the studio of the Hand of the King, is so beautiful and Aryan that just for those shots the series is worth watching.

But the scene I want to focus on takes place on another side of the castle, in the room of the Small Council: a body that advises the King of the Seven Kingdoms and institutes politics under his command. It is the internal council, therefore, ‘small’, of the King that forms his cabinet. The members are appointed by him. Specifically, the scene I am referring to is a heated discussion about Dany (Daenerys Targaryen) between King Robert and Ned Stark, of which the following words stand out:

King Robert: ‘The whore is pregnant!’

Ned Stark: ‘You are speaking of murdering a child…’

King Robert: ‘I want’em dead, mother and child both! And the fool Viserys as well. Is that plain enough for you? I want them dead!’

Ned Stark: ‘You will dishonour yourself forever for this’.

King Robert: ‘Honour? I’ve got seven kingdoms to rule! One king, seven kingdoms. Do you think honour keeps them in line? Do you think it’s honour that’s keeping the peace? It’s fear—fear and blood’.

Ned Stark: ‘Then we’re no better than the Mad King’.

King Robert: ‘Careful Ned. Careful now’.

Ned Stark: ‘You want to assassinate a girl [Dany] because the spider [Lord Varys’ nickname] heard a rumour?’

Spider Varys serves as the ‘Master of Whispers’, a sort of a medieval intelligence department in service of the king. The eunuch Varys is famous for possessing what he calls ‘Little Birds’: informants from all corners of the Seven Kingdoms and even beyond the Narrow Sea. His spy Jorah Mormont found out that Dany was pregnant.

King Robert: ‘A Targaryen at the head of a Dothraki army. What then…?’

Ned Stark: ‘The Narrow Sea still lies between us. I’ll fear the Dothraki the day they teach their horses to run on water’.

King Robert: ‘Do nothing? That’s your advice? Do nothing till our enemies are on our shores? You’re my council. Counsel! Speak sense to this honourable fool’.

The Small Council—Robert’s brother Renly, Lord Varys, Littlefinger, and Grand Maester Pycelle—try to reason with Ned. Everyone agrees that the last of the Targaryens should be killed, especially the one who carries in her womb the child of non-white warlord Drogo.

King Robert: ‘She dies!’

Ned Stark: ‘I will have no part in it’.

Ned’s blunder in his heated argument with the king was even more colossal than the one his wife committed in the previous episode: so great in fact that here the series already makes me angry.

If there is something that attracts the fandom toward Game of Thrones it’s that it portrays a medieval universe without Christianity, something similar to what would have happened in Europe if Christianity hadn’t conquered Rome. But Ned’s attitude is evangelical, and it even makes me want to suspend watching the episode.

His quixotic standards of morality can only lead to the catastrophe of House Stark, which is exactly what happened in subsequent episodes. If George R.R. Martin had been consistent in devising a medieval universe without a single character whose behaviour mimics Christian ethics, he wouldn’t have written such a scene. It reminds me of an old discussion between Brad Griffin and Alex Linder on Radio Free Mississippi, where Griffin tried to corner Linder by asking him what Linder would do if he was left alone with a seven-year-old Jewish girl in a room. For the Lutheran Griffin any exterminationist ideation had to be admonished, as Ned did with Robert in the above quote regarding wiping out the Targaryen House for good.

King Aerys II Targaryen, commonly called ‘the Mad King’, had been a member of House Targaryen in ruling from the Iron Throne. Although his rule began benevolently, he succumbed to the insanity caused by his incestuous lineage and was ultimately deposed by Lord Robert Baratheon in a civil war. The Mad King was the father of both Viserys Targaryen and Daenerys Targaryen, whom I introduced from the first instalment of this series.

Years before what we see in the fifth episode, the Mad King had Ned Stark’s father burned alive! This had happened not far from where Ned’s heated argument with King Robert takes place. Despite their hyper-Nordish beauty the Targaryens had a reputation for being prone to psychotic outbursts. In the real world, as I have already said on this site, I don’t believe that white people are prone to psychosis due to genetic factors. It’s not the hardware but software issues what are driving them mad (Christian and neochristian programming).

