Darkening Age, 25

Bosch, The Last Judgement
(detail) 1500-05

Editor’s note: Regarding the view of Robert Morgan in the previous post, I disagree in the sense that it is unclear what would have happened to technology if the Third Reich had emerged triumphant. As the bad guys won the war, the use of technology in the West is self-destructing for the fair race.

It is true what Arthur Kemp says: that the use of non-whites after the Aryan conquests has been the primary cause of the decline of empires, due to the eventual miscegenation. But we live in a time when whites have become passionately ethno-suicidal, and that can only be explained by the texts linked in the sticky post. The history of Christianity, one of the two DNA axes of Aryan suicide according to the POV of this site, should be analysed with the same eagerness as white nationalists analyse the Jewish question.

When I talk to the white people, say, with whom I have spoken in England, I see an injured self-image to the degree that it evokes the mass psychosis, in a sector of the population, right after the triumph of Constantine. I refer to the Christian hermits and ascetics whose movement would eventually evolve into monastic orders. The mass psychosis, so well depicted by Hieronymus Bosch, had to do with the introduction of a fear that did not exist in the Greco-Roman world. I refer to the fear of eternal torment: something that, occasionally, persists even on the internet sites of southern nationalists in the US.

To understand what is happening to the white man it is necessary to realise that Kevin MacDonald and his followers fail to diagnose the origin of this tremendous collective guilt. Jews only thrive because of it. That’s why it is essential to tell what really happened to the Aryan psyche after the crushing triumph of Constantine. In chapter 14 of The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, Catherine Nixey wrote:


______ 卐 ______


If you had travelled to the great cities in the eastern empire, to Alexandria and to Antioch, in the fourth and fifth centuries, then long before you came to a city itself you would have seen them. At dawn, they emerged from caves in the hills and holes in the ground, their dark robes flapping; their faces gaunt and pale from hunger, their eyes hollow from lack of sleep. As the cocks began to crow, while the city beyond was still slumbering, they gathered in the monasteries and hills beyond and, ‘forming themselves into a holy choir, they stand, and lifting up their hands all at once sing the sacred hymns’. An impressive sight – and an eerie one, their filthy, emaciated figures a living rebuke to the opulence and bustle of urban life below: a new, and newly strange, power in the world.

This was the great age of the monk. Ever since Antony had set out to the desert to do battle with demons, men had flocked after him in imitation. These men were the ideal Christians; the perfect renouncers of all those sinful pleasures of the flesh. And their way of life was thriving: so many had gone out since Antony that the desert was described as a city. And what a strange city this was. You wouldn’t find bathhouses and banquets and theatres here. The habits of these men were infamously ascetic. In Syria, St Simeon Stylites (‘of the pillar’) stood on a stone column for decades, until his feet burst open from the continual pressure. Other monks lived in caves, or holes, or hollows or shacks. In the eighteenth century, a traveller to Egypt had looked up into the cliffs above the Nile and seen thousands of cells in the rock above. It was in these burrows, he realized, that monks had lived out lives of unimaginable austerity, surviving on almost no food and only able to drink by letting down buckets on ropes to draw water from the river when it was in flood.

What was a monk at this time? In the fourth and fifth centuries, the now-ancient tradition of monasticism was only in its infancy and its ways were still being formed. In this odd and as yet uncodified existence, monks turned to the wisdom of their famous predecessors to know how to live. Collections of monkish sayings proliferated. Self-help guides of a sort – but a world away from Ovid. What is a monk? ‘He is a monk,’ wrote one, ‘who does violence to himself in everything.’ A monk was toil, said another. All toil. How should a monk live? ‘Eat straw, wear straw, sleep on straw,’ advised another revered saying. ‘Despise everything.’ Athletes of austerity, these men mortified their flesh in a hundred ways on a thousand days. One monk, it was said, had stood upright in thorn bushes for a fortnight. Another lived with a stone in his mouth for three years, to teach himself to be silent. Some, nostalgic for the tortures of past persecutions, draped themselves in chains and clanked round in them for years…

