Hitler verbatim

Yesterday I was struck by the wise words that, in his table talk of July 21, 1941, Hitler pronounced:

Und dann unsere eigene Geschichte auf italischem Boden: Wer kein Organ für Geschichte hat, ist wie ein Mensch, der kein Gehör oder kein Gesicht hat: Leben kann er auch so, aber was ist das?! (There’s also our own past on Italian soil. A man who is indifferent to History is a man without hearing, without sight. Such a man can live, of course—but what a life?)

In the West, the religion of our day seems to be to exterminate the white race through historical slander and lies. That is why the most important subject of all we can imagine is what Hitler says: the history of the white race, the reading of which sets the record straight.

Lately there have been some videos that have become fashionable on YouTube about reconstructions, with computer special effects, of ancient Greece and Rome and how they would look with their citizens. I was shocked to discover that, along with the beauty of classical architecture, the scoundrels who make these videos have been putting the inhabitants of Greek and Roman cities as dark-skinned! They were actually very white, and Hitler implied that when he said ‘There’s also our own past on Italian soil’, referring to the migrations of Nordids (such as the Dorians or the original Latins) when they conquered the southern mudbloods.

The great failure of white nationalism is not starting with the Classical World as understood by the Greeks and Romans: a culture based not only on architecture but on sculpture that showed the beauty of the Aryan body and face uncontaminated by mud blood. (American white nationalists do not begin their narrative with the pre-Christian art because, as Sebas Ronin said, most of them are patriotards.)

In his TV series Civilisation Kenneth Clark says that in the transition from the Ancient World to Christendom the human figure disappears, although Clark failed to add that it was the figure of the pure Aryan that disappeared (pre-Renaissance Christs represent the Semitic man, not the Aryan). Lord Clark was a Christian. Yes, he had an immense sensitivity towards art, but he was a Yahweh worshiper after all. Clark’s widow said that her husband always had a profound Christian sensitivity, and that whenever he went into a church in search of works of art he would first kneel and pray.

Like Lord Clark, the history books read by whites who are under the illusion they are racially conscious were written by Christians, Jews, and neochristians. The latter are the secular whites who never abandoned the Semitic ethics that the New Testament bequeathed to us.

Only William Pierce wrote a story of the white race from the point of view that we could call the POV of the priest of the fourteen words. But Pierce’s story is not read in the circles of white nationalism because even anti-Semites continue to allow themselves to be sodomized by Yahweh. They reason in this way: ‘Indeed, the Old Testament orders the Hebrews to exterminate the non-Hebrew peoples that they are conquering. But we are good. How do we know that we are the good guys? Because unlike the Old Testament written for them, in the New Testament Yahweh commands us to love all our neighbours and we obey Him. Thus, we abhor the exterminationist fantasies of our enemies’.

It goes without saying that the only way to prevent Yahweh from continuing to sodomize us is to stop subscribing to the moral code imposed on us by his gospel. And that means even going beyond Arthur Kemp, the other historian who wrote a story of the white race from the POV of the 14 words. Unlike Pierce, Kemp is not an exterminationist. Some could even say that he is a secular neochristian. Many years ago a commenter said in this forum that Kemp had come to write about the rights of a group of blacks in an African country. I didn’t visit the Kemp article that this commenter linked to, so I can’t substantiate his claim. But we can say that the so-called human rights that became fashionable after the French Revolution are a by-product of Yahweh’s command to love one’s neighbour.

Here we see my hand holding a hard-cover copy of Uncle Adolf’s after-dinner talks in the original language. A priest of the 14 words takes Uncle Adolf’s talks as his Aryan gospel. This cannot be more contrasting with the Semitic gospel of the ‘anti-Semites’ of American white nationalism.

Morgan’s flawed philosophy

Dr. Robert Morgan is a notable commenter on The Unz Review. His main mistake is his unilinear philosophy of history. In reality, as the historian Hugh Trevor Roper put it, history is not just what happened but what could have happened (for example, if whites hadn’t gone bananas after Constantine).

