Wouldn’t whites be better off If Hitler had won the Second World War?

by Ferdinand Bardamu

Interviewer: And what in your opinion is the tragic element of our epoch?

Louis-Ferdinand Céline: Stalingrad…The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There’s been a cataclysm. Its epicenter was Stalingrad. After that you can say that white civilization was finished, really washed up.

— Interview, 1960

 

I: Western Europe’s Post-WWII recovery

WWII is considered the most destructive conflict in history. No other conflict, not even the 13th century Mongol invasions, comes even close. An estimated 60 million to 80 million are believed to have been killed during WWII; in contrast, the Mongols only killed an estimated 30 million to 40 million. Huge swaths of territory in Europe were reduced to ruin by Allied bombing. Germany, Poland and Russia suffered the most devastation. The combined wartime expenditures of both Axis and Allied powers were astronomical, running into the trillions of dollars in today’s currency. In the immediate wake of Axis defeat, there was chaos; Europe had no functioning governments or judicial systems. The economy had virtually disappeared, save for a thriving black market. Schools and universities were no longer open to students or the general public. Millions were left homeless; families were torn apart; entire populations, like the ethnic Germans of Eastern Europe, were forcibly driven from their homes. Armed bands of men took whatever they wanted and the occupying soldiers of the Red Army engaged in mass rape. Women of all ages and classes openly prostituted themselves for food and shelter. Many took advantage of the war’s end to settle old scores; National Socialist collaborators were rounded up, beaten and killed. Women who were perceived as being too friendly with the soldiers of the Wehrmacht were seized and had their heads shaven.

In 1948, Congress approved the four-year Marshall Plan, authorizing disbursement of billions of dollars in US funds to rebuild European industry and infrastructure. The amount given in aid totaled 5% of US GDP. By the time Western Europeans had received these funds, their continent was well on the way to full economic recovery. From 1947 to 1949, mining and manufacturing production was restored to pre-war levels in most areas; in 1950, per capita food production was restored to pre-war levels. West Germany, the most war-ravaged country in Western Europe, reached pre-war levels of per capita GDP in 1955. To all neutral observers, West Germany’s recovery and economic growth was nothing short of miraculous. It was known as the Wirtschaftwunder or “West German economic miracle,” the brainchild of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer’s Minister of Economic Affairs, Ludwig Erhard. He stimulated economic growth through currency reform, abolition of price controls and tax cuts. From 1950 to 1959, West German GDP grew faster than anywhere else in Western Europe. By the 1960s, West Germany had emerged as the largest and most influential economic power in Europe. In contrast, East Germany, its Stalinist counterpart, stagnated under Soviet rule.

Despite the enormous devastation caused by WWII, Western Europeans were able to rapidly recover and achieve levels of economic and industrial development far surpassing pre-war levels. This wasn’t the first time Europeans were able to easily bounce back from tragedy; they had also bounced back from the ravages of the Black Death and the Mongol invasions.
 

II: The hostile elite’s pathological “Europhobia”

Since the end of WWII, the hostile elite has been flooding Western Europe with non-whites from the developing world’s most impoverished and war-torn areas. Globalists advocated diluting white racial purity to never again experience the horrors of European all-out war. The hostile elite justified this race replacement using the most flippant excuses. “Europeans aren’t having enough children,” they complained, “we need more super-fertile Third World invaders!” “We need fresh blood for jobs no European wants to do,” others moaned, “without workers, who will support Europeans in their old age?” On deeper examination, the hostile elite’s reasons for Third World invasion must be immediately dismissed as deliberate falsehoods.