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that many of the empire’s urban, urbane men found this new breed of men who shunned the civilized life baffling to the point of repellent. To the Greek orator Libanius, monks were madmen, ‘that crew who pack themselves tight into the caves’ and who then ‘claim to converse with the creator of the universe in the mountains’. Their fasts were fiction, he said. These men weren’t starving themselves: they didn’t not eat; they just didn’t grow or buy their own food. When no one was looking, he said, they scuttled into the temples of the loathed pagans, stole those sinful sacrifices and ate them instead. Far from being ascetics they were ‘models of sobriety, only as far as their dress is concerned’. Their vicious and thuggish attacks on the temples weren’t done out of piety, said Libanius. They committed them out of pure greed…

The modern mind would tend towards a more clinical (albeit anachronistic) conclusion: many of these men must have been profoundly depressed.

Starvation was one of the most popular of monkish mortifications – no special equipment was required – but it was also one of the hardest to bear. One monk fasted all day then ate only two hard biscuits. Another lived from the age of twenty-seven to thirty on just roots and wild herbs, then for the next four years on half a pound of barley bread a day and some herbs. Eventually he felt his eyes going dim while his skin became ‘as rough as a pumice stone’. He added a little oil to his diet, then went on as before until he was sixty, to the awe and admiration of his fellow monks. There had been asceticism before – but this went further. Others, like ruminants, lived on all fours, browsing for their food like animals. In some ways hunger helped: a famished monk would be less beset by the demons of fornication or anger than one with a full belly. ‘A needy body,’ as one put it, ‘is a tame horse.’ But thoughts of food became an obsession with these men. In their reading of the Fall, the apple that Eve gives to Adam is not seen as a symbolic representation of sex; it is seen as nothing more, or less, than an apple. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs made monkish flesh.

The monks tormented themselves by what they put on their bodies as much as what they put in them. Some chose to dress in woven palm fronds instead of any softer fabric. To wear the usual coarse monkish habit was regarded, in this extreme world, as being ‘foppishly dressed’. Others, under the desert sun, tortured their skin with abrasive hair shirts. Another dressed in an extraordinary leather costume (that would in a later era have different connotations) that left only his mouth and nose exposed. To be pleasing to the Lord, a monk’s clothes must, it was said, be an offence against aestheticism: a habit should be tatty rather than smart, old rather than new, mended and re-mended and mended again. Anything less was vanity. A monk’s clothes should be such that, if he threw his habit out of his cell for three days, no one would steal it. The monks’ self-sacrifice was unquestionable; their smell must have been unspeakable.

If this sounds like a life lived on the edge of sanity, it was. In the searing heat of the desert day, reality shimmered, flickered and thinned. One monk saw a dragon in a lake; another slew a basilisk. Another saw the Devil himself sitting at his window. Demons appeared then vanished like smoke; meditating monks turned into flames. Watch one monk as he prayed and you would see his fingers turn into lamps of fire. Pray well and you might yourself become all flame. Demons teemed around monks like flies around food. One monk was beset by visions of rotting corpses, bursting open as they decayed. Alone for weeks, months on end in their cells, with nothing more than ageing hard bread to eat and an oil lamp to look at, monks were plagued by more tempting visions of sex, and food, and youth. Some monks lost their minds – if they had ever been in full possession of them. When Apollo of Scetis, a shepherd who later became a monk, spotted a pregnant woman in a field, he said to himself: ‘I should like to see how the child lies in her womb.’ He ripped the woman open and saw the foetus. The child and the mother died.