If a Jewish sect hadn’t seized the soul of the Greco-Romans, technology and military science wouldn’t have been interrupted. A horde of Mongols would have had no chance against a Roman Empire that hadn’t declined technologically. The West wouldn’t have been easy prey to invasions by non-whites as it was in the history we know.

Morgan’s anti-technological take of history is nonsense. When I attended a CSICOP conference in 1994, Carl Sagan said that the West inflicted on itself a prefrontal lobotomy with what it did to Hypatia and the Alexandria library during the hostile takeover of Christian fanatics. If what Morgan believes is true, the West wouldn’t have been on the verge of succumbing to Islam and, more specifically, to the Huns and Mongols after the Christians destroyed almost all the technological knowledge accumulated by the ancient Greeks and Romans. (We were spared by a historical miracle in the case of the Mongols!)

If I were a film director I would make films about this parallel world that didn’t exist: a Roman Empire without Christianity where eventually the scientific method that the Greeks were very close to discover would be discovered, and how without Christian ethics and the technology applied to the military whites wouldn’t have only pulverised the Huns and the nascent Islam but even the Mongols.

My pals who comment on The Unz Review (Morgan et al) haven’t been paying attention to what I said at the end of ‘The Iron Throne’, where I link to William Pierce’s history of the West. There is no point in arguing with them unless they read Pierce’s book.

Update of May 28

Yesterday I visited Morgan’s latest comments on The Unz Review and came across a crazy pronouncement regarding the Third Reich, responding to a guy using a Nietzschean penname.

Morgan said that over time, even if Hitler had won the war, the Nazis would’ve become corrupted by technology, allowing the loosening of customs, even racial purity, etc.

That is what I call megalomania in psychologicis: believing that one has psychological access to a parallel future where all roads lead to Aryan decline, even a triumphant Nazi Reich, due to tech and Morgan’s nasty philosophy of absolute determinism (which reminds me of the doctrine of those predestined to eternal damnation).

What madness. I think I’ll no longer be quoting what Morgan says.

How to properly storm the Bastille

William Pierce’s Who We Are could be the myth that would emerge in a movement that leaves behind the failed ‘race realist’ methods that Michael O’Meara warned us about a decade ago. Unlike Jared Taylor, O’Meara believed in the overwhelming power of myth to create a great civilisation. The only thing that will return the soul to the European-descended peoples will be a pro-white myth, something analogous to LOTR but that did happen in the real world. That myth begins with stories. (Alas, the current story of the West is ethnocentrism for Jews—Old Testament—but egalitarian universalism for whites—New Testament ethics.)

Last year I quoted a Counter-Currents commenter, Rhodok, about five possible reactions for whitey:

    1) Fucking die already (the hopeless pessimists)
    2) Grovel harder (what some feminised whites are doing)
    3) Ignore and hope (what most whites are doing)
    4) Race realism (ethnonationalism)
    5) Become the racist they fear (killing mode)

Rhodok added: ‘I am afraid that many people will not even pause at option four but go directly to option five’. However, without an inspiring story, something infinitely tougher than mere race realism (science isn’t a myth), potential violence turns into a ridiculous Joker-type act that not only leads Americans nowhere but is counterproductive: as we already know after this month’s fiasco. For a revolution to triumph the fourth Rhodok step is unavoidable. We need a new story! Even the revolutions that uncovered Pandora’s box, the French and the Russian, triumphed based on a bad story (egalitarianism).

Why ‘something infinitely tougher than race realism’ I said above (just see the ridiculous title of AmRen’s latest essay, ‘MAGA Patriots: The Best of People in the Worst of Times’)? Yesterday I listened to the talk between Matt Parrott and Hunter Wallace about the recent American catastrophe. At about 1:11, if I remember correctly, Parrott confirmed ‘I am a Christian’. It’s funny, as Wallace said that after a decade of trying to argue with normies and conservatives he realised it was useless. As more days of January go by, I realise something similar: it was useless for me to argue even with folks like Parrott and Wallace if they are unable to recognise that their religion is involved in the current psychosis suffered by the white man.

