Wagner vs. Bach, 1

The fourth part of El Grial begins with a dream that I now translate into English:

I was walking on a street by day next to Dad, who pointed out to me, enthusiastic and joyful as his character, the great church—or wall of a great church, rather like a Gothic cathedral—while I felt real horror for the (not glimpsed, only felt) kind of gargoyles, low relief sculptures or external figures of a very dark-stone cathedral. The contrast between the spirited Dad in pointing out to me that Christian bastion as something so positive that he even smiled at me and the horrified son—although I corresponded to Dad’s smile from my height as a child with another smile to be nice with him—couldn’t be greater.

Then I commented that over the years I had several dreams with that theme. I interpreted that my father lacked enough empathy to realise that traditional Catholic doctrine, which seemed so positive to him, horrified his little firstborn.

I recently said that Parsifal’s music has been one of my favourites, despite the fact that the opera characters are quasi-Christian knights that Wagner devised. Wagner’s last opus is not a hundred percent Christian insofar the script never names Christ or Christianity. Rather, it resembles the spirit of the Germanic sagas in times of Christian conversion, when something of the ancient pagan spirit was still breathed. In this first entry about how I contrast Wagner with Bach I confess that, unlike Parsifal, traditional Christian music has horrified me as much as that series of dreams with which I opened this post.

Iconoclasm, even in music, is a thorny topic. If we proclaim the transvaluation of all values the question immediately arises: What to do with the so-called sacred music after the anti-Christian revolution conquers the world? We have already seen that Nietzsche loved Parsifal’s music but abhorred its message, especially the chastity of the quasi-Christian knights. In my opinion, Wagner, Hitler’s favourite composer, is salvageable but how should we treat sacred music from his predecessors?

Unlike Richard Wagner (1813-1883) who flourished a century after the death of Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) Bach had no passion for the Germanic sagas of the pagan past. On the contrary: Bach composed his music for the main Lutheran churches in Leipzig, and adopted Lutheran hymns in his vocal works. The hundreds of sacred works that Bach created are generally seen as a manifestation not only of his craft, but of his great devotion to the god of Christians: the very god of the Jews. Bach even taught Luther’s catechism as Thomaskantor in Leipzig, and some of his pieces represent it. For example, his very famous St Matthew Passion, like other works of this type, illustrates the Passion of (((Christ))) directly with biblical texts.

Compare all this with Wagner’s relatively paganised work who didn’t quote the gospel: a musician who, by introducing pre-Christian elements in his operas, was already starting to shake off the Judeo-Christian monkey from his back. But before continuing my talk about Bach I would like to quote, once again, the words of Nietzsche that appear in The Fair Race:

§ 61

Here it becomes necessary to call up a memory that must be a hundred times more painful to Germans. The Germans have destroyed for Europe the last great harvest of civilisation that Europe was ever to reap—the Renaissance. Is it understood at last, will it ever be understood what the Renaissance was?

The transvaluation of Christian values: an attempt with all available means, all instincts and all the resources of genius to bring about a triumph of the opposite values, the more noble values… To attack at the critical place, at the very seat of Christianity, and there enthrone the more noble values—that is to say, to insinuate them into the instincts, into the most fundamental needs and appetites of those sitting there…

I see before me the possibility of a heavenly enchantment and spectacle: it seems to me to scintillate with all the vibrations of a fine and delicate beauty, and within it there is an art so divine, so infernally divine, that one might search in vain for thousands of years for another such possibility; I see a spectacle so rich in significance and at the same time so wonderfully full of paradox that it should arouse all the gods on Olympus to immortal laughter: Cæsar Borgia as pope!… Am I understood? Well then, that would have been the sort of triumph that I alone am longing for today: by it Christianity would have been swept away!

What happened? A German monk, Luther, came to Rome. This monk, with all the vengeful instincts of an unsuccessful priest in him, raised a rebellion against the Renaissance in Rome…

Instead of grasping, with profound thanksgiving, the miracle that had taken place: the conquest of Christianity at its capital—instead of this, his hatred was stimulated by the spectacle. A religious man thinks only of himself. Luther saw only the depravity of the papacy at the very moment when the opposite was becoming apparent: the old corruption, the peccatum originale, Christianity itself, no longer occupied the papal chair! Instead there was life! Instead there was the triumph of life! Instead there was a great yea to all lofty, beautiful and daring things!

And Luther restored the church.

On Parsifal

The reason I practically don’t interact in other racialist forums or follow them on Twitter is that they don’t feel infinite hatred, and I strongly believe that the only way to save the race is through the amalgamation of your soul, your whole being with the spirit of The Turner Diaries: to be at the right of Himmler during the West’s darkest hour, so to speak. Furthermore, the pundits of white nationalism are ignoring the Christian problem. Counter-Currents posted yesterday ‘Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism & The Western Liberal Tradition. Part 7: White Maladaptive Altruism’ by Ricardo Duchesne. Since the pundits of white nationalism follow MacDonald and not the Führer, they are able of writing things like the following, which appeared yesterday in Duchesne’s article:

The Quakers were “highly principled and deeply Christian, with a powerful sense of fairness and egalitarianism.” They had, in MacDonald’s words, a “genuine empathy for the slaves,” morally outraged by “acts of great injustice done to their fellow human beings.” The Quakers were also “highly egalitarian” in their institutional organization; “there were no bishops or ordained ministers, and any person (including women) could speak.” They emphasized the “intellectual and moral equality of African slaves.” Although the Methodists were more into self-help, diligence, and hard work, they too believed that all humans were equally valuable, and that’s why they opposed slavery.

MacDonald’s point is not that whites were wrong to seek the abolition of slavery. His aim is to understand the excessive moral preoccupation whites exhibited about the plight of Africans coupled with their current pathological empathy for aggressive immigrants occupying their lands. In light of this reality, and the complete indifference Muslims have to this day about their thousand-year-old enslavement of Africans, these Puritan-descended movements do seem incredibly naive, child-like, and devoid of realism. What is there to admire about this?

I will make the argument that the eighteenth century was period of “radical change” in the conception of the Western self…

The 18th century? I would say that the West took a very wrong turn from the 4th century! By targeting putatively genetic rather than ideological altruism (Christian malware) this MacDonald disciple doesn’t directly blame the inversion of values on Christianity pure and simple (not only Quakers): something that Nietzsche detected for the first time in the history of ideas.

Like the Quakers Parsifal was child-like. He felt great compassion for those who suffer, especially King Amfortas, who had fallen out of favour since Klingsor struck him with the holy spear: a wound that was not healing. Nietzsche loved Parsifal’s music but hated the message of his old friend’s last opera.