The discussion between Ned and Robert makes me say that there should be no Christians in the Small Council of the new government once the racists take power. There should be no one like a Brad Griffin or a Matt Parrott who, in a sensitive moment, behave like Ned. What we must do is the complete opposite of what Harold Covington wrote in his novels about the formation of a White Republic in the US: that eventually the ‘pagans’ (Covington’s term) and Christians would compromise.

Why such an uncompromising attitude?

Game of Thrones consists of 73 episodes. As we will see in the penultimate episode, #72, Dany, the Targaryen girl that Ned felt so sorry for, would finally arrive at King’s Landing with her non-white Dothraki army and burn the capital of the seven kingdoms (think of what happened in Dresden).

King Robert was right!

This also reminds me of what the neo-Christian Greg Johnson wrote about The Turner Diaries: that Pierce’s novel disgusted him. The ‘secular’ Johnson, who gave homilies in his church of San Francisco has been, axiologically, identical to Brad Griffin and Ned Stark. So let’s iterate it again: No Christian or pseudo-apostate of Christianity shall be in our Small Council.

Ned removes his badge of office of Hand of the King at Robert’s table. Later he was about to lose his life not because of the king’s rage: but because of an attack by Jaime Lannister’s guard after Jaime learnt about what Ned’s stupid wife did with Tyrion Lannister on the other side of the kingdom. But what I want to get to is that white nationalists, children of Christian parents after all, are like Don Quixote Ned. They imagine it’s possible to reclaim their countries without violating Jesus’ commandments, even the so-called secular nationalists.

Stop reading their web pages! The question that the new visitor to those sites should ask himself is: Has the admin of this site abandoned the ethical code that the Jew who wrote the Gospel left us?

But what I loved about the episode was the tone in which King Robert spoke: just the outrageous tone in which I speak in my mother tongue.

Published in: on February 28, 2021 at 3:17 pm  Comments Off on The wolf and the lion  
Tags:

The origins of white guilt

by Tom Sunic

In order to tentatively elicit a convincing answer regarding the pathology of White guilt one needs to raise some rhetorical questions about Christian teachings. Why are White Christian peoples, in contrast to other peoples of other races and other religions on Earth, more prone to excessive altruism toward non-White out-groups? Why are guilt feelings practically nonexistent among non-White peoples?

One answer to these questions may be found in Christian teachings that have made up an important pillar of Western civilization over the centuries. Over the last one hundred years, modern Liberal and Communist elites have aggressively promoted those same feeling of White guilt, albeit in their own atheistic, secular and ‘multicultural’ modalities. One must rightfully reject the Liberal or Antifa palaver about White guilt, yet the fact remains that the Vatican, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the German Bishops’ conference, along with all other Christian denominations in Europe and the US today are the loudest sponsors of non-White immigration to Europe and America, as well as the strongest advocates of White guit. The Church’s ecumenical preaching about a global city under one god with all of humanity is fully in accordance with the early Christian dogma on man’s fall and his eventual redemption.

It must be pointed out that early Christian apostles, evangelists and theologians who foisted the dogma of man’s guilt were all by birth and without any exception non-Europeans (St. Augustine, Tertullian, St. Paul, Cyprian, etc.) from North Africa, Syria, Asia Minor and Judea.

Having this in mind, lambasting Islam or Judaism in the present as the sole carriers of aggressive non-European anti-White ideology, as many White nationalists do, while downplaying the Middle-Eastern birthplace of Christianity, cannot be a sign of neither moral nor intellectual consistency.

The Roman poet Juvenal, describes graphically in his satires the Rome of the late first century, a time when the city was swarming with multitudes of Syrian lowlifes, Chaldean star worshippers, Jewish conmen, and Ethiopian hustlers, all of them offering a quick ride to eternal salvation for some and eternal damnation for others.

Similar messianic, redemptive beliefs about the shining future, under the guidance of prominent early Bolshevik agitators, most of them of Jewish origin, have found their new location, two millennia later, among credulous intellectuals and equality-hungry masses. After the fall of Communism, the same messianic drive to punish the guilty ones who defy modern Liberal and multicultural scholasticism found its loudest mouthpiece among US neocons and antifa inquisitors.

This is not the place to rehash Friedrich Nietzsche’s own emotional ravings at Christians, nor quote dozens of thinkers and scholars who had earlier described the psychological link between early Jewish and Christian zealots of first-century Rome and communist commissars of the early twentieth century. Times have changed but the obsession as to how extirpate or reeducate those who doubt the myths of the System haven’t changed a bit.