Let us remember that only the countries that were vehemently Christian currently suffer from rampant liberalism, in the sense of psychotic egalitarianism: something that also applies to Latin America, although there are very few pure whites here where I live. But back to Parrott and Wallace. It is precisely their mania to obey the Jew who wrote the gospel which prevents them from climbing Mauricio’s ladder. And the best way to start climbing it is to read the only non-fiction book that came from Pierce’s pen.

Published in: on January 14, 2021 at 12:17 pm  Comments Off on How to properly storm the Bastille  

Master Plan East

Left, Herr Himmler examines a non-German child eyeing up his racial potential. Surely this boy passed the physiognomic test and was saved from the fate of the mudbloods.

Below is an edited article on the Master Plan East of the Third Reich. I had to edit this Military article because this wiki, like all wikis except Metapedia, is biased against the Germans. I didn’t include the maps or endnotes from that article.

Today I asked Will Williams why his organisation has not published Who We Are, where Pierce proposes ‘extermination or expulsion’ as the final solution that the ancient Greeks should have taken for the mudblood problem. I have sometimes come to conjecture, and I hope I am wrong, that the National Alliance has not published Who We Are because, unlike Pierce, they still subscribe to neochristian standards of morality.

At any event, anyone who has read Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans knows that, for centuries, the ancient Russians were invaded by Mongols who hugely stained Slavic blood with non-Aryan genes. To understand the Master Plan East we must always take into account both Kemp’s book and Pierce’s proposed solution for the mudblood problem.

I don’t have much money these days, but I’ll try to acquire a copy of David Irving’s recently published book on Himmler to see how true there is in all these alleged Third Reich plans. Researching these issues in an anti-Nazi world is very difficult because of the anti-German propaganda, but it is possible due to the number of primary sources. Here’s my edited version of the Military article:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
December 6th update

I have decided to remove the rest of this entry because the text still had a tail from the anti-German encyclopedia.

However, the edited article will appear, along with other passages from other sources, in my book On Exterminationism: which in addition to the hard copy will also be available in PDF.

Kevin MacDonald’s apologetics

Update of September 16, 2020: This essay has been edited for inclusion in my book Daybreak. I would suggest reading the much-corrected text instead of the text below (see ‘Two essential books’, which contains a link to the Daybreak PDF).
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Kevin MacDonald’s Preface to Giles Corey’s
The Sword of Christ
(originally published: here)

Slightly edited, this entry copies and pastes the previous entries from the first to facilitate the visitor to read them in due order.
 

§ 1

In this first entry about such book-review I just want to comment on a couple of subjects: the painting that appears in MacDonald’s book-review (see above) and what a commenter said on Counter-Currents.

As we can see in the comments section, several Counter-Currents commenters are either Christians or sympathetic to Judeo-Christianity, so they liked McDonald’s pro-Christian essay-review and some of them even have requested Corey’s book. One exception was commenter Asdk:

If we were to apply Kevin Macdonald’s perspective on the culture of critique to modern ideologies, Christianity would be very easily understood. Christianity is an ideology created by Jews to benefit the Jewish people, to break the feeling of tribal union of the peoples who are rivals to Jewish hegemony…

We can already imagine how different white nationalism would be if the webzine admins of Counter-Currents and The Occidental Observer were like Asdk!

Regarding Giovanni Gasparro’s painting, The Martyrdom of St. Simon of Trento reproduced at the beginning of this entry, it was painted this very year in old baroque style. The idea to create such painting reminds me of one of my favourite paintings by Hieronymus Bosch, reproduced below. The idea is the same: the bad guys—Jews—surround the child to be sacrificed or the divine rabbi to be crucified!