Musically, I think Parsifal is Wagner’s most accomplished work. The overtures of each of the three acts, as well as the magnificent music when Gurnemanz takes Parsifal into the castle in the first act; the background music and the voices by the end of the discussion between Parsifal and Kundry in the second act, and let’s not talk about the Good Friday music in the third act, are the most glorious and spiritual I have ever listened. No wonder why Max Reger (1873-1916) confessed: ‘When I first heard Parsifal at Bayreuth I was fifteen. I cried for two weeks and then became a musician’.

I recently recycled a Wikipedia text talking about the religious aspects of National Socialism and I don’t see why not to do it again with a wiki passage about Parsifal, albeit with a pro-White spin instead of the philo-Semitic POV of that encyclopaedia.

Some writers see in the opera the promotion of racism or anti-Semitism. One line of argument suggests that Parsifal was written in support of the ideas of Arthur de Gobineau who advocated Aryanism. Parsifal is proposed as the ‘pure-blooded’ (i.e. Aryan) hero who overcomes Klingsor, who is perceived as a Jewish stereotype, particularly since he opposes the quasi-Christian Knights of the Grail. Such claims remain heavily debated, since there is nothing explicit in the libretto to support them. Wagner never mentions such ideas in his many writings, and Cosima Wagner’s diaries, which relate in great detail Wagner’s thoughts over the last 14 years of his life (including the period covering the composition and first performance of Parsifal) never mentions any such intention.

Wagner first met Gobineau very briefly in 1876, but it was only in 1880 that he read Gobineau’s An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. However, Wagner had completed the libretto for Parsifal by 1877, and the original drafts of the story date back to 1857. Despite this chronological evidence, Gobineau is frequently cited as a major inspiration for Parsifal.

The related question of whether the opera contains a specifically anti-Semitic message is also debated. Some of Wagner’s contemporaries and commentators (e.g. Hans von Wolzogen and Ernest Newman) who analysed Parsifal at length, make no mention of any anti-Semitic interpretations. However the critics Paul Lindau and Max Nordbeck, present at the world premiere, noted in their reviews how the work accorded with Wagner’s anti-Jewish sentiments. More recent commentators continue to highlight the perceived anti-Semitic nature of the opera, and find correspondences with anti-Semitic passages found in Wagner’s writings and articles of the period.

However, the conductor of the premiere was Hermann Levi, the court conductor at the Munich Opera. Since King Ludwig was sponsoring the production, much of the orchestra was drawn from the ranks of the Munich Opera, including the conductor. Wagner objected to Parsifal being conducted by a Jew (Levi’s father was in fact a rabbi). Wagner first suggested that Levi should convert to Christianity, which Levi declined to do. Wagner then wrote to King Ludwig that he had decided to accept Levi despite the fact that he had received complaints that ‘of all pieces, this most Christian of works’ should be conducted by a Jew. When the King expressed his satisfaction at this, replying that ‘human beings are basically all brothers’, Wagner wrote to the King that he ‘regarded the Jewish race as the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble about it’.

Here we have once again the pathological altruism of influential Christians, in this case the very king. Not only the 19th-century Quakers practiced out-group altruism (Parsifal felt in-group altruism) but the Germans themselves, even Wagner’s sponsor.

It has been claimed that Parsifal was denounced as being ‘ideologically unacceptable’ in the Third Reich, and that the Nazis placed a de facto ban on Parsifal. In fact there were twenty-six performances at the Bayreuth Festival between 1934 and 1939 as well as twenty-three performances at the Deutsche Oper in Berlin between 1939 and 1942. However, it was not performed at the Bayreuth Festival during World War II.

Today at dawn, yesterday and the days before yesterday I watched the complete Parsifal directed by Daniel Barenboim (another Jew!) and compared it with other representations. It was the first time that I watch it with Spanish subtitles. After finishing my book El Grial I was impressed that in this 1993 performance the spear ended on the Grail cup at the very end. I couldn’t help but compare it to my extremely analogous metaphor in the climax of my book.

But I can’t use Parsifal in my book because the opera is riddled with Christian allusions, and my book is as anti-Christian as the last page of Nietzsche’s The Antichrist. But I also projected myself with what Parsifal says to Gurnemanz: that I lost my path for decades before finding my way back to Amfortas (all of this will seem cryptic to anyone who hasn’t read the book).

Quotable quote

‘It was Nietzsche’s merit to be the first to grasp that all our current political concepts, all abnormalities in the liberal system are just secular derivatives of Christian thought’.

Tomislav Sunić.

Published in: on March 26, 2020 at 11:42 am  Comments (1)  


by Tom Sunic

Note of the Editor: Of the intellectuals of contemporary white nationalism, I only have respect for Tom Sunic, who like me is aware of the Christian problem and how capitalism is poison for the fourteen words. The difference is that he speaks in a very polite manner and I in a very rude manner.

For example, I am delighted these days because Murka, which has been the greatest promoter of both capitalism and Judeo-Christianity, is going to die thanks to the crisis unleashed by the coronavirus (the pin) and the Fed (the bubble), as can be seen in my most recent posts.

On the other hand, in an article published today on The Occidental Observer the Croatian Sunic focuses on Europe:

______ 卐 ______


To each his own Nietzsche. With this sentence one could start yet another discussion on this famous and famed thinker. Given the staggering number of works about him it is essential to raise the question: which Nietzsche should one read first? Should one read Nietzsche’s own prose first, or should one first read works by other authors who have written about him? And which work and by which author? The problem is all the more serious as there are no two works, no two authors among tens of thousands that are in agreement on the same interpretation of Nietzsche’s ideas. Of course, the same remark could be leveled against my own interpretations of Nietzsche. My understanding, interpretation and choice of words regarding Nietzsche’s thoughts may be different from those of other authors who claim to be his best interpreters. Consequently, I may be accused of using interpretations that may not be shared by Nietzsche or his countless interpreters.

What needs to be highlighted, however, is the link established by Nietzsche between Christian values and their secular offshoots used now by the ruling class in the West as a legal and psychological basis for the arrival of non-European migrants into Europe. The System, through its sermons about human rights, whose ideological origins go back to early Christianity, is quite successful in destroying European peoples and cultures.

