Killing innocents and sinners

Writing about the Sutherland Springs church shooting, on The Daily Stormer Andrew Anglin said today: ‘I hate aggressive edgy atheists as much as anyone…’

Apparently Anglin hates those whites who reject the existence of the Jewish god—a volcanic demon that Jews claim appeared to Moses, the very same god that Aryans were compelled to worship after Constantine took over the Roman Empire.

Anglin’s words exemplify beautifully the gulf between me and most American racists. But it’s not only a matter of worshiping the god of our enemy: it’s also about the universalist ethics imposed on whites after Constantine. (Every sandnigger or black could be a citizen of Constantinople as long as he was Christian.)

Another recent example: In his blog for southern nationalists, Hunter Wallace started his article with the words: ‘Devin Patrick Kelley, the EVIL bastard who murdered 26 people at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX this morning…’

One of Kelley’s victims, the 14-year-old daughter of church pastor Frank Pomeroy, was black. A pre-Christian Aryan would never mourn the killing of a black adoptee, and the rest of the adult victims in Texas were complicit of tolerating such sin against the holy ghost: adopting a subhuman as if she was human.

I would only mourn the white children killed: the only really innocent victims inside the church.

The others were sinners. But Anglin, Wallace and many American racists still have the Bible as their sacred book instead of Hitler’s Table Talk, right? ‘Almost two thousand years—and not a single new god!’ said Nietzsche.

This is the sort of thing that moves me mightily to continue the translation of Deschner’s book, who in this pic is shown long before he started to write his magnum opus…

Edwin’s arrows


 

On Guillaume Faye

Guillaume Faye outlines a compelling vision to the immigration problem in the last chapter of his book Archeo-Futurism. This is presented in the form of a utopian dream, and should be seen in part as a reaction against the doom and gloom despair of the French New Right. I might also add that fiction has the added utility of allowing a French writer to advocate more extreme solutions and avoid hate speech laws.

The basic narrative is straightforward enough, if short on details. Sometime in the mid-twenty first century, due to a series of environmental disasters and resource shortages, Europe is plunged into a series of internecine wars. America is gripped in an endless series of race riots and is unable to help. Into this chaos, Russia sends an army of liberators to restore order.

What follows afterwards is reminiscent of the more visceral moments of William Pierce’s Turner Diaries. Native Europeans regain a sense of their identity. A Nietzschean hypermorality is realized. The vast majority of non-whites are summarily liquidated over the course of a few months. The handful of non-white survivors are forcibly shipped en masse to the remote island of Madagascar.

A new European Imperium is created out of the ashes of the Old Europe. Picture an empire with explicit inequality enshrined in law, an agrarian paradise with a small bureaucratic elite lording over a continent of hobbits. Faye is obviously borrowing heavily from the American writer Francis Parker Yockey.

Curiously, Faye is dismissive of America, seeing it as a separate entity—culturally, spiritually, historically—from Europe. Indeed, America is seen as an occupying power, imposing its grotesque lifestyle and values on Europeans. It could even be said that a new European Renaissance requires the death of everything American, including America itself. I sense a certain amount of schadenfreude in Faye when he describes an American continent in a state of mass starvation with race riots in every major city.

But who can blame Faye in wanting to write off America as a lost cause? The white nationalists have a far more nebulous ephemeral definition of identity than their European ancestors (i.e., if a man gets a stamp certifying his whiteness then he is my brother is how your average WN reasons). Then there is the feminism, the patriotards, the rock music, the culture, the greed, the degeneracy, the conservatives… the problems never seem to end.

Faye is dead wrong, however, on the Jewish question. He regards the Jews as a part of the European social fabric and is a rabid supporter of Israel. Just like Jared Taylor, Faye believes that European Jewry will come around to his way of thinking. Indeed, Jews are a well integrated minority in Faye’s Imperium. This is simply unacceptable.

Just as problematic is Faye’s biological concept of a European. It’s clear in his writings that he makes no distinction between North and South, Mediterranean or Nordic, Germanic or Slav. Faye would have you believe that very limited racial mixing has taken place in Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Just close your eyes and pretend that all the Europeans living from Lisbon to Vladisvostok are pure White. Of course many white nationalists share this delusion. In Europe, the sand nigger from Malta, Norman Lowell and the Finn, Kai Murros, peddle similar nonsense.

What to make of Faye? I am rather ambivalent here. Not a good writer or a bad writer. His ideas need to be taken with a ton of salt.
 

On Tom Sunic

There is a distinct dualism in Sunic. An abyss between the radical and respectable that is not easily reconcilable.

There is Sunic as the erudite scholar, translator and academic. His two books Against Democracy and Equality and Homo Americanus are the most eloquent critiques of America from a European New Right perspective I have read. There is a sense of nobility, aristocracy, refinement, taste, beauty and greatness. I must admit that it was Sunic who first introduced me to the potency of National Socialist scholarship; and the importance of incorporating pre-Christian pre-Socratic pagan writings in European consciousness. Fundamentally, I see nothing wrong with him as a writer.

Then there is Sunic as the political imbecile. The man who promotes the path of “non-violence”, of kosher country club reactionary conservatism, of democratic demagoguery, of “taking back” the US, of endless qualifications, of the lowest common denominator, of outright craven cowardice: the American Freedom Party.
 