Globalists claim that low fertility is always a bad thing; but a reduction in the number of excess mouths to feed would allow wages and living standards to rise. Letting jobs go without anyone to fill them isn’t as damaging as the globalists would like us to believe; through the market’s built-in self-correcting mechanism, rising corporate demand would induce an increase in real wages and the labor supply would fix itself. If there is a genuine labor shortage, excess demand would be channeled into research and development, leading to the invention of labor-saving devices. Conversely, they could also stimulate the fertility rate by offering various incentives, like cash bonuses. Excessive reliance on foreign workers to support elderly Europeans is just another ridiculous Ponzi scheme; invaders would get old, requiring even more workers; needless to say, such infinite growth is ecologically unsustainable. There are limits to Europe’s carrying capacity; as neo-Malthusian ecologists are fond of pointing out, infinite growth with limited resources is an impossibility. A more logical solution would be to eliminate mandatory retirement age, allowing the elderly to work for as long as they wanted. Another serious problem with the fatuous “we need workers to support our elderly pensioners” is that Mohammed al-Baghdadi will not want to support elderly whites when his people form Europe’s next majority.

There is only one plausible reason for elite-managed Third World invasion: demographic aggression against Europeans in retaliation for the horrors of WWII. For centuries, whites were subjected to evolutionary selective pressures that maximized the prevalence of beneficial traits, but removed maladaptive traits from the gene pool. Not only did IQs rise, but high trust cultures fostering social cohesion and co-operative behavior were established. As a result, Europeans were able to rapidly recover from tragedies like the Mongol invasions and the Black Death. In fact, if Europe had been destroyed by a devastating thermonuclear war, the surviving whites would have still been able to recover because of their enormous social and human capital. After a few generations, the population would have returned to replacement levels of fertility and Western civilization would flourish once again.

Sub-Saharan Africans and Middle Easterners are the majority of Europe’s invaders. The sub-Saharan African is known for his penchant for violence and savagery; Middle Easterners are usually inbred hicks. In many Arab populations, the consanguineous marriage rate exceeds 50%. Because of low IQ, many are believers in militant Islam, an ignorant, crass superstition originating in the Saudi desert. As these two groups increase in Europe, Western population genetic structure will change for the worse, making it harder for Europeans to recover from tragedy. If the percentage of Africans and Middle Easterners becomes high relative to whites, white resilience in the face of tragedy will eventually disappear. Changes in the white race’s underlying genetic structure are irreversible, unless vigorous negative eugenic action is taken. By flooding Europe with Third World invaders, globalists are destroying the cradle of Occidental civilization, something the Mongol Hordes and the Soviet communists were never able to accomplish.
 

III: National Socialist-occupied Europe
vs. globalist-occupied Europe

In their propaganda literature, the National Socialists said they opposed the “big capitalism” of the “American economic system,” the globalism of the interbellum years. In the 1932 pamphlet “German Farmers, You Belong to Hitler!,” they warned that global expansion of American capitalism would turn the world into a “giant trust” concerned only with “profits and dividends”; man would be enslaved to the empty “slogans of progress, technology, rationalization, standardization.” The final aim of American “big capitalism” was “the world dictatorship of Jewry” through “parliament and the swindle of democracy.” National Socialism and globalism were diametrically opposed; only globalists promoted white genocide, whereas the Third Reich was preoccupied with issues of white racial survival.

Whatever destructive impact National Socialism had on the world stage was actually quite small, at least when compared to the destructive impact of contemporary globalism. The National Socialists, some of the most genuine European nationalists in Western history, treated their citizens with far greater compassion than the current hostile elites of Western Europe. The National Socialist party’s large-scale public investment in make-work schemes, the building of new autobahns and land reclamation, stimulated economic growth. Through these policies Germany managed to escape the Great Depression; by 1939, unemployment was almost 0%. National Socialists provided their citizens with one of the highest living standards in the world; at no point did they ever seek to exert negative pressure on real wages and living standards by artificially increasing labor supply. German racial hygiene was improved through eugenics; this meant euthanasia for the genetically unfit and Lebensborn, the controlled breeding of racially pure Aryan children. Through legislative policies and material incentives, the German fertility rate was increased. Abortion and birth control measures were outlawed, except for those deemed “useless eaters”; free money and food were given to women who had children. Women who had 6 or more children were exempted from paying income tax; those with 8 children or more received a Mother’s Cross made of pure gold, one of the Third Reich’s highest honors.