Gasparro’s 2020 painting at the top of this article measures seven by five feet, and references a blood libel that led to the execution of several Jews in 1475. The scandal (some would call it moral panic) started around the disappearance and death of a Christian boy in Trento named Simonino. He was later made a saint and the day of his death, March 24, was included in the Roman martyrology—hence the cherubs in Gasparro’s painting—until its removal in 1965.

In his article MacDonald tells us ‘This [blood libel] is a topic that I have never written about… However, we should not be surprised to find that such practices occurred’.

I am not going to take issue with him because what I want is to answer his Christian apologetics, not this new approach to the JQ. I will limit myself to point out that on the subject of blood libel I had already written in 2013 commenting on a brainwashing, politically-correct and philo-Semitic Spanish TV series, Isabel (Isabella I of Castile): times when MacDonald was apparently more sceptical about libel claims.
 

§ 2

MacDonald starts his review with these words:

Giles Corey has written a book that should be read by all Christians as well as white advocates of all theoretical perspectives including especially those who are seeking a spiritual foundation that is deeply embedded in the history and culture of Europeans.

White advocates of all theoretical perspectives? What would Revilo Oliver and William Pierce, geniuses so critical of Christianity, have opined about Corey’s book? What would Alex Linder opine today? Spiritual foundation embedded in European culture? MacDonald ignores the difference between Western Christian Civilisation and European civilisation, as explained in an article so old in this site (‘The Red Giant’) that it already appeared in the previous incarnation of it (in Blogspot, in the previous decade).

MacDonald also says about Corey’s book: ‘This is excellent scholarship’. If the scholarship is excellent, blood libel had to be historical. But as I said in my previous post I don’t want to discuss the Jewish Question but the Christian Question. MacDonald wrote: ‘Corey is well aware that contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted’.

Completely false. Christianity today is as legitimate a form of Christianity as the others. Previous Christianisms were based on St. Augustine, and in the case of the Catholic Church, also on St. Thomas Aquinas. The Christianity of Pope Francis today, like the Christianity of the medieval St. Francis of Assisi, is based more on the direct message of the gospel. There is no true Christianity and an heretic Christianity: only Christians use anathemas and excommunicate each other, always claiming that their faction is the true Christianity. For non-Christians like us, St. Francis was as authentic Christian as St. Augustine, however different they were in their politics.

On the Counter-Currents thread, commenter Asdk added the following:

It sounds ridiculous, but in the middle of the Christian era, the Pope did it with the pre-Columbian natives; today the descendants of such an aberration populate most of Latin America and soon they will be the new majority of North America.

What happened in Latin America is relevant: something that I have said so many times in the racialist forums that I gave up because nobody was listening.

And they don’t listen for the simple reason that the miscegenation on a colossal scale in this American continent, perpetrated by the Spanish and Portuguese since the 16th century, just when they persecuted the Jews and the crypto-Jews, is such a demonstration that there is a Christian problem that it doesn’t even have to be argued: only to point out the events that occurred in the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking parts of the continent.

Last month I reproduced this image of a Spaniard
marrying an Indian with the approval of the Church.

MacDonald says the corruption is recent. How does he explain the greatest genetic catastrophe that occurred in his continent, when Jewry was being persecuted by the Inquisition? The trick MacDonald and white nationalists do has been to ignore history south of the Rio Grande—and history north of the Rio Grande I should say insofar New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, California and Texas, before the 1840s war, belonged to Mexico and previously to New Spain!

For MacDonald to say that Christianity has been ‘massively corrupted’ he must be ignoring, of necessity, the history of those states that now belong to his country, since the New Spaniards never forbade interbreeding. Why doesn’t MacDonald see that more than half a billion mestizos in Latin America are the direct result of marriages between Iberian whites, Indians and blacks—marriages that both the Spanish crown and the Church approved?