On Arthur Kemp

Kemp is the most outspoken public figure I noticed who advocates the desperate Orania-style solution (isolated Aryan outposts) in his book Nova Europa: European Survival Strategies.

Kemp’s solution is only viable if you agree with Alain de Benoist and much of the French New Right (Faye excluded) that it’s far too late to achieve any success through revolutionary party politics; that some sort of political accommodation with the hordes of non-whites now invading Europe like a swarm of locusts will have to be made.

I read the above mentioned book after being very impressed by March of the Titans. I came away bitterly disappointed. He’s actually one of the few men out there who has an accurate view of history yet he won’t fight.
 

On WN feminists

They accept every single triumph of the left on the woman question as a fait accompli. Covington is a prime example of this.
 

On Johnson et al

Johnson, Spencer, Sunic and other white nationalists retain traces of conservatism, a belief that a perfect argument exists that can convince Whites to suddenly “wake up”; that the correct presentation of the “facts”, on whatever issue, will make a difference to the wider culture at large; that only ignorance has prevented otherwise decent and level headed Whites from taking action thus far. Hence, the endless multiplication of essays, speeches and conferences. The post-modern radical suffers from a singular blindness: that action and words are the same thing.

The problem with Johnson and others of similar ilk is that they think winning can be done without a drop of blood being spilled. No one needs to dirty his hands by engaging in street politics. No one needs to get hurt. No one needs to die. All that is needed is a quiet infiltration of the existing institutions with men sympathetic to our views, and a bloodless counter-revolution will happen.

White survival can only be properly understood as a war, without any rules of conduct. We are not dealing with an opponent that understands the concept of fair play. There will be no smooth transition of power. Should it not be obvious by now that all pro-white groups active in America are harmless?
 

On Francis Parker Yockey

Yockey, like Julius Evola, held to a spiritual conception of race which he believed to be more important than the biological. Already in the 30s he observed white Americans behaving like blacks and Jews. He did not object to clever non-whites immigrating to America as long as they assimilated into white society.

Imperium is a clever eloquent mish-mash of Lamark, Spengler, Schmitt, Haushofer, National Socialism, and even trace elements of Catholic Scholasticism. Yockey wanted to “prove” that a “Germanic” European aristocratic element existed within America. He is not your garden variety white nationalist patriotard (hence his popularity), but the book is a failure.

But I agree with you: universalist religions like Christianity have no use for a purely biological conception of race. White Nationalists are deluded in this and Linder is correct that one must choose a side.
 

On Revilo Oliver

I take two important lessons from Oliver that most white nationalists would do well to heed:

1) A contempt for everything supernatural and conspiratorial. There is no “god” out there looking after the interests of Whites and ready to rescue them at the last moment. There is nothing written on the stars or in the book of life that says Whites must survive. Whites are as beholden to the laws of the universe as all the other animals. And the universe does not know “mercy” when confronted with degeneracy. (Some white nationalists envision a “Mad Max” scenario in which a system collapse presages a mass racial “awakening”. But this assumption is without hard evidence and a mass extinction is just as likely. That is, no political movement can guarantee victory.)

2) A disgust for the ordinary White American, the “ordinary Joe”. Whites are to be saved for sake of the handful who are wise, beautiful, noble, and strong. The white working class has no value apart from the few who are culture creators; they are to be treated as raw material by those who lead. To put it bluntly: most whites are not intellectually or physically impressive.

In my view, white nationalists should see Oliver as a source of inspiration. Will this happen? I highly doubt it.
 

On women

Reading this article reminds me of a passage written by William G. Simpson in his book, Towards the Rising Sun:

There is hardly one man in a thousand who will not put aside his ideals, his highest vision, everything which for him is God, in order to get the girl he loves or to be able to stay with the girl he has married. Moreover, there are all the ways which the wiles of woman have with a man. Nietzsche said, “Women always intrigue privately against the higher souls of their husbands,” and as a generalization his statement is true. And such must most women be.

For, again speaking generally, the instinct in man is to create, and the instinct in woman is to procreate. She is more physical than man, lives closer to the earth, and, naturally and justly since to her is committed the continuation of the race, once she is with child she is almost certain to be overwhelmed with a veritable tidal wave of sheer biological concern for security. And a reasonable degree of security both she and the child ought to have. And if you as would-be creator feel that you cannot do your work and provide that security, then you had better simply refrain from marrying.

Sadly, the numerous absurdities written by women and their male sycophants in the white nationalist movement to rationalize (encourage) weakness does not inspire much confidence.

A man’s focus is to create. A woman’s focus is to procreate. Nietzsche said, “Practically all problems a woman encounters can be solved by one solution: pregnancy.”

Of course we can imagine outliers or exceptions. Savitri Devi is known to have written: “I cannot love any man that chooses me over his ideals.” But Linder is correct in writing somewhere that such women are one in a hundred thousand…
 

On overmen

Nietzschean morality requires that superior men surrender all hope of personal gain for the sake of the cause: fame, money, wealth, respectability, hope for an afterlife, even a normal family life if need be. If they can die for the cause, living in penury if need be is mild by comparison. The German Idealists already pointed out that sincere authentic “virtue” requires a man to have no possibility for personal gain. Otherwise, what is the whole point of this struggle if whites merely end up as spiritual semites (inner Jews)?

Very few American Whites grasp this. Pierce and David Lane being the notable exceptions.