Aside from being an influential philosopher Nietzsche was also a philologist who understood well the subtleties of political language. Therefore, one should first single out some of his words and find out their conceptual equivalents in the French and in the English languages today, especially in the realm of higher education and high-level political rhetoric. One must keep in mind that his denunciations of Christian morality are contrasted with his praise of combative virtues of the old Greco-Roman “virtù” stripped of any modern moralinfreie Tugend. Nietzsche invented the word “moraline” in order to combat the excessive moralizing of the Church and the ruling class of this time. Strangely enough the word “moraline” is never used today in the modern German language, having also no adequate substitute in the English language. The great German-American connoisseur and translator of Nietzsche, H.L. Mencken translated moralinfreie Tugend as “free of moral acid.” By contrast, modern French nationalists, when deriding the fake news of the modern System, often resort to the original German “moraline.” In the USA, however, this word could be substituted by its conceptual equivalent of “virtue-signalling.”

When transposed into our own language Nietzsche’s words read like a harsh condemnation of the modern System with its invocations of words such as “humanity,” “peace” and “tolerance.” The goal of the System is to force citizens of European extraction to become prey to perpetual feelings of guilt. This is how Nietzsche predicted the modern unfolding of the System hundred and thirty years ago:

Almost everywhere in Europe today, there is a morbid over-sensitivity and susceptibility to pain, as well as an excessive amount of complaining and an increased tenderness that wants to dress itself up as something higher, using religion as well as bits and pieces of philosophy—there is a real cult of suffering.

In addition to his denunciation of Christian morality Nietzsche levels harsh criticism against Christian providentialism which manifests itself today in the gregarious spirit of mass democracy. Of course, the System needs to sugarcoat modern, secularized versions of Christian teachings in the mystique of human rights, in the myth of multiculturalism, in the decrees on race-mixing, and in the usage of politically correct verbiage. Pity for those who failed, for lowlifes, for criminals, including illegal Third World migrants in search of a better life in Europe, has become a mandatory vogue in political and media outlets. Professor Pierre Chassard, who could be ranked as first among French “New Right” interpreters of Nietzsche, defines Nietzsche’s criticism of Christian providentialism: “The wretched of the Earth, who are nailed to the cross, may be the only fortune tellers. Life misfits may be the elect of heaven. Only they are the good guys and others are the bad guys.” The list of self-engineered misfits could grow longer if one were to add numerous White politicians and academics burdened by self-hate and choosing therefore to become purveyors of the dogma of interchangeability of peoples, races, and genders. Such a self-hating behavior, of which Nietzsche was the first critic, is today the trademark of the System.

One could start with the expression “the great replacement.” This wording, coined by the writer Renaud Camus, is deemed unworthy by the System. Nonetheless, although Camus’ book is very useful, its title may be subject to misunderstanding. Instead of the expression “the great replacement,” one is tempted to use a more specific expression: “the great invasion.” However, even the term “invasion” harks back to the notion of the political of the previous centuries when its use was generally accompanied by an armed conflict—which is not the case for the time being with the floods of non-Europeans who are being adorned by the Western media with the sentimental title “refugees.” Understandably, the System and its scribes must avoid the usage of the terms “invasion” or “replacement,” preferring instead the romantic expressions such as “cultural enrichment” or “diversity”—terms which went global after having first appeared in the American language in the 80s of the previous century. Moreover, even if one were to agree on the label “invasion” when describing Afro-Asian migrants on their way to Europe, the choice of this word would take us far off into the field of polemology, a subject that can be tackled only in passing.

According to Nietzsche the moralization of politics leads to chaos which he labels with the word “democracy.” It is incumbent therefore upon his readers to study the effects of democracy peddled globally by the System if one was to grasp the incoming tide of chaos. To that effect it suffices to listen to the hypermoralistic language of the ruling class in order to realize that the true goal of their political experiments—dubbed “democracy” and “diversity”—is nothing else but a gigantic hoax. The outpouring of hypermoralistic narratives among Euro-American leaders, other than serving as a legal smokescreen for humanitarian actions on behalf of non-European migrants, also functions as a grand cover up for the repression against independent thinkers.

In Bismarck’s Germany at the end of the nineteenth century, Nietzsche did not need to confront mass migratory inflows of non-Europeans. Much earlier, however, he had grasped the origins and the global dynamics of the hypermoralistic mindset that had already taken root among politicians and intellectuals of his time—either in its liberal version or in its crypto-communist form. That early bourgeoning hypermoralistic endeavor, whose goal was the creation of the best of all worlds, or the shining communist futures, was bound to lead, a hundred years after Nietzsche’s death, to multicultural chaos observed today.

It is pointless to scorn migrants, the majority of whom are Muslim non-Europeans, without however deciphering moralistic, globalist, altruistic and ecumenical ideas that have been peddled around by the Church over the last two thousand years. It was Nietzsche’s merit to be the first to grasp that all our current political concepts, all abnormalities in the liberal system are just secular derivatives of Christian thought, “whereby this morality is increasingly apparent in every political and social institution; the democratic movement is the heir to Christianity.”

In the System today, which claims to be the best, any criticism of parliamentary democracy, or multiculturalism, let alone of miscegenation, is bound to enter the framework of the penal code or the demonology of its mainstream media executioners. While on the one hand the System prides itself on being tolerant, claiming to extend unrestricted voice even to its critics, while hiding behind the words of tolerance, diversity and humanism, on the other, it exerts total control of its population—a phenomenon hitherto unseen in the entire history of the West. From the point of view of modern languages, from the point of view of the notion of the political, the System is succeeding in reversing real European values and replacing them with surreal ones. Within the framework of these new moralizing and ecumenical values, described by Nietzsche and transposed now into the modern System, it can be expected that non-European masses entering Europe, will describe themselves as “poor refugees.” Incidentally, the term “refugees” is not of their choice; it is being bestowed on them by the System and its sycophant media.

This is how professor Alfred Baeumler, one of Nietzsche’s disciples in the first part of the twentieth century and later to become a high-ranking academic in National Socialist Germany, depicts the nihilistic message inherent in the language of liberal democracy in Europe between the two wars.

Nihilism, chaos, is the inevitable consequence of the belief in harmony without struggle, a belief in indiscriminate (gegensatzlos) order. True order only arises from the power relationship spawned by the will to power… Only chaos is inhumane. The rule of tolerance and moral ideas, of reason and of compassion, in short of “humanity,” always leads to inhumanity.