The barely disguised, murderous anti-white hatred of globalism makes it a far more destructive force than National Socialism. Globalists support Third World invasion because it reduces white fertility, the result of lowering wages and rising housing costs because of excess demand. The removal of economic opportunities for indigenous whites through outsourcing is considered a humanitarian duty. Third World invasion has other negative effects on whites. In Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests (2003), territories monopolized by “ethnies” are said to have very specific carrying capacities; if Great Britain’s maximum carrying capacity is 120 million, but is currently occupied by 60 million whites, the addition of 60 million non-white aliens would prevent indigenous Britons from increasing their numbers beyond 60 million. The presence of genetically distinct Third World invaders would result in substantial losses in white ethnic genetic interests. The disappearance of the white man’s distinctive racial traits would genetically transform the population. This is genocide through race replacement and miscegenation.

Compared to the Third Reich’s environmental impact, the globalist regimes of modern Europe are far more destructive. As most population growth in globalist-occupied Europe is both artificially induced and massive, there will be overcrowding, significant material scarcity and increased carbon emissions (cause for concern among those convinced by the scientific evidence for global warming). Exponential population growth in a finite territory always harms ecological sustainability; available resources for the next generation of whites would be substantially reduced.

German National Socialists tried to preserve, increase and enhance Western Europe’s white population. The globalists, on the other hand, actively seek to destroy Western Europe through physical and cultural genocide. Their favorite leftist weapons, feminism, multiculturalism and non-white invasion, will reduce indigenous whites to a minority. This will eventually lead to race extinction through miscegenation and race war. The end result of globalism will be far more destructive than the World Wars combined; at least under National Socialist rule, Western Europe would have survived and flourished.
 

IV: Globalism: more dangerous than
National Socialism… and Communism?

Cultural Marxism is the ideological foundation of contemporary globalism. This is the belief that racial and sexual inequality are caused by social oppression. Marxist ideology has informed all modern attempts to socially engineer humanity to reduce inequality. Since equality does not exist in nature, Marxist social engineering of egalitarian outcomes will always lead to mass murder and genocide. In The Black Book of Communism (1999), Stéphane Courtois and other European academics estimated communism’s death toll at 85 million to 100 million individuals during the 20th century, as opposed to the 25 million noncombatant fatalities attributed to the National Socialist regime (other sources generally place this at approximately 11 million). Whatever one thinks of the politics of the Third Reich, they were at least grounded in the scientific realities of neo-Darwinian biology, which is why they were far less destructive and far less murderous than communism and that other Marxist-derived ideology, globalism.

Interestingly enough, the greater internal weaknesses of communist regimes like the Soviet Union made them far less dangerous than their globalist counterparts. The inability of the centrally planned economy to efficiently allocate resources, as well as military expenditures vastly in excess of consumer goods spending, among other reasons, led to Soviet collapse in 1991. Cultural Marxist propaganda combined with neo-liberal capitalism is far more economically sustainable than Soviet communism. At least communist ideology did not ruin ordinary Russians by destroying their way of life and culture. The Soviet version of multiculturalism, the ethnofederal model, never dissolved Russian ethnic identity to replace it with a deracinated, faceless Homo sovieticus. On the other hand, the purpose of globalist multiculturalism is total destruction of Europe by erasing its indigenous culture and reducing indigenous whites to a minority, finally wiping them out through miscegenation and race war. If there is no anti-globalist revolution in the near future, this policy will continue indefinitely, until whites one day go extinct.

At least Russians were able to emerge from Soviet totalitarianism with their racial health still intact.
 

V: The 20th century’s greatest tragedy

Let us envision an alternative scenario where the Axis powers had emerged from WWII as the victors.

National Socialist-occupied Europe would stretch from the Pyrenees to the Russian Far East. There would be destruction, but far less than the wave of destruction unleashed by hostile globalist elites. Whites would be able to quickly rebuild and replenish their numbers through natural increase. Most importantly, their population genetic structure would remain intact. The National Socialist totalitarian regime would eventually crumble, as no system of governance endures forever, replaced by some other form of government promoting white racial interests. Obviously, there would be no globalism, multiculturalism or Third World invasion.