Against Spencer et al

by Edwin

Edwin’s February 24, 2016 piece hits the nail about what is wrong with race realism, American southern nationalism, the Alt-Right, white nationalism (and I would say, even the speakers of the recent Erkenbrand 2017 Conference).

 

 
The ethno-nationalist question needs to be handled with a certain degree of intricacy and delicacy.

Goethe expresses the ideal of ethnos by the phrase: “Outwardly limited; inwardly limitless.” Only by limiting myself within a specific local history, people, language and geographic boundary is it possible to develop an authentic Personality. Only by renouncing political involvement and accepting traditional authority (aristocracy) can I attain an inner freedom. Only from the organic development of a distinct nation held together by blood and soil can I acquire culture and produce works of art (symbols) that transcend earthly boundaries. This notion of individuation as a long heroic journey only for a few is entirely foreign to the mindset of the White American.

There is no question that White Nationalism in all its various incarnations has been an abysmal failure, and that ethno-nationalism, within the European context, is presently the only source of public resistance to the ongoing program of dissolution and displacement implemented by the globalists.

It seems inconceivable at the present moment that the salvation of Aryan man will not involve using the hidden reservoirs of resentment brought to the surface by ethno-nationalist parties, if only for tactical reasons. The European masses at present seem incapable of rising above petty politics to unite under a common banner. Also, the hate crime legislations currently existing in Europe make more radical forms of resistance almost impossible. Consequently, we can conceive of ethno-nationalism as merely a transitory political phenomenon; a temporary stop-gap supported with grave reservations until political conditions (the Plebs) are ripe for truly revolutionary politics.

Ethno-nationalism, considered strictly as a theory, posits a return to a more authentic, traditional way of life, a golden age in which society was structured vertically. There is a romantic element that captures the imagination at a sub-intellectual emotive level, promising a life of meaning beyond the material. The simple argument of allowing the right of self-determination for distinct ethnicities sounds sensible for those that live within the modern world.

But ethno-nationalism in practice poses a number of serious problems:

Secessionists in America assume a priori that non-whites have a distinct separate ethnos and are capable of creating a viable nation state without the active intervention of whites. With few exceptions, racial “realists” believe that some sort of practical accommodation can be made with Blacks and other mud bloods. According to this fantasy, North America will eventually devolve into a dozen independent nations, divided along racial and linguistic lines. In this new political dispensation, Blacks are to be given their own slice of paradise under the sun, free to live among their own kind and to pursue their own destiny.

We are told by self-anointed intellectuals like Spencer, McDonald, and Johnson, that racial separation will be likened to a friendly “divorce”; contra history, population transfers will be “humane” and “peaceful,” with no shedding of innocent blood. Never mind the fact that this new Black Zion will be a grotesque farrago of Western and African culture, a pantomime of political theater, merely resembling the outward form of a state. Never mind the fact that blacks lack the ability to build a modern infrastructure and will face starvation. But no! Our intellectuals tell us that we must not believe our eyes (Africa, Haiti, Detroit). Facts, in this one instance, do not matter. We have dispensed with Christian theology but must still believe in miracles!

Ethno-nationalism, being a by-product of modernity, always panders to the lowest common denominator. Every single ethno-nationalist party in Europe adopts a horizontal understanding of power, claiming to represent the true “will of the people” by defending mass democracy. No present elected leader offers a higher ideal or unifying principle. Economics and base materialism rule every policy decision.

Every national history is largely a sad tale of petty victimhood, as though presenting a nation as a perpetual innocent “victim” that has undergone enormous suffering somehow ennobles and valorizes its right to exist; as though presenting the nation as a total weakling can be a source of strength and unity.

And even if such a leader were to emerge, a leader who does not prostitute himself by promising to satisfy every material want, a leader who demands harsh discipline and allows for no excuses, the masses would not follow him. Europe has reached such a state of total degradation that the Finn, Kai Murros, finds it necessary to adopt the style of a Maoist Dialectician (!) if only to dress his revolutionary nationalism under a “respectable” analytical framework.

Surveying the political landscape, the words of Nietzsche come to mind: “On the rulers I turned my back, when I saw what they now call ruling. To traffic and bargain for power—with the rabble!” The question must be asked: Can the debased White American with no ethnic identity support ethnic-nationalism? Or to be blunt: Can a White American value an object if no financial gain is possible?

Ethno-nationalists treat all European ethnicities like antiquarian idol-objects; they deserve preservation simply because of age, as if all were of equal value. Practically every single racial “realist” in Europe and America considers the question of biological differences and cultural achievements among indigenous European nationalities to be a social taboo. He is happy to point out the racial differences between Whites and Blacks yet becomes apoplectic if shortcomings among European populations are pointed out.

Why should anyone care about preserving Polish or Croatian identity if their impact on world history is negligible? How does that advance the interests of Aryan man? What exactly does ethno-nationalism mean for a country (i.e. Greece, Portugal) that includes a significant number of mud bloods among its native population? The ethno-nationalists have no answer.

The proposition that any nation state, like the National Socialists of yesteryear, may expand its territory and impose a new order from above is treated as a modern day heresy by ethno-nationalists. Even the apologist David Irving is critical of Hitler and the National Socialists for refusing to grant self-determination for the Slavic people of the East. Lesser personalities such as Andrew Anglin and Carolyn Yeager are no better and find it necessary to rationalize the harsh treatment of the Slavs by the Germans.