The answer is clear: if he dared to see the history of New Spain his paradigm would collapse immediately, since it would be obvious that alongside a Jewish problem there has existed a huge Christian problem.

In the 1530s a Pope bull allowed the bachelor Iberians in the continent to marry Amerind women. This happened only a decade after the conquest of the Aztec Empire. As Asdk says, Christianity is blind to racial matters. And the Church did not give a damn about the biological havoc that such bull would cause. Incidentally, the Catholic Church was so powerful in New Spain that by the end of the 17th century it owned more than half of its territories. Like today’s elites, it was in the Church’s interest to rule over low-breed mestizos rather than high-IQ Aryans.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. This epigram by Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr in 1849 means ‘The more it changes, the more it’s the same thing’. Yes, there is no such a thing as ‘contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted’ as MacDonald wrote. Only an ignorant of history in the American continent can say such a thing.
 

§ 3

Comment by Robert Morgan

C.T.: ‘I would be very interested to know what you think of that article (KMD’s review of Corey’s book)’.

The first thing that stands out is that MacDonald appears to have changed his opinion. I recall him writing at one point something to the effect of “Christianity isn’t necessarily the way forward”. Now he enthusiastically endorses a Christian revival, writing “I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centered around the adaptive aspects of Christianity…”

C.T.: What strikes me as incredible is that Tom Sunic and others have told MacDonald that it is time to look at the role Christianity played in white decline. But KMD doesn’t seem to have the slightest intention of responding to these criticisms. He just ignores them’.

Yes, that’s true. His monomaniacal focus on Jews leads him astray, and he has always been loathe to examine the weakness of his philosophical underpinnings. Reading him, I get no sense that anything except what the Jews are doing is important. White people seem to exist for him only to be victims of the Jews.

I’ve already written about the inherent weakness of the Christian worldview, which is essentially a psychotic view of reality. Corpses come back to life, people aren’t really their bodies, but instead are “souls” trapped inside those bodies, demons not only exist but can somehow possess or take over those souls and bodies, things are conjured out of thin air, etc. Yet this is the worldview that MacDonald thinks is unequivocally good and “adaptive” because, after collapsing Western civilization once, and after a thousand years, it led historically to, among other things, the Enlightenment, the Age of Exploration, colonization of the New World, and science and high technology.

But these developments contained within themselves racially destructive consequences. Colonization of the New World caused race mixing, and out of control technology is causing mass extinctions of plant and animal species, perhaps irreversibly damaging the climate and ecosystem. This is supposed to be adaptive? Or again, consider the cultural consequences of scientific birth control technologies and abortion, which have done more to bring about the destruction of the nuclear family than any amount of Jewish animus. How was that adaptive?

From a philosophical point of view, MacDonald is being exceedingly naive, if not disingenuous. Whatever he approves of is adaptive. Anything he disapproves of isn’t. It’s the same approach he uses to Christianity. If Kevin MacDonald personally approves of it, it’s “good” Christianity (e.g., Luther’s disparaging comments about Jews, or Chrysostom’s), whereas if it’s a Christian ideology he doesn’t find it to his taste (e.g. the Scofield Bible, Christian Zionism, Christian churches sponsoring immigration, etc.) it’s been “corrupted”. These verdicts are absolute and eternal, too.

There’s no sense here that conditions may change, and behavior that was once adaptive may later be maladaptive; no sense that some of the “bad” things may have benefits, just as the supposedly “good” things contained racially destructive consequences. Christianity itself, notably, may be the most prominent of the things that were “bad” but had benefits; something that once was of use, but now is only an impediment. MacDonald’s view of it is static, not dynamic, and that’s a weakness.

No one can tell what is adaptive or maladaptive in advance. One can only pass judgement on that in retrospect, and even that judgement will unavoidably be from a particular point of view containing various assumptions and moral values. It’s not too surprising then that MacDonald, with his Christian moral values, praises Christianity as the way forward.
 