National Socialist eugenic policies would make Europeans stronger and healthier; this would increase their capacity to maintain and advance their own civilization. Because the Soviets were defeated by the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad in 1943, there would be no Cold War. If there is a Cold War between the Third Reich and the United States, the aim of American foreign policy may be “containment” of National Socialist power and influence in the Americas. If North America’s hostile elite embraces multiculturalism and Third World invasion following an Axis victory in WWII, dissident whites would at least have a safe haven to flee to; they would also have a base of operations to conduct covert anti-globalist activities against Washington.

An Axis victory in WWII would mean that whites would not be under attack, as they are today. By shielding their citizens from the genocidal race-mixing propaganda of the globalists, Soviet communism inoculated Eastern Europe from the twin pathologies of multiculturalism and non-white invasion. National Socialism would naturally have been far more effective at preserving white racial purity. An all-white Western Europe would be able to pick up the pieces when North America’s globalist regime inevitably collapses and devolves into both civil and race war, perhaps installing a sympathetic National Socialist government in Washington.

The Allied victory in Europe was a colossal mistake; the wrong side had won the war. The forces of darkness, represented by the liberal-leftist regimes of Roosevelt (later Truman), Churchill and Stalin, had triumphed over the racial and national freedom offered by the Italian fascists and German National Socialists, the real would-be saviors of Europe. Although not obvious then, this has become blindingly obvious now. Céline’s pronouncement on the fate of Western civilization remains prophetic: “Europe died at Stalingrad… After that you can say that white civilization was finished.”

Octavio Paz

Today in the morning I slightly edited yesterday’s entry, ‘Roma (2018 film)’, and added a postscript.

I must say once again that the paradigm from which I see white decline is different from the monocausal paradigm of many white nationalists.

Here in Latin America it is clear that in addition to the Jews the mestizos also want the whites to disappear, so I call them ‘little Jews’ insofar as they do not have the influence that the Jews have in the West. But the saddest thing is that the white intellectuals in Latin America also want, unconsciously, that the Aryans disappear from the map. And I do not mean only the famous Mexican film directors mentioned in my entry yesterday, but the Creole intellectuals: that is, the top intellectuals of Spanish descent.

Octavio Paz (Mexico City, 1914-1998) was a Mexican poet, essayist and diplomat. He won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1990 and the Cervantes Award in 1981. He is considered one of the most influential writers of the 20th century and one of the great intellectuals and poets of the Spanish language of all time.

In 1995 I saw a television program in which Ted Koppel interviewed the winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott, Czeslaw Milosz and I think others. When Paz told Koppel that the Anglo-Saxons should miscegenate as the Spaniards had done in Mexico, something in my heart rebelled very deeply…

I knew that these words of Paz represented something wrong, and that it had been insolent to utter them precisely on American television. But at that time the Matrix of political correctness had me in its power and I had not read a single ethno-patriot. However, the resentments against someone I admired were recorded in my memory, so much so that I remember my rejection of Paz’s words in 1995 as if it had been yesterday.

Presently I not only see as wrong the pronouncements of the winners of the Nobel Prize in the Koppel interview: I see them all as true idiots. Let’s see a fraction of the excerpts from the Koppel interview. Octavio Paz said:

A new solution must be found to this problem of the multiplicity of cultures and races and communities that are here [United States]. Such is the relevance of this debate. It differs a lot from Mexico. My country was also founded with a universal idea, only that it was not the Reformation and Protestantism, but Catholicism and the Counter-Reformation. We were also universalists and we are a mestizo country, something that you are not yet [my emphasis: just what made a memory dent after watching the program]. I am quite sure that, if you are wise, you will be multicultural. It would be a great thing.

‘Multicultural’ is a grotesque euphemism for miscegenation (‘something that you are not yet’) and, therefore, a euphemism of white extinction in the US.

Now I see that Paz, like the filmmakers that I mentioned yesterday, did not give a damn that the white race disappeared in the neighbouring northern country. This is the only one of the races (white, black, oriental and Indian) that is actively committing suicide precisely because of ethno-suicidal ideas such as those of Paz and the filmmakers mentioned yesterday. I have called this type of pronouncements the sin against the holy spirit of life: a sin that, personally, I do not forgive.