Ethno-nationalism is not enough for all men. There are a few differentiated men who have an inner orientation and perspective totally foreign from everyone else. Such men recognize that their identities cannot be so easily circumscribed by the nation or tribe, and always feel a sense of alienation around other people. They recognize that they are part of a great chain of Being stretching back to pre-historic time.

They see kindred racial spirits in the Aryans of Ancient India and Persia. They see themselves as spiritual heirs to the cultural patrimony left to us by the Greco-Roman world. Their horizons extend beyond the narrow confines of a nation state toward the idea of an Empire. They feel no moral qualms over outrageous territorial expansion. They look with outright disgust and nausea at what passes for “culture” in the modern era. These men have a naturally artistic temperament and are united by a common purpose: there must be a fanatical pursuit of beauty at whatever the cost.

Goethe, Nietzsche, H.S. Chamberlain, Oliver, Pierce, and a few others belong to this rare category of men. Contrast this with present day ethno-nationalists whose view of history does not stretch back even a hundred years—as though the idea of an Empire, of Rome or Greece never existed!

National Socialism is the perfect fusion of German nationalism with the artistic temperament of Ancient Greece and with the martial valor of Rome. When asked for his reason for joining the National Socialist Party, the philosopher Martin Heidegger replied: “It was the one political movement in the twentieth century that took an essentially tragic view of life. That managed to bring the ethos of the Ancient Greeks 2500 years into the present.”

Only six books

Twelve days ago I said that John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty was one of the very few books that, from the academic canon imposed by the faculties of philosophy, I find readable. But I failed to mention the other five.

Plato is boring but I find amusing the Memorabilia, in which Xenophon illustrates more piquaresquely than Plato the figure of Socrates.

The same I can say of the Confessions of St. Augustine, although I cannot be in more disagreement with such dude. From the Middle Ages I’d make a leap to Voltaire’s Candide, and thence to Schopenhauer’s second volume of Parerga and Paralipomena (translated as Essays and Aphorisms by Penguin Classics).

I mean books that are a real treat from the strictly literary point of view: those that you’d love to have in your bookshelf. The last one on my list is Nietzsche’s Ecce Homo, although, again, that does not mean that I necessarily agree with the author.

William Gayley Simpson

(1892-1991)

Last year a friend recommended me the great work of William Gayley Simpson, Which Way Western Man? that can be read online. Simpson lived 99 years and wrote that huge work, of 775 pages, throughout most of his life.

I have read some chapters of Which Way Western Man? and was impressed that, before the internet age, Simpson managed to move from an altruistic Christianity to a stance in which he defended Hitler. I will not read the whole book. It is a mixture of disparate writings. One of the earliest dates from 1930, the chapter dedicated to Jesus; another, his already racist view on life, of 1977.

Simpson could have become a B-type bicausalist, blaming Christianity even more than Jewry, since after his Franciscan stage he became a fanatical reader of Nietzsche. For example, on page 18 of Which Way he says about his Franciscan venture: “It was full of Christian pity. It is no less than a crime against life when the superior is sacrificed to the inferior… the kind of thing the great scholar and musical authority Schweitzer did for years in the jungles of Africa”.

This seems to vindicate what I have said about Albert Schweitzer. In another confession, hundreds of pages later (on page 499), we see how Simpson’s Christianity was involved in what Nietzsche calls the inversion of values:

In fairness to myself and to my reader, I must remind him that I approached this question, forty years ago, very definitely from the equalitarian side. In my student days, and for the nine years of my Franciscan venture that followed, with a belief in “universal love” and an outlook on life very like that of St. Francis of Assisi, I quite ignored race, and discounted it. Wherever I went, in our South as in our North, in the Orient as in my own country and among my own kind, I met men as I found them, and valued them for the worth that I sensed in them as individuals, without regard to their race, their nation, their family, class, or any other feature having to do with their origin or their associations. Provided that there was health of body and mind on both sides, I even openly declared my readiness to sanction racial intermarriage.

But it was my Christian tradition and my ignorance that spoke thus.

Let’s jump other hundreds of pages forward. On page 708 Which Way contains a passage summarizing the English Revolution in a couple of paragraphs:

In the reign of Charles I, King of England from 1625 until he was beheaded in 1649, the Jews had already been outlawed from English shores for about 350 years. Driven out of Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492, many of them swarmed into Holland, where they soon made Amsterdam the financial capital of the world. Meanwhile England, without any Jews, had prospered mightily, had come to be known as “Merrie England,” had produced Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Age, and had destroyed the Spanish Armada; and by the time of Charles the First was showing signs of that expanding vitality that was to make her the greatest empire-builder in all history. This caused the Dutch Jews to lust for readmission to English soil, inasmuch as no animal makes so desirable a host for parasites as one that is healthy and growing. Cromwell came into a collision with the king that developed into a civil war.

He required money and all things needful for his army. The Jews agreed to be the suppliers on condition that, should he come out on top, he would have the ban against them lifted. In a few years the king’s head rolled, and Jews, mostly from Holland, swarmed in. Within two generations, they became the dominant financial power in the land and, as we have already seen, the Bank “of England” was set up, which, with its acknowledged privilege of enjoying “the interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing,” became the model for all the central banking systems with which the Western world was gradually saddled.