§ 4

MacDonald wrote:

Until the twentieth century, Christianity served the West well. One need only think of the long history of Christians battling to prevent Muslims from establishing a caliphate throughout the West—Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, the Spanish Reconquista, the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna. The era of Western expansion was accomplished by Christian explorers and colonists. Until quite recently, the flourishing of science, technology, and art occurred entirely within a Christian context.

In recent posts I have been talking about the need to rewrite history. This paragraph was only made possible by centuries of misinformation when it comes to historical facts.

I have read the only two stories that in English have been written from the point of view of racial preservation, that of William Pierce and that of Arthur Kemp. Since Pierce died before I woke up, I was only able to visit Kemp when he lived in a beautiful little town in England.

The only two stories that have been written under the POV of white advocacy run under one premise: Western civilisations have fallen due to the imperial phase that inevitably leads to miscegenation. (Of the two stories, only Pierce recommends extermination or expulsion of non-whites after having learned the tough lessons of history.)

One of my huge surprises when reading those two stories, Who We Are and March of the Titans, is that starting with a pro-white POV inverts many values that we had taken for granted in the more academic and conventional stories.

For example, it is striking to learn that the Greeks of the Dorian period were pure Nordids who came to the peninsula from the North. And something similar could be said of the first tribes that created the Roman Republic in the other European peninsula: they also were unmiscegenated Nordids. (He who wants to learn about the Nordic component of the founders of Greece and Rome in a single article could read a piece originally published in an American Renaissance periodical that I reposted: here.)

All of this had been kept from me by conventional historians simply because most of them have been Christians. And concerning more recent secular historians, they live under the sky of the ideas that led to the French Revolution regarding the equality of men: a doctrine breathed even in the American Declaration of Independence: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…’

Only when the reader of history repudiates this egalitarian premise he is ready to understand history. Otherwise he might be a scholar but his historical knowledge will be contaminated with such a false worldview that distortion is unavoidable. And conventional books of history are so replete of distortions that after the Nazi period and the two preliminary stories referred to above we must, like them, start from scratch.

I don’t think MacDonald has read the Pierce or Kemp books. If he had read any of them, he would have realised that what he says in the paragraph above cannot be sustained from this scratching point of view.

The following is what MacDonald seems to ignore:

The Christian era began with a hostile takeover of classical culture—that is, white culture—by a sect of Levantine origin. In the 4th and 5th centuries of the common era, in a destructive outburst like the one ISIS has perpetrated in more recent times, the temples of the white gods and sculptures displaying Aryan beauty, were destroyed by Judeo-Christian fanatics along with entire libraries of ancient wisdom. Karlheinz Deschner devoted his entire life to studying the true history of Judeo-Christianity and I translated several passages from his ten-volume Christianity’s Criminal History (here). If someone does not have the time to read this translated book, let him read a single article that summarises the white apocalypse that the ancient world suffered at the hands of this Semitic cult (here).

I must say something about Charles Martel mentioned by MacDonald and the Spanish Reconquista. Given my Hispanic origins, the history of Spain as told by Pierce and Kemp powerfully caught my attention several years ago, when I read their books. Both mention something that left me cold: the Iberian Visigoths—pure whites of the Nordid type—were deceived by Christians to commit miscegenation: a little piece of information that won’t be easy to find in conventional histories.

Remember that the Goths were a Germanic people who played a major role in the fall of the Western Roman Empire. In the first centuries of our era the Iberian Goths burned at the stake their fellow whites that dared to mix their precious blood with mudbloods. But the king of Hispania Recceswinth committed the greatest blunder in Iberian history: a blunder still unrecognised by normie intellectuals and normie historians as a blunder: but a gigantic blunder nonetheless. By converting to Christianity Recceswinth abolished the long ban on miscegenation (which reminds me of the rigorous Spartan ban against miscegenation), which resulted in the immediate mongrelisation of the Visigoths. The king of Hispania’s decision allowed any person of any racial origin, as long as he professed Christianity, to intermarry with the Germanic Goths. Such rupture of the ancestral prohibition against miscegenation and worship of the enemy god (the god of the Jews) occurred just a few decades before their territories… were invaded by the Moors!