In the interview with Koppel, Paz also said: ‘He who could have deserved the Nobel prize but never received it was Céline. He was perhaps one of the great novelists of France, but he was anti-Semitic. What to do with it? It is really very complicated’.

Now, twenty years after Paz’s death I see that, like the ultraliberal Swedes who awarded the Nobel Prize to Octavio Paz, Paz himself was an absolute ignorant of the Jewish question. Ultimately, the laureate writers are as stupid as the rest of the treacherous elites.

Assisted suicide

“Mental AIDS” is the collapse of a people’s immune system in the face of their enemies. Practically all whites throughout the West suffer from mental AIDS insofar as they are not defending their sacred lands against an invasion of millions of non-whites. However, some white nationalists get mad when hearing the expression “suicide” as a value judgment about the pathological passivity among present-day whites. Most nationalists speak, instead, of “homicide”: the Jews being the primary infection that infected the white soul.

But what if they are a secondary infection? After all, the white people contracted Christianity (HIV) in the 4th century, which after a long incubation period eventually developed into liberalism (AIDS) during the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Liberalism, or Neochristianity as I like to call it, weakened the West’s immune system. After Napoleon, Neochristians opened the door to the subversive tribe throughout continental Europe—Jews—: a “mental AIDS”-related opportunistic infection, such as pneumonia is an infection of the somatic equivalent of AIDS.

See the HIV link above. If Christianity and its secular offshoots are massively involved in the West’s darkest hour, and I cannot conceive a biggest blunder than emancipating the Jew, why not start diagnosing the situation as “assisted suicide,” with the Jew only being too happy to comply the deranged Neochristian’s will to bring about his own death?

I am not alone in this apparently wild opinion. Below, my abridgment of Tom Sunic’s “Race and Religion: Awkward Friends of the White Man,” published in three parts at The Occidental Observer:


NPI_Conference-Tom_SunicRegardless how much empirical artillery one can muster in defence of the uniqueness of the White gene pool, and regardless of how many facts one can enumerate that point to diverse intellectual achievements of different races, no such evidence will elicit social or academic approval. In fact, if loudly uttered, the evidence may be considered a felony in some Western countries. In our so-called free and secular society, new religions, such as the religion of racial promiscuity and the theology of the free market have replaced the old Christian belief system. Only when these new secular dogmas or political theologies start crumbling down—which may soon be the case—alternative views about race and the meaning of the sacred may appear.

The historical irony is that it was not the Other, i.e. the non-White, who invented the arsenal of bashing the White man. It was the White man himself—both with his Christian atonement and now with his liberal expiation of the feelings of guilt.

Alain de Benoist writes that liberalism has been a racist system par excellence. In the late 19th century, it preached exclusive racism. Now, in the 21st century it preaches inclusive racism. By herding non European races from all over the world into a rootless a-racial and a-historical agnostic consumer society and by preaching ecumenical miscegenation, the West nonetheless holds its undisputed role of a truth maker—of course, this time around under the auspices of the self-hating, self-flagellating White male.

It must be stated that it was not the Colored, but the White man who had crafted the ideology of self-denial and the concomitant ideology of universal human rights, as well as the ideas of interracial promiscuity. Therefore, any modest scholarly argument suggesting proofs of racial inequality is untenable today. How can one persuasively argue about the existence of different races if the modern system lexically, conceptually, scientifically, ideologically, theologically, and last, but not least, judicially, forbids the slightest idea of race segregation—except when it evokes skin-deep exotic escapades into musical and culinary prowess of non-European races?

Most American White nationalists use Thomas Jefferson as their patron saint, frequently associating his name with “good old times” of the American Declaration of Independence. Those were the times when the White man was indeed in command of his destiny. The White founding fathers stated:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Yet the abstract words “all men” combined with the invocation of a deistic and distant “creator” had a specific significance in the mind of Enlightenment-groomed Jefferson. Two hundred years later, however, his words ring a different bell in the ears of a real Muslim Somali or a Catholic Cholo planning to move to the United States.