The psychological profile of US modern-day Antifa zealots and their college professor supporters bears a close resemblance with early uprooted, largely miscegenated, effeminate Christian masses in the late Roman empire. The Jew St. Paul and later on the North African St. Augustine—judging by their own convulsive contrition—suggest that they suffered from bipolar disorder. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (7:18) may be the key to grasping the modern version of neurotic White self-haters put on display by prominent news anchors and humanities professors today: ‘And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can’t. I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway’.

Walter F. Otto, a renowned author on ancient Greek gods and one of the most quoted Hellenistic scholars, describes the differences between the ancient Greek vs. Christian notion of the sacred. He notes that ancient pagan Greeks laid emphasis on the feelings of shame, unaware of the meaning of feelings of guilt…

At some point Whites will need to realise that a successful healing of their feelings of guilt presupposes a critical reassessment of their Judeo-Christian-inspired origins. If Whites in Europe and the US were once upon a time all eager to embrace the Semitic notion of original sin, no wonder that two thousand years later they could likewise be well programmed to put up with a variety of World War II necrophiliac victimhoods, as well as tune in to fake news delivered by their politicians.

Eventually Whites will need to make a decision about where to choose the location of their identity. In Athens or in Jerusalem.

__________

Read it all: here.

Published in: on February 9, 2021 at 11:02 am  Comments Off on The origins of white guilt  
Tags:

Mexico in a nutshell

Mesoamerica’s Amerindians from the Olmecs to the Aztecs (2,500 b.c.e. to 1521 c.e.) were true bastards: a culture of serial killers even of their own children—see the middle of my book Day of Wrath.

When the silly Spaniards arrived in the 16th century—the least racially conscious among Europeans—the first thing they did was cross-breed with these serial killers, completely ruining their culture and genes for posterity.

The Mexican War of Independence against Spain fought by the traitorous Criollos, the Mestizos, the Indians and the Mulattoes (1810-1821) was a war against the peninsular whites. And the Mexican Revolution one hundred years later (1910-1917, although political violence continued until 1924) lowered racial taboos and fostered the rise of non-Criollos.

Today’s Mexicans have internalised the current neochristian narrative (feminism, antiracism, LGBT, idealisation of pre-Columbian Mexico, etc.) with such violence that, in the whole Mexican media, there is no equivalent of a Tucker Carlson who speaks with some measure about a world turned upside down.

Published in: on December 23, 2020 at 11:01 pm  Comments (2)  

Dear Caesar,

I sent you a small donation in support of the Daybreak Publishing project. I believe this is an invaluable project for our people, a sign of great devotion to the Nordic ideal and the 14 words. I did a little research on Lighting Source and it seems as though the initial cost for submitting the complete manuscript is $120 with additional fees for revisions, etc. Is that what your research shows? I made it a recurring donation, but please let me know if there are any additional costs and I will do my best to assist you.

I have never been much of a tech junkie or online poster so you probably do not recognise my name. Nonetheless, I certainly value your insight and the dedication that goes into your prodigious web site. I have been perusing your website from a distance for several years and I am a firm believer that our world is now completely consumed by neochristianity—a most astute observation my friend!

The recent COVID insanity is a case study in the absurdity of Christian ethics in modernity. I keep telling people that we are totally neglecting the most basic Darwinist principles and the mindless lemmings always reply: ‘We can’t possibly do that, people aren’t ready for that, we need to protect the vulnerable’.

The funny thing is that these people are not even professed Christians! So tiresome. Seems as though the survival of the fittest philosophy was burned up in the Hellstorm. Nonetheless, I am most hopeful that there are a few embers still burning. The new David Irving book is good evidence of this theory—I plan on ordering my copy later tonight.

Furthermore, I want you to know that I am really enjoying the new pdf book, On Exterminationism. Thanks again for all your hard work and please let me know if you need any additional help.

Best regards,

SS physician

Published in: on December 19, 2020 at 11:18 am  Comments (6)  

More Morgan comments

Whites who want to preserve their race are powerless in America, and they are powerless precisely because they are unwilling to inflict death upon their opponents.

Alden: ‘Whites have none of the essentials for a successful revolution or even to stop the ongoing racism against us’.