The reasons for these peculiar practices are hard to fathom. One theory is that Christian domination of the empire had brought many gains; but one of its great losses was that it had become considerably harder to be made a martyr by unsympathetic Roman governors. Deprived of the chance to die in one terrible, glorious, sin-erasing show, these men instead martyred themselves slowly, agonizingly, tormenting their flesh a little more every hour, thwarting their desires a little more every year. These practices would become known as ‘white martyrdom’. The monks died daily in the hope that, one day, after they died, they might live. ‘Remember the day of your death,’ advised one monk. ‘Remember also what happens in hell and think about the state of the souls down there, their painful silence, their most bitter groanings, their fear, their strife, their waiting…’ A terrible enough plight, but the monk had not finished yet; he concluded his cheering list with: ‘the punishments, the eternal fire, worms that rest not, the darkness, gnashing of teeth, fear and supplications…’

Carpe diem, Horace had said. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you will be dead for eternity. The monks offered an alternative to this view: die today and you might live for eternity. This was a life lived in terror of its end. ‘Always keep your death in mind,’ was a common piece of advice: do not forget the eternal judgement. When one brother started to laugh during a meal, he was immediately reproached by a fellow monk: ‘What does this brother have in his heart, that he should laugh, when he ought to weep?’ How should one live well in this new and austere world? By constantly accusing yourself, said another monk, by ‘constantly reproaching myself to myself.’ Sit in your cell all day, advised another, weeping for your sins.

A hint of desert isolationism started to find its way into pious city life, too. In John Chrysostom’s writings, contact with women of all kinds was something to be feared and, if possible, avoided altogether. ‘If we meet a woman in the market-place,’ Chrysostom told his congregation, herding his listeners into complicity with that first-person plural, then we are ‘disturbed’. Desire was dangerously easy to inflame. Women who inflamed it were not to be relished as Ovid had relished them, but eschewed, scorned and denigrated in writings that made it abundantly clear that the fault of the man’s desire lay with them. In this atmosphere a group of fashionable women with their low-cut necklines were not praised as beauties but excoriated as a ‘parade of whores’.

Eventually, clerical disapproval was reinforced by law. Pagan festivals, with their exuberant merriment and dancing, were banned… If anyone declared themselves an official in charge of pagan festivals then, the law said, they would be executed. John Chrysostom jubilantly observed their decline. ‘The tradition of the forefathers has been destroyed, the deep rooted custom has been torn out, the tyranny of joy [and] the accursed festivals have been obliterated just like smoke.’

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]

Unhistorical Jesus, 4

Editor’s note: Here I continue with some passages from Richard Carrier’s book On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, especially a follow-up of what Carrier says in my first instalment of the series.

It really looks like the authors of the Gospels, presumably Semites, thoroughly plagiarised the foundational myth of Rome in order to sell us another myth (compare this with what my sticky post’s hatnote links about toxic foundation myths). This new myth did not only involve replacing an Aryan hero (Romulus) for a Jewish hero (Jesus). It did something infinitely more subversive. As Carrier wrote, which I highlighted in bold in my first instalment of the series:

Romulus’ material kingdom favoring the mighty is transformed into a spiritual one favoring the humble. It certainly looks like the Christian passion narrative is an intentional transvaluation of the Roman Empire’s ceremony of their own founding savior’s incarnation, death and resurrection [reddish colour added].

On pages 225-229 of On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt we read (scholarly footnotes omitted):

______ 卐 ______


Element 47: Another model hero narrative, which pagans also revered and to which the Gospel Jesus also conforms, is the apotheosis, or ‘ascension to godhood’ tale, and of these the one to which the Gospels (and Acts) most conform is that of the Roman national hero Romulus. I discussed this already in Chapter 4 (§1), and the points made there should be considered a component of the element here.

The more general point is that this narrative concept of a ‘translation to heaven’ for a hero (often but not always a divine son of god) was very commonplace, and always centered around a peculiar fable about the disappearance of their body. All these fables were different from one another, and therefore those differences are irrelevant to the point: all still shared the same core features (see my discussion of how syncretism works in Element 11). And when it comes to the Romulus fable in particular, the evidence is unmistakable that Christianity conformed itself to it relatively quickly—even if all these attributes were accumulated over time and not all at once.