Doubling down on his exotic doppelganger

As a follow-up to such hypermoralistic endeavors conducted by the System one can observe its politicians being more and more inclined toward splitting their own selves—a process which they subsequently project on non-European migrants who are cherished now as the beacon of progress and innocence. Such a process of White self-denial is especially visible in Germany, a country which in 1945 was forced to remake its identity. As an illustration of German split-mindedness or dopplengaegertum, one could mention several authors of fantastic tales at the beginning of the nineteenth century who, by indirection, best predicted the fractured identity of Europeans and especially the German people two hundred years later. A good example is the famous horror story writer E. T. A. Hoffmann and his novella The Sand Man. The main character of his tale falls in love with a machine which resembles an attractive woman he had previously fabricated in his self-delusional mind. Toward the end of the tale the imaginary woman-automaton pushes the unfortunate hero to suicide. Today, we are witnessing a similar mechanical and suicidal fixation by great many German and European politicians, who, as a rule, must pretend to be enamored with fictitious and exotic Third World migrant imagery, and who are overjoyed at the thought of demolishing their own identity and replacing it with the newly borrowed make-believe Afro-Asian identity. This time around, however, men of the System are not only being themselves physically replaced by real Afro-Asian migrants; they themselves yearn to replace their original White identity by non-White surreal supra-identity.

One can provide some crass examples of such a mimetic Double while studying European politicians and their penitential pilgrimages to the holy places of world politics, namely Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv. The Germans, however, must perform an additional station of the cross by paying a penitential visit to Israel and recite a diplomatic chorus of mea culpa sermons. Two years ago, when German Chancellor Merkel visited Israel, she declared that “being aware of this responsibility (the Nazi crimes against the Jews, N.A.) is part of our national identity.” Without its Double, that is, without the forceful embrace of the Other, who was once either denied or colonized, the System and its do-gooders could not survive.

In the same vein, European politicians and intellectuals imagine themselves to be morally obliged to double down on their moralizing fervor on behalf of non-Europeans, assuming that they will thus better eliminate any external suspicion of their alleged neo-fascist or right-wing feelings, or better shed the label of their post-colonial crypto-nostalgia. Naturally, one could argue a lot about the benefits of this new doppelgangertum of European politicians, which has resulted in increased self-hatred, self-censorship and hypertrophy of false morals toward exotic strangers. Nietzsche grasped well this self-castrating mindset which has become today the main guideline of the System.

With respect to this entire kind of priestly medication, the “guilty” kind, any word of criticism is too much… One should at least be clear about the expression “be of use.” If by this one intends to express that such a system of treatment has improved man, then I will not contradict: I only add what “improve” means for me—the same as tamed, weakened, discouraged, sophisticated, pampered, emasculated (hence always the same as injured).

The search for the mimicked Double, observed among Western rulers, has reached by now pathological proportions. EU politicians must double down on their benevolence towards Afro-Asian migrants in order to better rid themselves of possible charges of would-be anti-Semitism or of being guilt-free for their colonialist and racialist past. In the majority of cases, however, such mimetic behavior is the natural consequence of the Allied re-education since 1945, the aim of which was and still is the creation of new European species.

In this essay on Nietzsche one cannot dispense with the name of the German anthropologist Arnold Gehlen who wrote that “the hypertrophy of morality occurs when we accept each human being in his humaneness only, and provide him in this capacity with the highest rank of existence.” Gehlen was perhaps the best connoisseur of Nietzsche during the cold war era, despite the fact that his analyses of the pathology of self-induced hypermoralism of German politicians had earned him lots of enemies on the Left and a great deal of ire among Frankfurt School reeducators. The moral hypertrophy of the early postwar System he describes is now being duplicated by European and US rulers and their “fake news” servicemen, both attempting to silence any voice of White dissent.

Neither is the Catholic Church and the papists the world over lagging behind. The most recent in the line of the moraline combat is Pope Francis with his sermons on the rights of immigrants and with his homilies that “migrants are the symbol of all those excluded from the globalized society.” When listening to Pope’s urbi and orbi, it is worth studying the reaction of would-be Afro-Asian migrants. Despite their modest IQ, they are not stupid. They know that they have powerful allies, not only in anti-fascist circles but also among the high Catholic clergy, both in the United States and in Europe.

Surely, George Soros and a host of left-leaning NGOs can be criticized for facilitating the flooding of the West by African and Asian migrants. However, the fact remains that African and Asian migrants follow only the unilateral welcoming calls from European politicians whose words had the prior blessing of the Pope and the high Catholic clergy. The latter is always diligent when mobilizing for migrants shelters or “sanctuary cities”—a gesture which only redoubles migrants’ appetite. In fact, the Church operates today as a sort of a counter-power vis-à-vis the actual legal power in place, which in any case is very lax with regard to migrants’ arrivals.

Beyond the moralizing phrases about the benefits of multiculturalism and miscegenation propagated by the System and the Church, the iron laws of biology and heredity cannot be ignored. In the years to come the states of the European Union will be exposed to multireligious and multiracial conflicts among and between new non-European migrants, conflicts of great magnitude and long duration. By their obsessive politics of self-denial, European countries, with Germany at the helm, will hardly be able to cope not just with the great replacement, but also with internal conflicts between diverse ingroups of non-European migrants themselves. Contrary to a wide misconception among EU leaders and many academics, racial intolerance and xenophobia is by no means the privilege of White nationalists. Racial pride and racial exclusiveness are by no means the monopoly of the White European stock. Low-level conflicts between and among nationals of Asian origin and nationals of sub-Saharan origin now residing in the West, will have a bright future. Worse, side by side with various moralizing social justice warriors and anti-fascist squads, the System won’t be able to persuade migrants to embrace the same liberal ukases, the same legal standards, the same scholastic tests, nor the same Western political concepts. Liberal rules and regulations, when forced upon non-White migrants, will always remain unacceptable to them. Thus, in the name of “diversity” the System keeps destroying not only the identity of European peoples, but also the identity of non-European newcomers.

Sooner or later multicultural states break up and terminate their trajectory in civil wars. Also, within the great replacement overhaul underway now, interracial wars among non-European migrants will be aggravated by large demographic changes. In addition, these hybrid civil wars looming large in the West now, will be accompanied by an increase in victimhood narratives by different tribes and ethnicities residing in Europe, each claiming, of course, the first place on the victimhood list. Mutual distrust, followed by the decline in civic solidarity and the dissolution of political order will become the order of the day. The hypermoralizing and masochistic antics of White politicians, among whom the German politicians are doing the surplus overbidding, are the logical outcome of the culture of guilt inherited from the fascist, colonial, Ustasha or National Socialist past. Following the incessant incantations by the System of mea culpa, mea maxima culpa—what would Nietzsche now say about our fatality? Long ago his answer was clear enough: “There will come a day when my name will recall the memory of something formidable—a crisis the like of which has never been known on earth.”


To see the endnotes click: here.