Yes, that’s true, and I agree with a lot of what you wrote. But my point was, the one most essential thing they’re lacking is the will to fight; the worldview that would allow them to celebrate the deaths of children, such as Breivik killed, or even of those mostly adult Muslims that Tarrant murdered. If they had the will to fight, they could, but they value civilised behaviour and the products of civilisation, and the sort of violence that would be needed to preserve themselves as a race would destroy all that. Their pride consists in being civilised in ‘law and order’, luxuriating in consumer goods and ease, getting fat.

Lavoisier: ‘Killing innocent civilians is never the way to win hearts and minds to a cause’.

Tell that to the killers of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. They weren’t looking to win anyone to their cause, and they were victorious. Or the Romans, who finally levelled Carthage, sold the population into slavery, and sowed the ground with salt. Total war requires such behaviour, and if you’re not willing to do it, you’re not serious. Trying to win hearts and minds is why the USA hasn’t won a war since WWII.

Kill their bodies, and their hearts and minds cease to be a problem.

* * *

The very name ‘Wokeism’ harkens back to the outbreaks of religious fervour referred to as the Great Awakenings of Christian America. By some accounts there have been four of them.

‘Wokeism’ is arguably a fifth wave, just Christian ethics in another form, where belief in Jesus and anything supernatural has become optional. The cultural triumph of Christianity has been so complete in the West that even atheists accept without question the so-called ‘brotherhood of man’, the existence and equality of ‘souls’, the wisdom of ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, etc. There’s no evidence for any of that stuff, of course. But does that make it a religion? I say no. Though there are still Christians involved in it, it’s mostly secular and just political.

Fanatic Christian abolitionist John Brown was the early prototype for today’s BLM and Antifa rioters. While ‘Wokeism’ is the cultural residue of 19th century American Christianity, it’s still political, not a competing religion.

Published in: on October 12, 2020 at 8:41 pm  Comments Off on More Morgan comments  
Tags:

Amalric de Droevig on Christianity

‘The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity’. —Hitler.

I barely had finished my previous post and found out that Kevin MacDonald had just published, today, a critical article on Christianity, Amalric de Droevig’s ‘The Way Forward: A New Christianity, Partition, and a General Operational Plan’ of which I’ll quote most of it and offer my comments:

Other things are not so easy for Whites to let go. They are deeply embedded in our lives, our culture, and our psyche, yet they are destroying us. The two most prominent examples are Christianity and Americanism in their present corrupt state. These two things are poisons corroding the soul of our people.

So, firstly, we must separate the White Western tradition from Christianity.

As we will see, Amalric de Droevig doesn’t seem to be familiar with the violent history of the first centuries of Christianity.

Northern and Eastern Europe weren’t fully Christianized until the twelfth century, and some parts of Europe were arguably never truly Christianized. The White West has arguably been non-Christian longer than it has been Christian. Indeed, the most glorious and prolific periods of White Western history were distinctly non-Christian. The Ancient Greeks and the Romans were non-Christian. Greek civilization was particularly intellectually prolific, and Roman civilization was incredibly successful militarily and administratively. Moreover, the Renaissance and the explosion in human knowledge that has taken place from the Renaissance to the present day has occurred as Christianity has gradually withered. I doubt that is an accident.

Modern Christianity is a significant net negative to White interests. If some form of Christianity might be worth preserving, it must be a religion far different from modern Christianity.

If Droevig was familiar with the violent history of the early centuries of Christianity, he would make no distinction between modern and ancient Christianity in terms of toxicity to our cause.

For Christianity to be an acceptable religion, a useful religion for Whites, it must abandon many of its universalistic aspects. It must emphasize the local, the hierarchical, and the traditional. It must deemphasize the global, the novel, and the egalitarian. Christianity can take and has taken many forms throughout history, but rightist dissidents must make clear that certain forms of it are neither moral nor conservative, but are instead a kind of civilizational poison, eating away at the soul of our people and the societies we built.

Droevig doesn’t seem to have read what Robert Morgan has insisted so many times: that it is impossible to Aryanize a universalist religion like Christianity, to make it tribal. Even the Nazis couldn’t do it convincingly despite the efforts of the so-called positive Christianity.