Romulus, of course, did not exist. He was invented, along with legends about him (largely put together from previous Greek and Etruscan mythology), much later in Roman history than he is supposed to have lived. His name was eponymous (essentially an early form of the word ‘Roman’), and his story was meant to exemplify ideal Roman aspirations and values, using a model similar to Greek tragedy, in which the hero sins in various ways but comes to self-understanding and achieves peace by the time of his death. He otherwise exhibits in his deeds the ‘exemplary qualities’ of Rome as a social entity, held up as a model for Roman leaders to emulate, such as ending ‘the cycle of violence’ initiated by his sin and pride by religiously expiating the sin of past national crimes in order to bring about a lasting peace. His successor, Numa, then exemplified the role of the ideal, sinless king, a religious man and performer of miracles whose tomb was found empty after his death, demonstrating that he, too, like his predecessor Romulus, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

The idea of the ‘translation to heaven’ of the body of a divine king was therefore adaptable and flexible, every myth being in various ways different but in certain core respects the same. But the Gospels conform to the Romulus model most specifically. There are twenty parallels, although not every story contained every one. In some cases that may simply be the result of selection or abbreviation in the sources we have (and therefore the silence of one source does not entail the element did not then exist or was not known to that author); and in some cases elements might have been deliberately removed (or even reversed) by an author who wanted to promote a different message (see discussion in Chapter 10, §2, of how myth­making operated in antiquity). For example, the ‘radiant resurrection body’ (probably the earlier version of Christian appearance narratives) was later transformed into a ‘hidden-god narrative’ (another common trope both in paganism and Judaism) as suited any given author.

But when taken altogether the Romulus and Jesus death-and-resurrection narratives contain all of the following parallels:

1. The hero is the son of God.
2. His death is accompanied by prodigies.
3. The land is covered in darkness.
4. The hero’s corpse goes missing.
5. The hero receives a new immortal body, superior to the one he had.
6. His resurrection body has on occasion a bright and shining appearance.
7. After his resurrection he meets with a follower on a road from the city.
8. A speech is given from a summit or high place prior to ascending.
9. An inspired message of resurrection or ‘translation to heaven’ is delivered to a witness.
10. There is a ‘great commission’ (an instruction to future followers).
11. The hero physically ascends to heaven in his new divine body.
12. He is taken up into a cloud.
13. There is an explicit role given to eyewitness testimony (even naming the witnesses).
14. Witnesses are frightened by his appearance and/or disappearance.
15. Some witnesses flee.
16. Claims are made of ‘dubious alternative accounts’ (which claims were obviously fabricated for Romulus, there never having been a true account to begin with).
17. All of this occurs outside of a nearby (but central) city.
18. His followers are initially in sorrow over the hero’s death.
19. But his post-resurrection story leads to eventual belief, homage and rejoicing.
20. The hero is deified and cult subsequently paid to him (in the same manner as a god).

Romulus, of course, was also unjustly killed by the authorities (and came from a humble background, beginning his career as an orphan and a shepherd, a nobody from the hill country), and thus also overlaps the Aesop/­Socratic type (see Element 46), and it’s easy to see that by combining the two, we end up with pretty much the Christian Gospel in outline (especially when we appropriately Judaize the result: Elements 3-7, 17-20, and 39-43). Some of the parallels could be coincidental (e.g. resurrected bodies being associated with radiance was itself a common trope, both within Judaism and paganism), but for all of them to be coincidental is extremely improbable. The Christian conception of Jesus’ death and resurrection appears to have been significantly influenced by the Roman conception of Romulus’s death and resurrection.

Even if we discounted that for any reason, the Romulus parallels definitely establish that all these components were already part of a recognized hero-type, and are therefore not surprising or unusual or unexpected. The story of Jesus would have looked familiar, not only in the same way all translation stories looked familiar even when different in many and profound ways, but also in the very specific way that among all such tales it looked the most like the story of Romulus, which was publicly acted out in passion plays every year. And this was the national founding hero of the Roman Empire. What better god’s tale to emulate or co-opt?

Robert Morgan’s comment

In order for white people to revolt as a race, they’d have to reject a century and a half of their own history. They’d have to abandon Christianity, and ruthlessly purge its cultural residue, since even atheists nowadays embrace its fantasy of a “brotherhood of man”.