The Antichrist § 21

In Christianity, the instincts of the subjugated and oppressed come to the fore: the lowest classes are the ones who look to it for salvation. Casuistry of sin, self-critique, and inquisitions of conscience are sources of employment, cures for boredom; affects inspired by a Great Power called ‘god’ are continuously cultivated (through prayer); the highest is con­sidered unachievable, a gift, ‘grace’.

There is no sense of a public presence; the hide-away, the unlit room is Christian. The body is an object of hatred, hygiene is rejected as sensuousness; the church defends itself even against cleanliness (—the first Christian edict following the expulsion of the Moors was the closure of the public baths—there were some 270 in Cordoba alone).

There is a distinctively Christian sense of cruelty towards yourself and others; hatred of heterodoxy; the will to persecute. Dismal and upsetting thoughts have pride of place; the most highly prized states, described with the highest names, are epileptoid; diet is constructed to promote morbid appearances and over-stimulate the nerves. It is Christian to harbour a deadly hatred of the masters of the earth, the ‘nobles’—while maintaining a hidden, secret edge of competition (—they can have the ‘body’, we only want the ‘soul’…).

It is Christian to hate spirit, to hate pride, courage, freedom, libertinism of the spirit; it is Christian to hate the senses, to hate enjoyment of the senses, to hate joy in general…

Published in: on September 2, 2019 at 11:47 am  Comments (2)  

Great personalities defend eugenics, 4

by Evropa Soberana

Eugenics is born

From the racial point of view, the effects of the French Revolution are detestable. With the aristocracy traditionally associated with the Nordic aspect, it was common for many individuals to be executed only because they had very Nordish features, even if they were not aristocrats!

Although the Revolution boasted of being a popular reaction against absolutism, sixty percent of the guillotined were simple French peasants. Such level of revolutionary hysteria was reached by the hand of unbalanced and decadent pseudo-intellectuals, belonging precisely to the high social classes, such as Rousseau, alienated and with illuminist pretensions, dazzled by the symbology of their lodges and financed by strange financial circles. A famished and illiterate plebs, elevated to the status of supreme judge, did the rest of the work.

In addition to the French Revolution and Napoleon, other processes marked the end of Christian hegemony: the Enlightenment, the American Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the rise of Germany, Great Britain and the United States as great powers, with Russia waiting at the side.

This did not imply, in any way, an improvement of the European race. On the contrary: the race continued to degenerate because of wars and the assistance to the useless. It simply implied that this generation had fewer taboos when it came to expressing itself. Above all, it was the scientific advances and the recovery of the Greco-Roman legacy (as well as the translation of certain Eastern sacred texts of Indo-European origin) what started a more scientific worldview.

Eugenics, which was born in England, really became a mainstream issue and commonsense, fully supported by most of the scientific community that at that time was not coerced by politically correct interests.

It was also supported and by such notable characters as Harvard professor and famous scientist Louis Agassiz, the English philosopher Herbert Spencer [1], the French F.A. Gobineau, American President Woodrow Wilson, British economist J.M. Keynes, French writer Émile Zola, American tycoon W.K. Kellogg, Scottish anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith, British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, famous American aviator Charles Lindberg, the Swedish composer Hugo Alfven and the British politician Sidney Webb.

All or almost all of the men that will be mentioned in this section—mostly English and American—were considered geniuses, laid the foundations of many modern scientific disciplines and were highly respected by the society of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Moreover, eugenics really was put into practice in countries considered advanced in the industrial, cultural, economic, technological and military sense, such as several states of the USA, Canada, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Switzerland and Japan.

We should not feel excessive sympathy for the social system of this era, dominated by voracious and heartless capitalism. The Industrial Revolution, which began in England spreading to Belgium, northern Germany, France, the United States and the entire West, uprooted millions of good-natured farmers from the healthy and quiet countryside, who were crowded into filthy working-class neighbourhoods, where they gradually degenerated and they became burned-out proletarians, resentful and without identity.

On top of it, the ruling class that benefited from the misery of these individuals allowed themselves the luxury of considering them inferior, while having tea with speculators and usurers. To a certain extent it is necessary to understand that this was the perfect breeding ground for the emergence of Bolshevism, and that the ruling classes of the time did not know how to provide it properly. Only the German Nazis, which I will deal with in the next section, finally had the keenness to reverse this process in a truly socialist way with their doctrine of Blut und Boden.

Another reason why I am partly glad that the eugenicists did not fully apply their policy is that the individuals mentioned here often based their selection on economic, social, cultural and productive criteria. Thus, they would not have hesitated to sterilise a tramp, perhaps even if such a tramp was not a ‘genetic homeless man’, but a worker who had bad luck and ended up in the street.

In short, they did not attempt to apply a biological criterion for the creation of a superior man, but a social criterion for the creation of a productive citizen. And the mass production of exemplary sheep without noble blood is something that does not inspire sympathy, as the goal of a true bio-policy should be the production of free and perfect human specimens physically, mentally and spiritually.

Even considering these unpleasant issues, it is unquestionable that thanks to the conditions enjoyed by the upper classes, a taste for classical literature and the absence of politically correct obstacles, science and philosophy advanced hand in hand thanks to very prepared and creative individuals who had all the time in the world to do some research.

The most alarming factor found by the first eugenicists was that, in the modern world, intelligence and fertility are inversely proportional to each other. That is to say, intelligent people have few children; they do not mate, which is a calamity. Conversely, stupid and weak folks tend to procreate prolifically, which doubles the calamity. This trend, already observable in the 19th century, continues to this day magnified as never before.
Sir Charles Darwin (1809-1882), English naturalist, explorer, rigorous and thorough scientist, and also a good writer and family man, famous for postulating the theory of evolution and natural selection.

I find funny the Darwin case. Today, liberals quote him and mention him as if Darwin’s sole objective had been to stagger the Church, trying to make it ‘progressive’, when the only archetype that Darwin embodies is that of the scientist without prejudice.

Progressives who trash Darwin’s name should know that both Darwin and natural selection are anti-progressives. Darwin, like Nature, advocated the selection and survival of the most gifted. That beauty is the outcome of sexual selection is a phrase that largely offers us the quintessence of his mentality. His book On the Origin of Species has a revealing subtitle, very politically incorrect and very little known: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin, like every good scientist, did not care about the moral dilemmas and the taboos around the ‘art of looking good’. Darwin applauded the ‘fascist’, ‘anti-Semitic’ and ‘racist’ ideas of his cousin Galton as soon as he read them, while Galton was also decisively influenced by Darwin. We can conclude, therefore, that the current PC progressive-socio-democrats who try to put Darwin in their same bag have not read Darwin:

It is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing off the lower races. In 500 years how the Anglo-Saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the Human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank. (Charles Darwin to Charles Kingsley, 6 February 1862).