When die-hard Christian corporate leaders like Dan Cathy of chicken joint Chik-Fil-A are invoking Christianity’s call to repent while literally shining the shoes of Black rappers on TV, you know something has gone horribly awry with the Christian creed. Furthermore, even if you wish to lay the ultimate blame for Christianity’s obvious numerical and moral decline at the feet of leftism, the fact is the Christian religion has a disturbing tendency to degrade and deform itself to the prevailing forces around it. It is very accommodating to power, accommodating in a way that Whites simply cannot afford any longer. We have no more ground to give as a people.

Christianity must immediately abandon its pacifistic, highly conciliatory orientation for it to be a religion Whites would do well to preserve. Frankly, I don’t see that happening, but time will tell. It is difficult to see how a religion that views us all as “god’s children” and fundamentally “equal in the eyes of God,” makes its way back to a more practical, natural, and traditional place on race. Although there are passages in Biblical scripture that are sympathetic to our views and our political objectives, those passages are consistently ignored by modern theologians, or cleverly explained away.

Which passages? Is Droevig referring to Old Testament passages that advance Jewry’s tribal spirit? That doesn’t apply to the Aryan man and he knows it.

The Christian folks and forces which possessed and cultivated more nuanced and less perfectly egalitarian positions on race, have long since been driven from the pews and the lecterns. It is difficult to see a way back to sanity.

Every day I witness Christian Whites turning the other cheek and loving their enemies and welcoming invaders and spreading softness upon softness. That level of domesticity is really hurtful to our interests as a people. A little bit of violence and rage often works. See Islam. Incessant meekness only emboldens bullies like those in BLM and Antifa. Wherever Whites are making concessions to Blacks, for example, there is either some leftist nut or some Christian nut with a microphone explaining why it is so important for Whites to give Black people ground or goodies, no matter how unreasonable their demands or rooted in delusion their complaints. That is not helpful to anything, least of all the interests of Whites.

Christianity has become one hundred percent Christ and zero percent Charlemagne, and that is a serious problem.

This is what happens when a white nationalist who wants to start criticising Christianity does not subscribe to new posts on this site. Two months ago I wrote: The only living historian for whom I have respect told me that he would rate Charlemagne well up in the top five most evil characters of European history. I recently acquired Thomas Hodgkin’s The Life of Charlemagne, which I recommend to those who have swallowed the Christian version of this evil man.

If we keep in mind the message of the historical sections in The Fair Race, we will see that even after the Aryan apocalypse of the 4th and 5th centuries, there were still many Germanic tribes in the 6th and 7th centuries who refused to worship the god of the Jews. Charlemagne forced these uncontaminated Aryans to worship the enemy god: a historical milestone related to the philo-Semitic state that the entire West is currently suffering. We could imagine a parallel world in which at least part of the Aryan populations had not been worshiping, for more than a millennium, the volcanic demon that appeared to Moses in a desert…

White Christian leaders frequently tell their flock that living on your knees is the way into heaven. I fear, however, that if Whites do not stand up for themselves and refuse to kowtow to those that hate them—and soon, the White race itself is next to be crucified. All the systemic forces in the modern West are thoroughly anti-White, and those forces reward anti-White malice handsomely. Imagine thinking you live in a “White supremacist” society where a White person can’t even politely disagree with a Black person without being labeled “racist”. It is madness, frankly. I can not help but think Americans would be walked all over a whole lot less if there were more Vikings amongst us to stand up to leftist would-be tyrants and anti-White bullies. Christian leaders tell us that our meekness is Christlike and noble and a symbol of our goodness, but the reality is that our meekness, our dovishness, our conscientiousness, these supposedly good traits are all facilitating the ruination of our people. Those traits are further entrenching us in a state of vassalage.

Pro-White rightist dissidents must actively take a hard line against modern Christianity and expose it for being what it has become, namely an appendage of the Cultural Marxist American state, and a religion that serves the multicultural, multiracial non-White masses, rather than the people and the civilization that founded and spread it.

Precisely because Droevig ignores the history of Christianity, he is seeing things backwards. The so-called cultural Marxism didn’t breed the ethno-suicidal version of Christianity today. It was the axiology of Christianity, as Oswald Spengler already saw, that spawned Marxism.