People such as Lincoln, who is now a hero to most whites, would have to be seen as a villain. Likewise with MLK and FDR. They’d have to admit to themselves that they’ve been fools all along, and their ancestors crazy; that all the blood and sacrifice to stamp out white supremacy in the Civil War and in WWII was for nothing, or even less than nothing. The cognitive dissonance alone would probably kill them or drive them insane.

Frankly, I don’t see it happening.

Girl power

The ending [of Game of Thrones] was just a ‘girl power’ scene. That’s the direction this show took for a couple of seasons already, and now we see it some more.

Of course, they won’t let Jon Snow kill the Night King. Toxic masculinity is evil. We need a woman to take out the Night King and show some girl power.

Fuck the story, fuck everything, we need girl power all over this shit. All rulers are women, or the smartest, wise and best fighters are women. And if you don’t like it, you are a racist sexist bigot.

a commenter of this YouTube audio.

Published in: on May 2, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments (33)  

Bad messages in Game of Thrones

In past years I have talked about the bad messages in previous seasons of Game of Thrones. In the first episode of the last season we see, once again, the masculine and aggressive female Yara Greyjoy that even hits his brother, the castrated Theon, when he rescues her. In the history of the West the norm has not been astute warrior women like Yara and silly and timid brothers like Theon, but on TV the goal is to invert the values. (Cersei Lannister, pic above, is another queen instead of her brother Jaime Lannister who is no king at all.)

I have said that white nationalism errs by calling this subversion ‘cultural Marxism’, a rather superficial term. Instead, I have been referring to subversion as ‘neo-Christianity’, in the sense that Christianity is an extension of the Jewish problem into the minds of whites. But even my term is inaccurate inasmuch as, throughout Christendom, men and women were not represented as in Game of Thrones, nor in modern times until the last decades. (I remember as if yesterday the first movie that reversed the roles of man-woman: Alien, which I saw on the big screen in 1979.)

Thus, more accurate than the term neo-Christianity is ‘neo-Franciscanism’, as St. Francis (1181–1226) was the saint who tried most to take the message of the gospel in all its purity into the real world.

Today this neo-Franciscanism is largely a secular phenomenon—think of Sweden for example—, although Pope Francis also wants to follow St. Francis’ steps, as explained in my last post about the humble man of Assisi.

Back to the Future

For years now I have been telling family members, on the rare occasions when I talk to them, that all films of the last decades have bad messages.

My late sister asked me some years ago, smiling triumphantly as if challenging me, what a bad message Back to the Future could have. I did not answer because I’d have had to speak in a big way on issues that she would not accept. But I do now, even though my sister can no longer read my answer.

The film begins with an experiment that Marty McFly (Michael Fox) makes with a huge speaker and his electric guitar. Well: the invention of the electric guitar alone was a blunder for Western culture. See, for example, this comment by the British Roger that we reproduced on this site six years ago.

So badly does Back to the Future initiate that the audience doesn’t disapprove of that experiment in which Marty harms his hearing with such decibels—something that, in the real world, many teenagers do with rock music.

Another bad message in the film occurs in the first scene inside the cafeteria of Hill Valley town, when Marty tells the humble black waiter that, in the future, he will be mayor of the town. The film implies that those changes from 1955 to 1985 would be seen as natural, that the inversion of values is perfectly okay.

I do not need to say more to show that even the funniest movie—Ronald Reagan himself loved Back to the Future when he saw it in the White House in 1985—may harbour a toxic message for the 14 words. But I could finish this brief review by pointing out that the film culminates with Marty playing the degenerate music of the future in the school dance of 1955: a time when the music for dancing was not so degenerating.