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised race will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world… The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla. (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871).

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world. (Charles Darwin to William Graham, 3 July 1881).

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) barely needs an introduction. One of the most read philosophers of all time, and demonstrator of ‘how to philosophise by hammering’, there are many idiot nihilists, leftists or individualists who have tried to appropriate his legacy while a reading of Nietzsche reveals, without any doubt, a pre-Nazi, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-democratic, anti-anarchist and anti-communist mentality.

1.- My demand of the philosopher is well known: that he take his stand beyond good and evil and treat the illusion of moral judgment as beneath him.

2.- A first, tentative example: at all times morality has aimed to ‘improve’ men—this aim is above all what was called morality.

To call the taming of an animal its ‘improvement’ sounds almost like a joke to our ears. Whoever knows what goes on in kennels doubts that dogs are ‘improved’ there. They are weakened, they are made less harmful, and through the depressive effect of fear, through pain, through wounds, and through hunger, they become sickly beasts. It is no different with the tamed man whom the priest has ‘improved’.

In the early Middle Ages, when the church was indeed, above all, a kennel, the most perfect specimens of the ‘blond beast’ were hunted down everywhere; and the noble Teutons, for example, were ‘improved’.

But how did such an ‘improved’ Teuton look after he had been drawn into a monastery? Like a caricature of man, a miscarriage: he had become a ‘sinner’, he was stuck in a cage, tormented with all sorts of painful concepts. And there he lay, sick, miserable, hateful to himself, full of evil feelings against the impulses of his own life, full of suspicion against all that was still strong and happy. In short, a ‘Christian’…

3.- Let us consider the other method for ‘improving’ mankind, the method of breeding a particular race or type of man. The most magnificent example of this is furnished by Indian [Aryan] morality, sanctioned as religion in the form of ‘the law of Manu’. Here the objective is to breed no less than four races within the same society: one priestly, one warlike, one for trade and agriculture, and finally a race of servants, the Sudras.

Obviously, we are no longer dealing with animal tamers: a man that is a hundred times milder and more reasonable is the only one who could even conceive such a plan of breeding. One breathes a sigh of relief at leaving the Christian atmosphere of disease and dungeons for this healthier, higher, and wider world. How wretched is the New Testament compared to Manu, how foul it smells!

Yet this method also found it necessary to be terrible—not in the struggle against beasts, but against their equivalent—the ill-bred man, the mongrel man, the chandala. And again the breeder had no other means to fight against this large group of mongrel men than by making them sick and weak. Perhaps there is nothing that goes against our feelings more than these protective measures of Indian [Aryan] morality.

Manu himself says: ‘The chandalas are the fruit of adultery, incest, and rape (crimes that follow from the fundamental concept of breeding)’.

4.- These regulations are instructive enough: we encounter Aryan humanity at its purest and most primordial; we learn that the concept of ‘pure blood’ is very far from being a harmless concept. On the other hand, it becomes obvious in which people the chandala hatred against this Aryan ‘humaneness’ has become a religion, eternalized itself, and become genius—primarily in the Gospels, even more so in the Book of Enoch.

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 favoured, against ‘race’: the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love. (Twilight of the Idols, section ‘The “Improvers” of Mankind’).

Clémence Royer (1830-1902), self-taught and French anarchist who wrote and lectured on feminism, economics, politics and science. She is best known for her translation of On the Origin of Species in French.

The data of the theory of natural selection leave us no doubt that the higher races have appeared gradually and that, therefore, under the law of progress, they are destined to replace the inferior races still in development, and do not mix or merge with them, at the risk of being absorbed by them by miscegenation, reducing the middle level of the species.

In short, human races are not separate species, but rather well marked and of very uneven varieties, and it must be thought twice before promoting political and civil equality in a country with a minority of Indo-Europeans and a majority of blacks or Mongols. (Preface to her translation of On the Origin of Species, 1862.)

Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), Darwin’s cousin, anthropologist, geographer, explorer, inventor, meteorologist, statistician and English psychologist. Galton, impressed by the theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest observed by his cousin, was the one who coined the word Eugenics (‘good birth’, or ‘birth of the good’) around 1884.

Galton advocated the prevention of the reproduction of morons, the mentally retarded and the insane—calling these measures ‘negative eugenics’ or limiting the growth of the worst—and granting certificates and economic funds to young men and women who were ‘suitable for civilisation’ so they could marry young and procreate an abundant offspring—‘positive eugenics’ or favouring the best.

Galton, a representative of a ruling Anglo-Saxon class that would remain healthy until 1939, wrote that blacks were inferior to whites and incapable of any civilisation, while Jews could only aspire to ‘parasitism’ within more gifted and capable nations.

Galton intended that eugenics (‘being well born’) become a religion, which would eventually replace Christianity. He accused Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire; for having seriously damaged Western Civilisation by preaching pity and charity towards the useless and that ‘the weak will inherit the Earth’. He carried out an exhaustive, rigorous and scientific study of entire genealogies of illustrious characters, elaborating detailed statistics and finding—unsurprisingly—that genius is derived by inheritance and, therefore, from family.

Under his patronage the British Eugenics Society was founded in 1908, which would soon strengthen ties with similar groups in the United States.

I propose to show in this book that a man’s natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations. (Hereditary Genius, opening statement of the introductory chapter.)

What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction. The improvement of our stock seems to me one of the highest objects that we can reasonably attempt. (‘Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims’, 1904).

[Eugenics] must be recognized as a subject whose practical development deserves serious consideration. It must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious, tenet of the future, for eugenics co-operate with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races (Ibid).

It is neither more nor less than that the development of our nature, under Darwin’s law of Natural Selection, has not yet over-taken the development of our religious civilisation (Memories of my Life).

I take Eugenics very seriously, feeling that its principles ought to become one of the dominant motives in a civilised nation, much as if they were one of its religious tenets. I have often expressed myself in this sense, and will conclude this book by briefly reiterating my views (Ibid.).

Jack London (1876-1903), famous American writer of socialist tendency but racist, patriot, an apologist of the Anglo-Saxon and Nietzschean civilisation.

For a time he operated a cattle farm, where he became convinced that the farmers had been practicing eugenics since immemorial times.

I believe that the future human world belongs to eugenics, and will be determined by the practice of eugenics. (Letters, 376).



[1] Herbert Spencer coined the famous phrase survival of the fittest in addition to launching the current of thought that posterity knows as ‘social Darwinism’.