Once upon a time, when Whiteness was coextensive with Christendom, Christianity’s interests were more or less identical to the interests of Whites. Over the last four or five hundred years, however, Christianity has spread wildly, becoming a global religion, a religion for all peoples.

Since Droevig hasn’t read the ten volumes of Karlheinz Deschner’s Criminal History of Christianity he ignores that there has been no Christianity friendly to our cause. It is a universalist and egalitarian religion that sides the untermensch and vilifies the Ubermensch, or at least treat both as equal. Remember what I said this Tuesday about the conquest of most of the American continent by the very Christian Spaniards and Portuguese.

The problem therein is that the interests of the Third World and the interests of Whites are simply not aligned. Thus, the religion’s interests are no longer linked to our people’s interests. The Third World is feeding on the White race right now. It is feasting on the fruits of White genius and our penchant for charity. Third Worlders are taking over our lands and our governments and our cultures and are turning them into theirs. The lives of White people are thoroughly worse for it. As it stands, Christianity can not serve both its increasingly diverse flock and also the race that founded it and made it relevant. The religious must be made to choose.

If White Christians, on balance, continue to choose religion over the race, the religion may have to be discarded altogether for Whites to survive. How can Whites thrive, or even survive, if one third of our people are anti-White leftist lunatics, and two thirds of the remaining two thirds are Christian nutjobs who place fellow Christians above their own coethnics?! If Whites cannot shape Christianity to serve our people, what good is it for our people? Christianity must accommodate Whiteness and White interests, not vice versa.

This won’t happen because Christianity, the religion of eternal damnation, is an inherently evil ideology: a Semitic religion that cannot be reformed for the Aryan cause, only abolished.

Yet today things are exactly the other way around. Whites are constantly bending over backwards and making excuses for the flaws in Christian theology and the folly of Christian leaders. But what does Christianity do for Whites? When does the Christian religion ever stand up for White people? All I see from church leaders are empty egalitarian bromides, claims that White racial advocacy is a sin, and ever more obnoxious capitulation to aggressive, covetous non-Whites. At best religious leaders ignore us, and at worst they intentionally marginalize us. Whites, in truth, must learn to be more like the Jews. Jews put the tribe first and belief second, and they’re impervious to criticism. That is arguably the key to Jewish success. For Whites, ideology and belief come first. We are an impractical, idealistic race—prone to moral crusades (all our wars have been justified on moral grounds, and the current anti-White zeitgeist is framed as a moral imperative). That is a problem if we wish to survive. At the absolute least, Whites must strengthen their attachment to Whiteness, and dilute their attachment to Christianity.

It is quite possible moreover to remain morally consistent whilst putting the tribe first. As Jared Taylor is fond of saying, “I believe in the same principles for all peoples,” All peoples deserve self-determination. All peoples deserve ethnostates, as the Chinese and the Jews and the Nigerians have. All peoples have the right to prefer their own and to advance their own interests, certainly in moderation. Yet Whites are today denied these fundamental privileges in the modern West.

Neither the Jews nor the Chinese nor the Muslims nor the Indians of India nor the mestizos of Latin America love the white man. But as a pious neochristian, Droevig continues to love the Other to the extent of wishing them a prosperous life in their ethnostates!

Ultimately, we must accept that Christianity is not good. Certain forms of it are perhaps good…

Which ones?

…but certain forms of it are clearly bad, much like streptococcus pneumoniae and certain other strains of bacteria. Once we have cemented that position in the psyche of the political right, religious conservatives can begin recreating Christianity in a sensible form.

Again, this is a fool’s errand. It’s like trying to reform Judaism so that in this reformed Judaism the best of the gentiles won’t be exterminated!

Doing so will also lay the groundwork for defectors (atheists and agnostics) to defect on the grounds that the religion is not advancing their long-term cultural and genetic interests, which it isn’t. This kind of defection may force the religion to evolve and concede ground to the pro-White Alt-Right, or it may continue doing what is has been doing, namely reacting by doubling down on its destructive, modern form. Christian leaders today do not seem to care if White defectors are replaced with 70-IQ African believers. Like Western oligarchs, they seem more interested in quantity than quality. The pro-White dissident right is way too soft on Christianity.

Very true!