Wailing and whining that “Jefferson did not mean this; he meant that”—is a waste of time. The American Declaration bears witness to the classical cleavage between the former signifier and the modern signified which has become the subject of its own semantic sliding—with ominous consequences for Whites worldwide.

Contemporary geneticists and biologists are no less vulnerable than philosophers and sociologists to dominant political theologies. What was considered scientific during the first part of the 20th century in Europe and the United States by many prominent scholars writing about race is viewed today as preposterous and criminal. The dominant dogma idea of egalitarianism must give its final blessing in explaining or explaining away any scientific discovery.

Although the field of the former Soviet social sciences is considered today as quackery, its egalitarian, Marxist residue of omnipotent inheritance of acquired characteristics is religiously pursued by the post-Christian, neoliberal capitalist West. In layman’s terms, this means that the floodgates for mass immigration of non-Europeans must be kept wide open. Racial promiscuity and miscegenation must be enforced. It is science! It is the law!

As in the ex-Soviet Union, the dominant theology of egalitarianism and TV shows incessantly role-modeling interracial sex only accelerate the culture of mediocrity and the culture of death.

European and American history has been full of highly intelligent individuals endorsing abnormal religious and political beliefs. This is particularly true for many temporary White European and American left-leaning academics who, although showing high IQ, are narrow-minded, spineless individuals of no integrity, or race traitors of dubious character. Low IQ Cholos or affirmative action Blacks are just happy pawns in their conspiratorial and suicidal game.

[White suicide]

The pristine, pastoral and puerile picture of the White race, so dearly longed for by modern White nationalists, is daily belied by permanent religious bickering, jealousy and character smearing within the White rank and file. Add to that murderous intra-White wars that have rocked Europe and America for centuries, one wonders whether the proverbial and much vaunted Aryan, Promethean, and Faustian man, is worthy of a better future.

Surely, the White man saved Greco-Roman Europe from the Levantine Hannibal’s incursion, which nearly resulted in a catastrophe in 216 b.c. at Cannae, in southern Italy. The White man also stopped Attila’s Hunic hordes on the Catalaunian Fields in France in 451 a.d. The grandfather of Charlemagne, Charles Martel, defeated Arab predators near Tours, in France in 732. One thousand years later in 1717, a short and slim Italo-French Catholic hero, Prince Eugene of Savoy, finally removed the Islamic threat from the Balkans.

But… the power of the newly discovered universal religion and the expectancy of the “end of history,” later to be followed by bizarre beliefs in “global democracy,” often eclipsed racial awareness among Whites. As a rule, when White princes ran out of Muslim or Jewish infidels—they began whacking each other in the name of their Semitic deities or latter day democracies. The 6’4” tall Charlemagne, in the name of his anticipated Christian bliss, went on the killing spree against his fellow pagan Germans. In 782 a.d. he decapitated several thousand of the finest crop of Nordic Saxons, thereby earning himself a saintly name of the “butcher of the Saxons” (Sachsenschlächter).

[I wish that Sunic had mentioned how Julius Caesar ordered the massacre of the 40,000 inhabitants of Avaricum during the Gaul wars; how this monster destroyed 800 towns and enslaved millions of Celts; how “hundreds of thousands of blond, blue-eyed Celtic girls were marched south to be pawed by Semitic flesh merchants” in Rome’s slave markets. Also, in 408 a.d. the Romans, in all the Italian cities, butchered the wives and children of their German allies—60,000 of them.]

And on and on the story goes with true Christian or true democracy believers. No Jews, no Arabs, no communists have done so much damage to the White gene pool as Whites themselves. The Thirty Years War (1617–1647) fought amidst European Christians with utmost savagery, wiped out two thirds of the finest German racial stock, over 6 million people. The crazed papist Croatian mercenaries, under Wallenstein’s command, considered it a Royal and Catholic duty to kill off Lutherans, a dark period so well described by the great German poet and dramatist Friedrich Schiller. Even today in Europe the words “Croat years” (Kroatenjahre) are associated with the years of hunger and pestilence.