Published in: on April 5, 2019 at 9:07 pm  Comments (21)  

The Antichrist § 15

In Christianity, morality and religion are both completely out of touch with reality. Completely imaginary causes (‘God’, ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, ‘free will’ – or even an ‘unfree’ one); completely imaginary effects (‘sin’, ‘redemption’, ‘grace’, ‘punishment’, ‘forgiveness of sins’). Contact between imaginary entities (‘God’, ‘spirits’, ‘souls’); an imaginary natural science (anthropocentric; total absence of any concept of natural cause); an imaginary psychology (complete failure to understand oneself, interpretations of pleasant or unpleasant general sensations – for instance, the states of nervus sympathicus – using the sign language of religious-moral idiosyncrasy, – ‘repentance’, ‘the pangs of conscience’, ‘temptation by the devil’, ‘the presence of God’); an imaginary teleology (‘the kingdom of God’, ‘the Last Judgment’, ‘eternal life’). – This entirely fictitious world can be distinguished from the world of dreams (to the detriment of the former) in that dreams reflect reality while Christianity falsifies, devalues, and negates reality. Once the concept of ‘nature’ had been invented as a counter to the idea of ‘God’, ‘natural’ had to mean ‘reprehensible’ – that whole fictitious world is rooted in a hatred of the natural (of reality!), it is the expression of a profound sense of unease concerning reality… But this explains everything. Who are the only people motivated to lie their way out of reality? People who suffer from it. But to suffer from reality means that you are a piece of reality that has gone wrong… The preponderance of feelings of displeasure over feelings of pleasure is the cause of that fictitious morality and religion: but a preponderance like this provides the formula for decadence…

Published in: on April 5, 2019 at 6:13 pm  Comments (6)  

Intentional causality

‘In order to solve the Jewish Problem Aryan males have to overcome Xtian ethics. To defeat the outer, biological Jew it is necessary to defeat the inner, mental/psychological Jew (Jesus)’.

—Joseph Walsh

Yesterday I said: ‘But white nationalists are not doing that. They still obey the inner Jew. Just see how they have treated Brenton Tarrant in sharp contrast to how Jews love Benjamin Goldstein’.

I also wrote: ‘Just compare the zero comments in our latest post… with the hundreds of comments that sites such as The Unz Review get’. But yesterday I was taken aghast by the number of advocates of conspiracy theories precisely in The Unz Review thread comparing the Tarrant reaction among whites with the Goldstein reaction among Jews. You can bet on it: I prefer zero comments in some of my threads than dozens of comments coming from conspiracy theorists!

But what really bothers me in that, unlike the Jews of Hebron who consider Goldstein a hero, quite a few people in the pro-white forums resort to paleologic thinking when confronted with the deeds of a Tarrant. This Monday I said: ‘It is fundamental to understand schizophrenia in general to comprehend why, during lone-wolf attacks similar to last week’s, the most bizarre conspiracy theories immediately crop up like fungi’. I also promised a future review of a treatise that explains the disorder, but I’d like to advance some of that explanation through a quote I also found yesterday:

Many conspiracy theories appeal to the basic ways we process information. We are, for example, hard-wired to believe in intentional causality. That means that when you’re camping and you hear a rustling bush, you probably assume there’s a dangerous animal lurking around. You know it’s probably just the wind, but still, it feels safer to assume the source is a threat. That same paranoia pops up all the time when you don’t quite understand the cause of something.

Indeed: our brains are built for the conditions of prehistory, when it was quite valuable to assign paranoid intentionality to patterns that, in reality, were not that threatening.

But as I said, what bothers me is the way many commenters reacted to Tarrant. The Jew does not spin webs around Goldstein but sees his actions as supportive to the Jews pure and simple. But the Aryan does not see the hero in Tarrant: a hero pure and simple. The asymmetry between the psyche of the degenerate Aryan of today, including nationalists, and the psyche of the Jew cannot be greater. Not only are there axiological errors in the Aryan psyche—Greg Johnson for one saying that Tarrant’s actions were ‘evil’. Those nationalists who, unlike Johnson, do not condemn Tarrant fall instead into the typical paranoia that pops up any time they don’t quite understand the (simple) cause of something.

And what we have to understand is very simple indeed: We have to transvalue the values of Americanism to the ethos of the Nazis so that, instead of condemning Tarrant as an evil man or elaborate conspiracy theories, consider him a hero as the Jews consider their Goldstein a hero.