We must be much harder on it. By continually accommodating Christian power structures, we do not force Christian leaders to make hard choices. We continue to accommodate those who accommodate our enemies, those who give our enemies more and more ground, and more and more power at our expense. That is folly.

The same is true of the dissident right’s approach to the GOP. We demand nothing of them and so we get nothing from them. We must press the bastards to gain anything from them. GOP oligarch puppets, like retrograde Christian leaders, are not charitable, benevolent people, by and large. You must squeeze and threaten them, and be willing to harm yourself to some degree if you want anything from them. You cannot simply ask nicely or play nice and expect anything in return.

If we can induce a schism between modern Christians (Christians) and traditional Christians (alt-Christians), a reformation of sorts may follow. That schism will serve our movement, if only by catapulting our movement to the foreground in the public eye. We must ask, “why is Christianity not serving our people?” and “who is serving our people?”

Droevig fails to understand what’s happening with Christianity. In my previous post I talked about Conservative Swede and ‘The Red Giant’, which is worth quoting here: ‘We are witnessing the historical demise of Christianity. When a star dies, in its last phase it expands into a red giant, before it shrinks into a white dwarf. Liberalism is the red giant of Christianity. And just as a red giant is devoid of its core, it expands thousandfold [e.g., the recent negrolatric great awakeing] while losing its substance and is about to die’.

That must be the Alt-Right’s approach to everything. The White race’s interests must be on the ballot as well.

Today’s West will not allow the existence of an openly racist party. What’s Droevig’s plan? Pacific methods apparently:

We could set up a Black ethnostate in the American South, a White ethnostate somewhere in the American middle, and perhaps a number of other states with different governmental or demographic structures. However, in order to get there we need to normalize the idea of partition and related ideas. We can actually do that, but we have to be talking about them constantly. Partition has to be the locus of our memes, and our articles, and our political advocacy. Pro-White leaders must be advocating for the peaceful [my italics] partition of America as a serious solution to our intractable problems.

After knocking down the statues representing the white man who founded modern nations, what some BLM members are starting to say is that the next step will be to do that with flesh-and-blood whites. But Droevig still loves the enemy…

The most important thing we must weaken, however, if partition is to be possible, and if our movement’s broader goals are to be realized, is the White American commitment to America itself. Whites are, by and large, patriotic Americans. They are loyal to a government that is hell-bent on destroying them. That is, in a word, insane. What patriotic White Americans must become, before it is too late, is patriotic Alt-Americans, committed to the ideals of the Founding Fathers and to traditions of America prior to the cultural revolution of the 1960’s, but attached to an Alt-American / Post-American identity. We can not remain attached to a political arrangement that is hostile to our very existence, but we may be able to preserve an American identity and Americana in some limited respects.

Droevig started his essay saying that we have to criticise Americanism and now he defends it!

Robert S. Griffin is right that it is wise to root our arguments in America’s historic political and cultural ideals, but we must be careful to do so without legitimizing the modern American state or modern American ideals. Traditional American ideals and values are fine to exploit and employ, but not the ideals that have been foisted upon us since the 1960s, no matter their persuasiveness to normietards…

That’s exactly what I believed before July 24, 2009 when I was arguing with Conservative Swede. Since that month I realised I was naïve by believing that in the 1950s everything was great (cf. again ‘The Red Giant’). The wrong turn for the white race didn’t occur in the 60s. It started more than a millennium before, in the 4th century of the common era.

In this way we can reconcile the competing approaches to “America” and American identity. We can thread the needle as it were. We can retain an American identity, while still setting ourselves off and apart from modern America and the modern American state.

Here Ferdinand Bardamu is correct in his sentence from my other post today: ‘America must die because the Whites who once formed her civilizational backbone are deracinated, alienated and milquetoast cosmopolitans’.

They won’t stop failing us because we enlist in the military in greater numbers or become more religiously radical. Our institutions must change or they must go. Whites must adapt or perish. The sooner Whites recognize this harsh reality, the sooner will we get on with rescuing ourselves from our current debauched state as a race. Whites rightly pride themselves on being tenacious folk, and I understand that well-being a tenacious bastard myself, but sometimes to survive, you must let go.

Amalric Droevig’s piece, so radical to the palates of white nationalists that MacDonald disabled the comment section on that article, shows just how blue-pilled (or shall I say purple-pilled?) the commentariat of that webzine is.