Nor did Oliver Cromwell’s troops—his Ironsides—during the English civil war, fare much better. Surely, as brave Puritans they did not drink, they did not whore, they did not gamble—they only specialized in skinning Irish Catholic peasants alive. Not only did their chief, the Nordic looking fanatic Cromwell consider himself more Jewish than the Jews—he actually brought them back from continental Europe, with far-reaching consequence both for England and America.

A slim, intelligent, Nordic looking, yet emotionally unstable manic depressive, William Sherman, burnt down Atlanta in 1864—probably in the hopes of fostering a better brand of democracy for the South. We may also probe some day into the paleocortex of the Nordic skull of an airborne Midwest Christian ex-choir boy, who joyfully dropped firebombs on German civilians during WWII.



The faith or the sacred?

No subject is so dangerous to address among White nationalists as the Christian religion. It is commendable to lambast Muslims, who are on the respectable hit-parade of the Axis of Evil. Jews also come in handy in a wholesale package of evil, which needs to be expiated—at least occasionally. But any critical examination of Judeo-Christian intolerance is viewed with suspicion and usually attributed to distinct groups of White people, such as agnostics or modern day self-proclaimed pagans.

Why did the White man accept the Semitic spiritual baggage of Christianity even though it did not quite fit with his racial-spiritual endowments? The unavoidable racialist thinker Hans Günther—a man of staggering erudition and knowledgeable not only of the laws of heredity, but also of comparative religions—reminds us that the submissive and slavish relation of man to God is especially characteristic of Semitic peoples. In his important little book, The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans, he teaches us about the main aspects of racial psychology of old Europeans. We also learn that Yahweh is a merciless totalitarian god who must be revered—and feared.

The messianic, chiliastic, or “communistic” mindset was unknown among ancient Europeans. They could not care less which gods other races, other tribes or other peoples believed in. Wars that they fought against the adversary were bloody, but they did not have the goal of converting the adversary and imposing on him the beliefs contrary to his racial heritage. Homer’s epic The Iliad is the best example. The self-serving, yet truly racist liberal-communistic endeavour, to wage “final and just war” in order to “make the world safe for democracy,” was something inconceivable for ancient Europeans.

A German-British racialist author of the early 20th century, Houston Stewart Chamberlain in his The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century writes that “a final judgment shows the intellectual renaissance to be the work of Race in opposition to the universal Church which knows no Race” (p. 326). Unlike Christianity, which preaches individual salvation, for ancient Europeans life can only have a meaning within the in-group—their tribe, their polis, or their civitas. Outside those social structures, life means nothing.

In the 1st century, words of far-reaching consequence for all Whites were pronounced by a Jewish heretic, the Apostle St. Paul, to the people of Galatia, an area in Asia Minor once populated by the Gauls (i.e., Celts). Galatia was then well underway to become a case study of multicultural debauchery—similar to today’s Los Angeles:

“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28).

Christianity became thus a Universalist religion with a special mission to transform the Other into the Same. The seeds of egalitarianism—albeit on the religious, not yet on the secular level—were sown.

Although Christian Churches never publicly endorsed racial miscegenation, they did not endorse racial segregation either. This was true for the Catholic Church and its flock, as observed by the early French sociologist and racialist Gustave Le Bon. Consequently, Catholic Spaniards of White racial stock in Latin America could not halt decadence and debauchery in their new homelands as WASPs in North America did.

Later, in 1938, in light of eugenic and racial laws adopted not only in Germany and Italy, but also in other European countries and many states in America, Pope Pius XI made his famous statement: “It is forgotten that mankind is one large and overwhelming Catholic race.” This statement was to become part of his planned encyclical under the name The Unity of the Human Race.

“The unity of the human race”, as noble as these words may sound, is a highly abstract concept. On a secular level communist and liberal intellectuals constantly toy with it—in order to suppress real tribes, real nations, real peoples and their real racial uniqueness.