On pages 755-6 Simpson responds to a liberal in such way that he should be cited today:

The very men of whom you have been at such pains to make mock, even in our universities —Gobineau, Chamberlain, Spengler, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, H.F.K. Guenther—yes, and Adolf Hitler and Lincoln Rockwell, too— we will gather up from the scrap heap where you have thrown them and done your best to bury them, and we will wash them clean that they may be seen in a true light for what they were, and will set them up before us as our exemplars, our teachers, our heroes and our inspirers.

Although Simpson never surpassed his bicausalism type-A, it is worth reading, in 762, how he portrays the Jew:

But in any case, so long as we retain control over our own society, we must establish it as our undeviating and relentless aim to make and to keep our people homogeneous. The Jews, of course, to their last gasp, will resort to their utmost cunning and marshall all their strength to bring any such effort to naught. For they know full well, as already observed more than once, that it has been only by maintaining an attitude of abhorrence toward all mixing with aliens that they have survived the centuries and have come to be the power in the world that they are today. And they are no less aware that the only means by which they can keep a creature of our size in leading strings to them is to get us to swallow the poison that they themselves keep so far away from, until we become a race of enfeebled, fawning, mixed-breed curs.

In that same page Simpson even vindicates nordicism: a taboo subject for the white nationalists of today:

Also, with homogeneity as our goal, we must sternly shut our doors against all immigrants who are not White. Indeed, in my own judgment, we should be wise to reject even those White people who do not stem from the countries of northwestern Europe.

It is a disgrace that books like this one, published in 1978, have not been reedited, translated and found in the bookstores of the West.

Two ways of looking at history

The following is the introduction to the fourth part of the forthcoming 2017 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. As in my introductory article to that compilation, “The word racism,” regular visitors to this site will recognize that I have been merging and recycling different pieces that have already been published here.

______ ______

 

Part IV:

Ethno-suicide: Christian ethics

Why were you so ungrateful to our
gods as to desert them for the Jews?
—Julian (addressing the Christians)

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK:

Two ways of looking at history

Note of September 2017: I have relocated the first paragraphs of this post: here. The 2018 edition of the book will be much shorter than the below one:

The life of Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) illustrates the phenomenon of deranged altruism, that Kevin MacDonald has called pathological altruism. Schweitzer was a New Testament scholar and a medical missionary in Africa. He received the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize for his philosophy of “Reverence for Life,” expressed in many ways but most famously in founding the Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Africa. We are greatly indebted to Schweitzer and the other Germans who started a secularized research on the New Testament texts since the 18th and 19th centuries. Personally, these Germans were of great help for me in my late twenties during my inner struggle with my father’s Catholicism. But at the same time we should note that the biography of Schweitzer illustrates what is wrong with those who abandon faith in the gospel only to become out-group altruists. Eric, a Swede who used to comment at the blogsite Gates of Vienna, commented in a July 2009 thread:

Our progressivist paradigm is based on Christian ethics. The Left is all about Christian ethics. What the left-wing is doing is not destroying Western civilization, but completing and fulfilling it: what I call “The Finish of the West.” The current order is the last and terminal phase of Western Christian civilization. Western Christian civilization is in fact the worst enemy of what I call European civilization: another reason for wanting the Western Christian civilization to go away. For the very same reason that Christian ethics abhors infanticide, it causes the population explosion in the world.

Christian ethics cannot stand the sight of little brown children dying. They must help them, or they will freak out. According to Christian ethics it is forbidden and unthinkable to think in terms of not saving every little brown child across the planet.

schweitzers-pickaninniesBut the consequences of this mindset are catastrophic, not only to us but also to them, as I have already explained. But since people are so programmed according to Christian ethics, what I’m saying does not seem to enter their heads. The thought is too unthinkable to be absorbed. It’s an utter taboo.

This is derived from the deepest moral grammar of Christianity. The population explosion is not caused by liberalism, it is caused by Christianity in its most general form.

I must acknowledge that my axiological approach to Christianity and civilizational suicide originated from studying Eric’s texts carefully. The following is the crux of his views. This POV explains why, once Schweitzer researched honestly the New Testament texts to the point of abandoning his faith, he found himself irrationally compelled to help the downtrodden, like the pickaninnies that he holds in his arms above, to fulfill a form of secularized Christianity:

With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself [emphasis added], doing self-sacrifice, since there’s no other way to realize Christian ethics. On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed by giving off our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world: food, Western medicine, and other aid.

We should remember that our progressivist paradigm, which is always going left, is based on Christian ethics. And Christian ethics means the inversion of values [emphasis added]. So it’s the weak that is considered good, while the strong is considered evil.

“Inversion of values” is a Nietzschean concept. The keynote of Schweitzer’s personal philosophy, which he considered to be his greatest contribution to mankind, was the idea of Reverence for Life (Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben). Like millions of “secular Christians” today, Schweitzer inverted healthy Aryan values when he questioned the historicity of the gospel narrative to elaborate an ethical foundation for his new tables. Instead of helping the crown of the evolution in Germany—for instance the nymphs that have inspired my site, The West’s Darkest Hour—, he moved to a savage part of the world to help the cloaca gentium of Africa.

Schweitzer died in 1965 at his beloved African hospital in Lambaréné, Gabon. His grave, on the banks of the Ogooué River, is marked by a cross he made himself. This, in spite of the fact that in his most famous book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, it is clear that he had ceased to believe in the gospel stories. But the cross was appropriate: internally, Schweitzer never gave up Christian ethics, only Christian dogma. Like millions of liberals today he was a partial apostate from Christianity; his apostasy was not complete. It is my belief that only complete apostasy from Christianity and its secular offshoot will save whites from extinction. And by total I mean what Nietzsche said:

In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there. —We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet.