But that won’t happen until white nationalists realise that the first priority to beat the Jew is to expel the inner Jesus from their hearts; even, in the form of Neo-Christian ethics, the secularised Jesus in the many Johnsons of the movement. That is the only way forward: to transvalue all values and be as psychically healthy as the Jews of Hebron.


by Joseph Walsh

This is a long piece that I decided to write in response to a post of yours made a week or so ago. [Editor’s note: Walsh refers to ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’.] I remember you wrote, in response to what some woman said about Satan ruling the modern West, that it is not Satan that rules but Christ. That is quite correct.

In Judaism the god Satan is the enemy of Yahweh, the god of the Jews. The Hebrew name ‘Satan’ literally means Enemy, the Adversary, the Accuser etc. It is useful to think of Satan as the god of the Gentiles. According to the Jews Yahweh is the one true god and all the pagan gods of the Gentiles are false gods, idols. Collectively, all the heathen gods of the Gentiles could be described as ‘Satanic’ i.e. enemies of Yahweh and the Jewish people. This metaphysical dualism was inherited by the Jews disciples the Christians, who portrayed as ‘Satanic’ evil and demonic all the pagan gods of their enemies that they forcibly converted to Christianity or killed. The god of the Jews and the son of God Jesus became the only true God, and Jesus Christ’s enemy Satan the god that all the Pagans worshipped (including the Jews themselves, which creates the absurdity of the Jews being described as worshipping Satan, an absurdity that continues to this day. It is not Satan that the Jews worship but Yahweh!).

To put things into proper perspective before the ‘transvaluation of values’ done by the Judeo-Christians, the Ancient World was pagan and polytheistic and the Jews cut themselves off from the people around them. They not only saw themselves as unique and the rest of mankind as goyim, but metaphysically they viewed themselves as having knowledge of the one true god, a monotheistic god whose chosen people they were, in contrast to the false polytheistic gods of the pagan goyim around them, who their god YHWH-JHVH had given them dominion over.

Of all the Satan’s (i.e. enemies) that the Jews have ever faced, the greatest was Adolf Hitler. Moreover, just as Satan represents the Gods of the pagan Gentiles as a collective, it is the Gods of the Nordic-Aryan race who represent the biggest enemy of Yahweh and his children. Many have spoken about Hitler being an avatar of the Germanic god Wotan. To the Jews Wotan would be the same figure as Satan. So while Esoteric Hitlerists can talk about Hitler being an Avatar of Wotan, we could also say Hitler was an Avatar of Satan, the enemy of the Jews. For us Aryans, Yahweh, who doesn’t exist, can be viewed as the negative force that possesses the collective unconscious of the Jews while Satan can be viewed as the positive force that represents the collective unconscious of the Aryan race. The Judaized Christians in WN who say that Satan is the god of the Jews and Adolf Hitler is a good Christian man truly have things the wrong way round, brainwashed victims of the inversion of values that the Jews have brought into the world with Christianity.

Also, to look at things through the false perspective of the Christians, Adolf Hitler is The Anti-Christ, or at least an Antichrist figure, as He is the polar opposite of Jesus Christ. National Socialism is the polar opposite of Christianity. The Swastika symbolizes the opposite value system to that of the Crucifix. The morality of the Hitler and the Swastika is as Nietzschean morality system, basically one where the Christian Evil is recognized as what is actually Good, and the Christian ‘good’ recognized as that which is evil and harmful to the Aryan race. “And whoever wants to be a creator in good and evil, must first be an annihilator and break values. Thus the highest evil belongs to the greatest goodness: but this is—being creative.” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, II, 34.)

It is also important that Nietzsche acted, through his character Zarathustra, as the Prophet of the Superman. He saw that his own people-Europeans, but more especially Germans, were in the process of becoming supermen and correctly stated the Superman would arise out of them. Arise he did in the form of the annihilator of Christianity and the creator of the New Order Adolf Hitler. It is also noteworthy that Nietzsche proclaimed himself as The Antichrist. As Nietzsche wrote in Ecce Homo: “You highest men whom my eyes have seen, this is my doubt about you and my secret laughter: I guess that you would call my overman—devil.”