Prostrated anti-Semites

Sometimes it is important to focus on a detail of a masterpiece of Christian art; for example, close-ups of Jesus’ feet and hands nailed to the cross. Here we see the contorted feet of Grünewald: a painter of the badly named ‘German Renaissance’. Grünewald ignored the Greco-Roman world of the Italian Renaissance to continue the style of late Central European medieval art.

In the Gates of Vienna discussion forum, ten years ago a Swede commented that all Westerners are now either Christians or liberals. I would paraphrase that statement by saying that every white is either Christian or neo-Christian. This includes the alt-right atheists, unable to let Christian ethics go. Even most anti-Semites remain prostrated before the contorted feet of the crucified Jew.

For that reason I do not even comment on The Occidental Observer anymore. But I am very amused that a few who have broken away with such ethics try to argue with Christians and neo-Christians on The Occidental Observer and Unz Review. In this site I have collected many comments from Robert Morgan, but I have also expressed my differences with him regarding technology.

Well: a regular visitor to The West’s Darkest Hour has been discussing technology with Morgan (here). Morgan is anti-Christian. Adunai, another anti-Christian, has also discussed with others in that webzine. What Adunai replied to one of these Christians reminds me of something that caught my attention from the first time I read Nietzsche, more than forty years ago.

Nietzsche said that while he rejected the universal love ethic that the New Testament preached, he loved the Old Testament because, unlike the gospel, the ancient Hebrews fulfilled Darwinian laws.

Obviously I’m rephrasing Nietzsche, but in essence he said that. What now has piqued my attention is that white nationalists who have not broken with the religion of their parents see things the other way around: they accept the New Testament and reject the Old. They do not realise that, with this, they have fallen into the trap that the Semitic authors of the New Testament set up for them: to use the fairness of the fair race to invert the values of that race. I refer to the transit from a culture when handsome Greco-Roman statues were so much admired to Grünewald’s feet.

Next, Adunai’s responses to Morgan and others on Unz Review:

______ 卐 ______


Robert Morgan said: Civilization too is a revolt against Nature.

Adunai responded: How so? The very definition of humans is a bit anti-Nature, but nothing’s wrong with that. Man invented fire and scorched woods with it—like any other form of life, he wants to kill everything around himself. Humans destroy species in Amazonia, they breed out pathetic mutants such as dogs, cows and wheat—all to consume and to enslave, in order to ensure their own survival.

The problem only arises when their super-animal intelligence bugs out and accepts the anti-Nature inside themselves, the anti-human suicide—see Christianity. No other animal would fall for the schizophrenia of a virgin mother of a resurrected corpse, and for a god that gives ‘life’ as a reward for death. But no other animal has invented a space rocket either.

It’s just hard for humans to accept a science-inspired atheist Darwinian worldview. But I believe it to be possible—see the DPR of Korea.

P.S. It’s a shame Laurent Guyénot is a 9/11 truther. How can one see through the madness of Christianity, and yet swallow the lies of truthers?

A commenter said: It is obvious that the OT is just Jew mystical garbage filled with tribal hate.

Adunai responded: You are so Christian, you see the good part of the Bible as the bad one. That tribal hate you speak of is precisely what we need! What we must admire and put into myth! What every single healthy nation has lived with.

Currently, you hate Jews for being racist. That’s insane. No wonder Jews despise Christians—just like a scientist ‘despises’ the poison he has created, he will not drink it himself. Think War—Harm Your Enemies—Produce Children.

Robert Morgan said: ‘Technological innovation tore those barriers down. With the barriers down and races mingling freely, discrete human races and discrete cultures are doomed’.

Adunai responded: I never understood this position. Hadn’t it be for the Christian axiology, the White race would have cleansed all of Africa, Asia and America of the non-White nations as early as in the 1890s. Or for sure in the 1950s, with the advent of atomic weapons.

Why do you focus so firmly on the technologies failing to see it as a tool Whites have used as they have seen fit? The problem is not the technology, it is purely the axiology. Technology only allowed the HIV to transition into the AIDS.

But for all I care, it’s only for the better. Better to deal with this menace sooner than later. Europe had little hope in 317, even less in 732 and 800 (when the Franks failed to kill the Church). The French, industrial and green revolutions do not change that.

In short, I disagree with your pessimism concerning technology.

Robert Morgan said: ‘Further, you seem to be very much in the “free will” / man is a special creation camp (basically a Biblical point of view), and as I said above, I’m a determinist, so I believe free will is an illusion’.

Adunai responded: So, you believe the Whites’ conversion to Christianity to have been unavoidable? That is pessimistic.

Of course, there is something in the Aryan’s psyche that has failed him—see Buddhism in India. There is also the deep contradiction that I see between man as an animal and his newfound intelligence and introspection, his ability to commit suicide, his ability to hate all life. It is in our Nature to destroy Nature, and that is healthy, but can inspire Christianity as a side-effect.

But I am an optimist and I disagree that the White man was born irredeemably defective, that the Jew is our perfect parasite. Because if it is so, or at least cannot be fought against, then all hope is lost, or worse yet, never existed to begin with.

Robert Morgan said: ‘Therefore, when you say something like “whites could have” done this, that, or the other thing, it makes no sense to me. They had what they thought were very good reasons for not doing it, or in effect had no choice’.

Adunai responded: Whites could have made a party that tried to curtail the destruction by technology. Oh wait, they did—namely, the NSDAP. Even the last anti-Christian emperor was born after 317.

What I’m saying is that Whites could have denied Christianity in the 4th, 8th, 16th or 20th century, but chose not to. They could have mastered technology, for with the right axiology, it would have spelled certain doom for all non-White nations on Earth, and not at all led to any race-mixing—but under Christianity, it did provoke suicide. You can only see technology under Christianity, and you think it’s the only way [red emphasis by Ed.].

When you see a car, you see a Negro arriving in Finland. When I see a car, I see Whites arriving in Egypt in 1910 and genociding all the locals. We had the first shot.

A commenter said: ‘Given the US Constitution, Eisenhower’s desegregation orders made sense’.

Adunai responded: Yes… Then why won’t you tear down that stupid White-hating Christian document? Why are you trying to rationalize it?

Desegregation is diametrically opposite of the genocide of blacks. Desegregation = death of Whites. Desegregation makes sense due to the Constitution and its idealist Christian egalitarianism… To hell with the Constitution!

A comemnter said: ‘Congo Rats are rated as repugnant in reliable tests of racial attractiveness’.