I have quoted the retired blogger Eric above, that Lawrence Auster used to call the “Nietzschean of the North.” Presently I fully agree with Eric that what we are witnessing is nothing else than the historical demise of Christianity. The metaphor that he used explains it all: “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 thousand-fold while losing its substance and is about to die. The world I live in consists of Christians and liberals. It’s their world and I do not belong to them.”

But paradigms do not die: they are replaced. William Pierce for one said that Christianity and a pro-white ethos are mutually exclusive and added:

We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul; it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress.

The Spaniard Manu Rodríguez, with whom I have exchanged a copious correspondence, has told me that we do not need a new religion in the American sense; only to be aware of our pre-Christian cultures. We must recover such cultures, says Rodríguez, to educate our children according to the varied heritage that these cultures represent. He had in mind the Edda, the Mabinogion; Homer and Virgil—not to mention our tragedians, our poets, our philosophers. We must extract that immensely rich heritage and moral maxims.

We also need… temples!—Rodríguez told me—: enclosures for re-connection as he calls them. This is my Spanish-English translation of what Manu wrote to me: “An ever living fire in these areas will suffice. We need places where we can gather and remember our stories: readings of texts, commentaries, discussion panels and more. Something collective and social; religious and cultural centers where our people may have psychological or spiritual support, or get truthful information about our ancestors, or the incidents of our history. We need dividing the year with special celebrations related to happy or tragic milestones of our past; our own calendars of days of ‘saints’ (our heroes and those most representative). We need to retrieve the Greek, Roman, Celt, German and other names…”

That is, we need what we could not do in Christendom: having our own history because our history was usurped by the Christian clergy. We only have had a Judaic narrative inimical to the Aryan spirit. In one of his blog posts “The sublime Indo-European heritage”, Rodríguez wrote:

For hundreds of years our cultural genius was forced to speak in alien terms for our being. Think of the literature, the music or the architecture we would have had if we had not been dominated by a foreign ideology or culture; if we had remained Persians, Greeks, Germans, Slavs…

In short, for Rodríguez we need to create the Aryan community (ecclesia) which, for the above circumstances, we never had. The Aryan ecclesias need to thrive in our towns and cities. Our “priests” will be, according to my Spanish friend, not experts in theology but in history, anthropology and Indo-European linguistics. The priest of the 14 words must be skilled in the various Indo-European traditions. Such bonding in quasi-religious temples will only be for whites. The rest of the peoples or races are excluded. This won’t be a universal ideology but an ethnic one.

Rodríguez graciously allowed me to translate and publish his epistles and philosophy for the present book. On the other hand, American white nationalists seem to be living in another age. While visiting their blogsites it never ceases to surprise me the enormous quantity of Christians among them. I have already said that Pierce was the best mind that the United States has produced. I would go as far as blaming American Christianity for the fact that Pierce’s association, the National Alliance, disbanded after his death on July 23, 2002.

In sharp contrast to the prevailing paradigm in white nationalism, in a February 1989 bulletin for National Alliance members, Pierce said:

The greatest obstacle to the survival of our race is Christianity. Even with all their malice and cunning, the Jews would pose no real threat to the race were it not for their Christian collaborators. In the U.S. just as in South Africa, the Jews may be pulling a lot of strings behind the scenes, but the troops in the war against the White Race are mainly White Christians filled with religious guilt and obsessed with the need to expiate that guilt by sacrificing their own race on the altar of “equality”.

Let us never forget… that Christianity itself is an alien, hostile, racially destructive creed of Jewish origin, and in the future most of those who have fallen under its spell will continue to be our enemies and the enemies of our race.

Apparently, those Christian sympathizers who inherited the National Alliance censured the above memo, which Pierce wrote twenty-seven years ago. In this section we will see how, more than seventy years ago, Adolf Hitler also showed far more enlightened views about Christianity than American white nationalists today.

David Irving, the famed historian of the Third Reich, wrote:

The Table Talk’s content is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.

Hitler’s talks were transcribed from 1941 to 1944. His remarks were recorded by Heinrich Heim, Henry Picker and Martin Bormann in shorthand. The book has been translated to English and the Ostara Publications edition should be read to understand the historical Hitler in contrast to the fantastic Hitler of the media. In this section I will include Hitler’s table talks about Christianity; the first one taken from what the Führer said in a night of July of 1941.

I will also include some texts by a commenter who posted under the penname of Jack Frost. I find hilarious that at the white nationalist webzine The Occidental Observer other commenters still believe that the US started unpolluted. Jack Frost rubs salt into their wounds. The fact is that the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States violated, or allowed among one of the male members of his family to violate, our First Commandment: thou shalt not mix your blood with non-whites, let alone a nigger. Replying to his angry critics, Frost said: “The fact is that the Jefferson Y chromosome entered the Hemings line [a Negro family], and it is still true that it came either from Jefferson himself or one of his male relatives. In the latter case, either he knew his slave was being used sexually, which makes him a pimp, or he didn’t know, which makes him a fool. The Hemings case was not unusual.”