The folly of the compound noun: “anti-Semitism”

Civil religions also have their holy shrines, their holy relics, their pontiffs, their canons, their promises and their menaces. Failure to believe in them—or failure to at least pretend to believe in them—results, as a legal scholar of Catholic persuasion, Carl Schmitt wrote, in a heretic’s removal from the category of human beings. Among new civil religions one could enumerate the religion of multiculturalism, the religion of antifascism, the religion of the Holocaust, and the religion of economic progress.

Many Whites make a fundamental mistake when they portray new civil religions as part of an organized conspiracy of a small number of wicked people. In essence, civil religions are just secular transpositions of the Judeo-Christian monotheist mindset which, when combined with an inborn sense of tolerance and congenial naïveté of the White people, makes them susceptible to their enchanting effects.

As a result of semantic sliding of political concepts, the Jewish-born thinker and the father of the secular religion of communism, Karl Marx, would likely be charged today with “anti-Semitism” or the “incitement to racial hatred.” Leftist scholars usually do not wish to subject his little booklet, On the Jewish Question (1844) to critical analysis. Consider the following:

The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.

Of particular significance is Marx’ last sentence “insofar as the Christians have become Jews.” In fact the White man has “jewified” himself by embracing the fundaments of the Jewish belief system, which, paradoxically, he uses now in criticizing Jews.

Christian anti-Semitism can be described, therefore, as a peculiar form of neurosis. Christian anti-Semites resent the Jews while mimicking the framework of resentment borrowed from Jews. Accordingly, even the Jewish god Yahweh was destined to become the anti-Semitic God of White Christians! In the name of this God, persecutions against Jews were conducted by White non-Jews. Simply put, the White non-Jew has been denying for centuries to the Jew his self-appointed “otherness” i.e. his uniqueness and his self-chosenness, while desperately striving to re-appropriate that same Jewish otherness and that same uniqueness, be it in the acceptance of Biblical tales, be it the espousal of the concept of linear time, be it in the belief of the end of history.

To face up to the purported bad sides of Judaism by using Christian tools, is futile. This is the argument of the German philosopher Eugen Dühring, who notes that “Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism” and “a Christian, when he rightfully comprehends himself as such, cannot be a serious and complete anti-Semite.” (Die Judenfrage als Frage des Rassencharakters, 1901). Dühring was a prominent German socialist philosopher, contemporary, but also a foe of Marx. Like most German socialist thinkers of the late 19th century he was an anti-Semite, in so far as he saw in the Jewry the incarnation of capitalism. Dühring notes that “historical Christianity, when observed in its true spirit, and all things considered, has been a backlash within and against Judaism, but it has also emerged from it and to some extent in its fashion.” (p. 25-26).

What German geneticists and anthropologists, such as Fritz Lenz, Hans Günther, Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer and thousands of other scholars wrote about Jews had already been written and discussed—albeit from a philosophical, artistic and literary point of view—by thousands of European writers, poets and artists. From the ancient Roman thinker Tacitus to the English writer William Shakespeare, from the ancient Roman thinker Seneca, to the French novelist and satirist, L. Ferdinand Céline, one encounters in the prose of countless European authors occasional and not so occasional critical remarks about the Jewish character—remarks that could easily be called today anti-Semitic. Should these “anti-Semitic” authors, novelists, or poets be called insane? If so, then the entire European cultural heritage must be banned and labeled insane.

Excluding the Jew, while using his theological and ideological concepts is a form of latent phobia among Whites, of which Jews are very well aware of. Criticizing a strong Jewish influence in Western societies on the one hand, while embracing Jewish religious and secular prophets on the other, will lead to further tensions and only enhance the Jewish sense of self-chosenness and their timeless victimhood. In turn, this will only give rise to more anti-Jewish hatred with tragic consequences for all. The prime culprits are not Jews or Whites, but rather a civil religion of egalitarianism with its postmodern offshoots of universalism and multiculturalism.

The issue that needs to be addressed is why Whites, for two thousand years, have adhered to an alien, out-group, non-European conceptualization of the world.