Adunai responded: Who cares how attractive Negroes are? Are you a faggot? Because only faggot feminists think in this way.

The real culprit is White men, and White men alone. It is the White men that allow their daughters marry non-Whites. Not women. Not the attractiveness of said non-Whites. It’s the Christian malware in your head.

Robert Morgan said: ‘In the context of your example, what I’ve said is that if the negroes had had no way to get to Finland, they wouldn’t be there, and this seems to me inarguable’.

Adunai responded: It is not. Because a non-Christian technological civilization would not have given Negroes access to their technology to begin with. And would have exterminated them in a short while, as predicted by Darwin.

Robert Morgan said: ‘I agree that in your imaginary world…’

Adunai responded: The world without Christianity. It happened in a localized version in Germany.

Robert Morgan said: ‘The struggle for survival and human nature determine how it will be employed’.

Adunai responded: No, they don’t. The White race does not struggle for survival. The reason is still unclear, but I blame Christianity first and foremost. You don’t have an issue with doing likewise when it’s about the 1860s America, but when it’s about more recent times, it’s suddenly technology. I fail to see the connection.

Robert Morgan said: ‘…and almost never have they been killed off completely, even in non-Christian societies. They have usually been assimilated into the conquering race’.

Adunai responded: There were different kinds of conquest in history. The conquest of Europe by Aryans, by Rome, by Mongols. Some were genocidal, others not. Some were empires, others loose confederations of savages.

What is different now? Science. Knowledge of the world. Materialist philosophy that clearly states the supremacy of genetics in the genesis of culture. The issue is not technology—it would only have helped the extermination. The issue is that the idealist poison of Christianity seeped so deep into the Aryan soul that any hope for the materialist worldview was vanquished in 1945 under the double sign of Christianity and Bolshevism.

Robert Morgan said: ‘The struggle for survival will force this outcome, because if you don’t use slaves in this way, then your enemies that do will become wealthier than you, more powerful, and eventually overwhelm you. This is how, in the real world, human nature and the struggle for survival determine outcomes’.

Adunai responded: I don’t deny it. But how does the industrial civilization relate to it? I say that its advances in sciences would have made race-mixing the highest taboo and race war the noblest goal in any non-Christian society. Industry would only have amplified the desire to healthy life in a population. But in our case, technology has amplified the death wish.

You want to remove industry—then what? A return to pre-industrial society will not bar crude empires from spawning that can and will race-mix anyway. Too rotten to keep healthy values, yet not bright enough to develop racial science and fission weapons. Where’s a good future in that?

Do you put all your hope on the hypothetical barbarians that will burn Rome time and time again? Our pre-industrial Rome ate a good chunk of Europe, mind you—and even all of central Germany might have been romanized and judaized. Mongols and Turks demolished all Aryan culture in Kazakhstan. Vikings interbred with Eskimos in Iceland. What would stop Aryans from perishing in a non-technological world? I posit that only the power of chemical and atomic bonds can assure the existence of the European race once and for all.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note: Morgan is obviously violating Occam’s razor by multiplying entities (technology) when the Xtian inversion of values alone explains the West’s darkest hour beautifully.

The Antichrist § 19

Padua’s version of the Sistine Chapel, the Scrovegni Chapel, houses one of Italy’s great Gothic/Proto-Renaissance masterpieces: a cycle of Giotto frescoes. This specific fresco shows Jesus before Caiaphas. In his book The Antichrist, Nietzsche said:

______ 卐 ______

The fact that the stronger races of northern Europe failed to reject the Christian God does not say very much for their skill in religion, not to mention their taste. They really should have been able to cope with this sort of diseased and decrepit monster of decadence. But they were damned for their failure: they brought sickness, age, and contradiction into all of their instincts, – they have not created any more gods since then.

Almost two thousand years and not one new god! And all the while, this pathetic God of Christian monotono-theism (*) instead, acting as if it had any right to exist, like an ultimatum and maximum of god­ creating energy, of the human creator spiritus!, this hybrid creature of ruin, made from nullity, concept, and contradiction, who sanctions all the instincts of decadence, all the cowardices and exhaustions of the soul! – –


(*) The verbal mockery of monotonous-theism had already been used by Nietzsche in Twilight of the Idols.

Published in: on June 29, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments Off on The Antichrist § 19  

The Antichrist § 18

In my post yesterday we saw the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane according to the poetic imagery of Fra Angelico. In this arid interpretation of Bellini (National Gallery, London), we see the same apostles not as blond as in Fra Angelico’s painting, but at least they are still white.

In this new series about Christian art that I started with these posts, we will see that in other representations of Jesus and the apostles, the characters were painted as mudbloods.

In his book The Antichrist, Nietzsche said (the ‘beyond’ refers to the lie about the post-mortem survival of the human soul):

______ 卐 ______

The Christian idea of God—God as a god of the sick, God as spider, God as spirit—is one of the most corrupt conceptions of God the world has ever seen; this may even represent a new low in the declining development of the types of god. God having degenerated into a contradiction of life instead of its transfiguration and eternal yes! God as declared aversion to life, to nature, to the will to life! God as the formula for every slander against ‘the here and now’, for every lie about the ‘beyond’!

Published in: on June 27, 2019 at 11:20 am  Comments Off on The Antichrist § 18  

The Antichrist § 17

How can anyone still defer to the naïveté of Christian theologians these days when they decree that the development of the idea of God from the ‘God of Israel’, the god of a people, to the Christian God, the epitome of all goodness, counts as progress?

But even Renan does this. As if Renan had the right to naïveté! The opposite is what strikes the eye. When the presuppositions of ascending life, when everything strong, brave, domineering, and proud is eliminated from the idea of God, when he sinks little by little into the symbol of a staff for the weary, a life-preserver for the drowning, when he turns into the God of the poor, the sinners, the sickly, when the predicates of ‘saviour’ and ‘redeemer’ are the only ones left, the only divine predicates: what does this sort of transformation tell us?, this sort of diminution in the divine?

Of course: this will increase the size of ‘the kingdom of God’. God used to have only his people, his ‘chosen’ people. But then he took up travelling, just as his people did, and after that he did not sit still until he was finally at home everywhere, the great cosmopolitan, – until he had ‘the great numbers’ and half the earth on his side.

Nonetheless, the God of the ‘great numbers’, the democrat among gods, did not become a proud, heathen god: he stayed Jewish, he was still the cranny God, the God of all dark nooks and corners, of unhealthy districts the world over! His empire is as it ever was, an empire of the underworld, a hospital, a basement-kingdom, a ghetto-kingdom… [Editor’s bold-type above]