Most American blacks today have higher IQs than African negroes precisely because such happenings among slave owners were not unusual. What infuriates me the most about miscegenation is that the comparatively smart blacks and mulattoes we see on TV have been using their Anglo-Saxon genes to subvert what remains of Anglo-Saxon culture. This was a gift of compassionate Christians who did not castrate the slave negroes while arriving into the shores of the New World.

Young Americans who are starting to question the worldview of the Founding Fathers are realizing that men are not created equal, nor are women equal to men; that these beliefs are religious beliefs, and that society is just as religious as ever it was—I am quoting them—with an official state religion of progressivism: an evil religion. I would go as far as claim that egalitarianism, equality, universalism, the brotherhood of man, the purported inexistence of races and its corollary, non-discrimination as the central value constitute the faith of the worst generation ever since prehistory!

Genuine post-Christians do not propose that the West went wrong forty or fifty years ago, or even two-hundred years ago after the French Revolution; but millennia ago with the debasement of the Aryan gene pool among the Roman citizenship and the eventual destruction of the hard ethos of the classic world. Christianity introduced universalism and the Byzantine Empire, originated by the first Christian Emperor, soon became a mongrel empire. A thousand years later the remaining whites had a choice to revaluate Christian values after the Renaissance, but the Reformation did the exact opposite: it brought the monkey of the Old Testament onto the whites’ backs (cf. Nietzsche’s text in this section). The Enlightenment was dangerously optimistic about human nature and the State, another “good news religion, telling us what we wish to hear, but about this world instead of the next.” Furthermore, the Enlightenment does not actually represent a clean break from our ancestors’ religion.

There are two ways of looking at western history. The accepted view is that Christianity reached its peak in the times of St Francis of Assisi and St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. This is only true if our glance is purely dogmatic (Aquinas), not axiologic (St Francis). The novel approach is that Christianity did not decay; it mutated like a virus for the white mind. To put it succinctly, the so-called Enlightenment and liberalism are but Secular Christianity. From the axiological viewpoint, Christianity, a red giant star that is about to die, that fateful experiment that started with Constantine, has reached its peak in our twenty-first century. Essays by Revilo Oliver, Manu Rodríguez and Tom Sunic explaining this claim will be included in this section.

This section also reproduces translated excerpts of the general introduction of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity). I must note that Deschner, who died when I was editing this book, was a liberal and probably would have disapproved my inclusion of his translated text in the present collection. Hadn’t Britain declared war to Germany in the last century we would have now thorough German studies on the criminal history of Judaism and Christianity not from the pen of liberals like Deschner, but from National Socialists. The point of including an abridgement of Deschner’s introduction to his incredibly erudite, ten-volume work, is that most white nationalist Christians ignore the history of the Church. Finally, I include Nietzsche’s last pages of his book The Antichrist and a post by a well-known commenter in nationalist forums, Franklin Ryckaert, asking if Christianity is redeemable.

The next article reproduces excerpts from the remains of Against the Galileans by Julian the Apostate, Roman Emperor from 361 to 363 C.E. Remains I say, because the Imperial Church did not even respect the writings of one of their emperors if he happened to dismiss Christianity. Julian only reigned twenty months. In 364 his friend Libanius stated that Julian had been assassinated by a Christian.

On Southern Nationalism

Some racialist Americans at Dixie are trying to distance themselves from the term “white nationalism.” However, Southerners are still stuck in the worldview of white nationalists, as shown in “Was the Second Klan cuckservative?” To Liaucius’ critique I would add that like the Yankees, Southerners are also infected with Christian ethics. A couple of examples from one of the most popular Southern nationalists sites will explain our irreconcilable worldviews.

• Jack Ryan: “CINO [Catholic in Name Only] Pope Licking Black Muslim Migrant Boots!”Occidental Dissent, March 25, 2016

Reality check: Pope Francis is not a “Catholic in Name Only” leader of the Church. Quite the contrary. Ryan fails to see that what this Pope usually does simply follows undiluted gospel message, as shown in my 2014 Christmas post.

• Hunter Wallace: “The Alt-Right and Abortion”Occidental Dissent, April 8, 2016

In the comments section of this article the exchange about abortion between the author and Greg Johnson shows how stuck Southern racialists are with Christian ethics. Just compare them with the eugenics program among the Spartans in an essay, originally written in Spanish. Compare them also with the Nazis, who certainly were not “pro-choice” but not “pro-life” either. They didn’t allow abortion for healthy Aryan German women, but demanded abortion upon women deemed un-Aryan (i.e. Jews, Gypsies, etc.) and German women with hereditary diseases.

Incidentally, Wallace didn’t even allow my own comment to pass. About the German philosopher who wanted to revaluate occidental values back to pre-Christian, Spartan-like morality, Wallace wrote: “BTW, Nietszche [sic] died childless from syphillis [sic] in an insane asylum, so he is hardly any guide to the family.”

Below, my comment that got censored in that thread:

He actually died at his sister’s house, and the biographers that I’ve read on Nietzsche, Curt Paul Janz and Werner Ross, considering the documents of the time don’t give any credit to the rumor of syphilis. As to Nietzsche’s views on the family see: here. The causes of Nietzsche’s solitude and incapability to form a family are explained in a lyrical essay: here.

Only if these racialist Americans become deeply familiar with the history of Europe they’ll grow up.