How accurately that describes the Western Christian civilization in its modern (and final) stage. Hitler, the Superman, the Antichrist, is branded as the most evil man who ever lived for overcoming Christian values on a large scale.

To include some of my personal life story, I first became introduced to National Socialism through what came to be called National Socialist Black Metal (NSBM), a type of degenerate rock music. In the early 1990’s numerous Black Metal bands, particular those in the Nordic countries, began to introduce NS into their music due to its association with Evil as they were Satanic bands. Varg Vikernes was one of the pioneers in this respect. Many of them believed in the false Hollywood version of Nazism, but were attracted to it because its Nietzschean revaluation of all values made sense in their combat against Christianity (Black Metal is extremely anti-Christian). So they used the Swastika and integrated the pagan aspects of NS with Satanism. Eventually many of them replaced Satan with Wotan/Odin and The Antichrist with Hitler. So I read about Adolf Hitler being described as The Beast 666 from the Book of Revelation in the Bible and I began to embrace Nazism from then (2005) onward.

This embrace of Hitler as an anti-Christian figure was done earlier by, among others, the American white prison gang the Aryan Brotherhood. The Aryan Brotherhood formed in San Quentin Prison in California in the 1960’s in response to the aggressive attacks coming from Negroes who had formed their own prison gang the Black Guerrilla Family. During the 1960’s Black militancy was widespread across the USA with many riots carried out by niggers across the country throughout the decade. This race war was magnified inside integrated prisons in the US. A quote from a book on this racial war reads:

The racial turmoil in the world outside prison, where fires were burning in Watts, Detroit, and Chicago, was magnified in San Quentin. Blacks and whites were stabbing one another, not because of anything anyone had done, but simply because of their skin color. “Your hate was at peak” Scott recalled. “Your adrenaline was at a peak, everything was at a peak level all the time. It was like a jungle. You’d get yourself fired up, so by the time the cell doors opened, you’d be ready. You’d have a whole head of steam. You didn’t have time to analyze or rationalize or philosophize, you just got strapped (got yourself a knife) and went out of your cell and did what you had to.

So while misled, traitorous white youth outside prison were embracing Negroes as their “black brothers” the reality inside prison was hatred and race war. The Aryan Brotherhood used the symbol of the Swastika with 666 imposed on it to, according to one member, signify that they stood in complete opposition to the values of Christianity, and instead embraced paganism and pagan morality which had been demonised as ‘Satanism’ as well as Nazism which was also demonised as evil.

Simply put, in American prisons it is impossible for White Men to live according to anti-racist Christian morality. Prison populations are segregated by race and many white males who have been brainwashed anti-racists have suddenly come into contact with the stark reality of Nature when thrown into prison. One sticks with their own kind and the morality is fully anti-Christian. Those who have the highest kill counts rise to the top. Those who won’t fight or kill are turned into bitches and sexual toys for Negroes. Hence, White Men in US prisons tattoo themselves with symbols of their race like the Swastika as well as Germanic runes etc. Prison is one of the only places I can think of where White Men are still somewhat manly, and then that is only because they cannot escape fighting with their racial enemies.

Another thing I remember about NSBM was that The Holocaust was looked at as a Satanic genocide against God’s chosen people. That Aryans were the evil race and were genociding the holy race of the Jews. This interpretation is also upheld by Christians who say things like The Holocaust was an attack on God himself and an evil attempt to wipe out the Jews to prevent the Second Coming of Jesus. Of course it’s all rubbish as the Holocaust never happened but I just thought I’d include these lines of thinking to demonstrate this alternative perspective on WWII.

So in conclusion, yes today it is not Satan which rules the modern West for that would mean the spirit of Hitler had won over that of Christ. Instead it is the son of Yahweh Jesus Christ (who is the embodiment of the Jew as he is the ultimate deceiver) whose spirit fully dominates the white race and will soon achieve final victory if Aryans become extinct.