Foreword to the 2015 edition

front-cover

After more than a year of publishing the original version of this compilation, and my continuing research on the whys of white decline, I have only modified my views about what I wrote in my interim report about the word “racism” on page 29. Thanks to the input of Hadding Scott, Jack Frost and Vance Stubbs on this issue, and a rereading of Nietzsche, I now believe that “racism” is not necessarily Newspeak in the sense of a “control word for whites”—more or less what the Metapedia definition also says. I now see that it’s our Christian-inspired sense morality what spawned an axiological inversion that is destroying whites around the globe. According to Metapedia:

Racism is a term usually only used by critics. Official definitions of racism often state that the term should only be applied on the belief that some races are superior and on negative actions due to this. In practice it is often applied as a form of ad hominem on anyone believing in the existence of races or even on persons advocating restricting immigration, persons criticizing another culture or multiculturalism, persons supporting their own country/ethnicity, etc.

Metapedia is a Christian-friendly online encyclopedia. However, potentially “racism” could be a term mostly used not by our enemies but by us! Had values not been inverted by Christianity and its bastard son, liberalism, racist attitudes would be considered a virtue, as Nietzsche saw:

Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against “race”: the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love.

I repeat: presently we should see racism as a great virtue, not as a despicable vice.

Umwertung aller Werte!

20 December 126 (Anno Hitleris)
20 December 2015 (Anno Domini)

The type “Jesus”

F.N

by Friedrich Nietzsche

Note of the Editor: I reproduce the following explosive fragment (for the 19th century mentality) of the Spring of 1888, that was not published in German until 1970, because of this comment in the previous thread:
 

Jesus is the counterpart of a genius: he is an idiot. You feel his inability to understand a reality: he moves in circles around five or six terms, which he formerly heard and gradually understood, i.e., has understood them wrongly—he has them in his experience, his world, his truth—the rest is alien to him. He speaks words used by anyone—but he does not understand them like everyone; he only sees his five, six floating concepts. That the real mannish instincts—not just the sex, but also those of struggle, pride, heroism—are never woke up at him; that he remained as backward and childish as the age of puberty, that belongs to a certain type of epileptic neuroses.

Jesus is unheroic in his deepest instincts: he never fights. He who looks something like a hero in him, as Renan, has vulgarized the type into the unrecognizable.

Take heed of his inability to comprehend something spiritual: the word for spirit is in his mouth misunderstanding! Not the faintest whiff of science, taste, mental discipline, logic has fanned this idiotic saint: as little as it has touched his life. —Nature? Laws of Nature?— No one has revealed him that Nature exists. He knows only moral effects: a sign of the lowest and most absurd culture. This must be noted: Jesus is an idiot surrounded by a very clever people—only that his disciples were not that smart. Paul was absolutely not an idiot! From it depends on the history of Christianity.

Published in: on December 19, 2015 at 11:19 pm  Comments (10)  
Tags:

A letter

letter-old-fashioned 
Hi Cesar,

So you know how cuckservatives make greater parodies of themselves than White Nationalists ever could? Well, in regards to Christianity, I’d say Christians make better parodies of themselves than Jack Frost ever could. I had a debate with a middle-aged White Catholic on this pathetic National Review op-ed, and at one point, he said that wanting to make the world a better place is the same thing as wanting to usher in Utopia. I countered by asking him why he even bothers commenting on conservative websites like National Review if he doesn’t want to make the world a better place. His response justifies everything Jack Frost has said:

Your question is fair enough. Let’s start with the question you didn’t ask.

“The fact is, you think White Nationalists want to genocide other races because that’s the crap you’ve been taught by the media and the education system (which includes the liberal, anti-white history books).”

I think that genocide is where this leads because I see a lot of passion but not much along the lines of everyday action. I can’t join you in supporting eugenics or physical separation of the races, as under apartheid or Jim Crow. Even if absolutely everything you said was true, there’s very little you’ve explained to me in concrete measures to date that I could support and plausibly call myself a Christian.

If I am to properly submit to Christ it cannot be for the purpose of literally saving my own skin or skin color. This is God’s Creation and I, merely a part of it. Christ commands us to engage God’s world in a certain manner and not demand an outcome to our own pleasing. If the white race is to meant to perish, then to trust in God is to presume that there’s something I don’t understand and that ultimately good will prevail even if I can’t see it right now.

That is not to say that I’ve become a pacifist or am against immediate self-defense. Please don’t take the preceding paragraph as a rationalization for any sort of silliness along those lines. Christ’s life is of sacrifice, but it is not of mindless pacifism, inaction, or pointless sacrifice.

That said, salvation belongs only to those who follow Christ under his rules. Nothing about what you’ve stated about the races to date leads me think there’s any action other than those that would break them.

I’d encourage you to post his above comment on your website, as he succinctly explains everything Jack has tried to explain, and then some!

By the way, I must note here that I believe God exists and that He created White people. I’m not an Atheist, an Agnostic, or a Pagan. In fact, I actually consider myself a Christian. So why do I agree with Frost, and with Nietzsche, in their assessment of Christian Morality?

Because I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura anymore, and because I’ve learned to separate a belief in a personal God with the slave morality articulated by the above commenter. I choose to believe that God loves me, and loves all White peoples, because that keeps me from the abyss of apathy and despair.

If this makes me weak, so be it. I’m sharing this comment because I agree with you, Frost, and Nietzsche that our race needs to break free of this belief that racial self-defense is the worst Evil imaginable, like this guy does.

Sincerely,

D. P.

Published in: on September 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm  Comments (4)  
Tags: ,