If you worship thine enemy’s god, thou art defeated;
Adopt the religion of his fathers, thou wilt be enslaved;
And if thou propagate with his daughters, thou art destroyed

This crucial page in the history of Spain would have to be studied in far greater depth than the preliminary ‘stories’ of Pierce and Kemp. But I suspect that the Visigoths would have been invincible if, with the benefit of hindsight, they had expelled or exterminated the mudbloods—mainly peoples of Hispania of Semitic origin (non-Jewish Semites had begun to invade the Iberian peninsula since the times of the Carthaginians!).

Hispania aside, if the Roman Empire had not decayed, and let us remember that Gibbon blames the Christians for it, Islam wouldn’t even have had a chance of its spectacular conquests that only the gates of Vienna stopped, that MacDonald mentions. By subscribing to the official story, MacDonald is viewing Christianity as our saviour before Islam, not as the cause of the power gap that occurred after the Christians destroyed the classical world (or tricked the Visigoths), leaving the remaining whites at the mercy of a primitive Arabic tribe.

On the Western achievements that MacDonald mentions in the quote above, he is framing them as achievements of the Christian spirit. Nothing farther from the truth!

The white man had to fight for centuries against the prohibitions of the Church to regain his right to scientific research, technology, and art uncontaminated with biblical passages or the lives of the saints. Now my history teacher comes to mind, whose brothers were blond, at Colegio Madrid. She told us that in New Spain they used the trick of putting covers of lives of saints on secular books imported from Europe so they could pass through customs. And this happened until the beginning of the 19th century! Again, MacDonald is ignorant about history down the south of Rio Grande.

Above I linked a PDF with my translations of some passages from Christianity’s Criminal History. Below I would like to quote pages 291-293 of that book to counter MacDonald’s naïve vision:

The Western world darkens more and more

Culture was highly esteemed in the 4th and 5th centuries. It was one of the legacies of antiquity and enjoyed an ‘almost religious veneration’ (Dannenbauer). Still in the year 360 a law of the emperor Constantius could declare that education was the supreme virtue. And really many noble families of that time, Gallic and Roman, were consecrated to it and particularly in the bosom of the Senatorial proceedings. But they were already simple custodians of the culture, to which they did not enrich. And everywhere there were circles and social forces of a very different kind, even in the highest positions. The Christian king Theodoric the Great was no longer able to write his own name on the documents: neither could most of the Christian princes. Theodoric wrote the four letters LEGI (‘I read it’) by means of an aureus mold expressly forged for him. The instruction of the Goth children was practically forbidden by him, since, as he seems to have said, he who trembled before the master’s blows would never know how to despise the cuts and rushes of the sword in battle.

In Gaul, apparently, where the school system had flourished from the beginning of the 2nd century until the end of the 4th century, public schools are disappearing over the course of the next century, no matter how much here and there, in Lyon, Vienne, Bordeaux and Clermont there still are schools of grammar and rhetoric in addition to, naturally, the private ones. But all the teachings, at least the literary, served exclusively for the collection of material for sermons and treatises, to deal with the Bible and for the consolidation of the faith. Scientific inquiry was already a thing of the past: it no longer counted or was appreciated. The knowledge of Greek, which for centuries was the requirement of every authentic culture, became a rarity. Even the Roman classics, such as Horace, Ovid and Catullus, were cited less and less.

Libanius, the champion of Hellenistic culture, the most famous professor of rhetoric of the century, complains about the aversion aroused by that profession. ‘They see’, he says, referring to his students, ‘that this cause is despised and thrown on the floor; that does not bring fame, power or wealth but a painful servitude under many lords, parents, mothers, pedagogues and other students, who put things upside down and believe that it is the teacher who needs them. When they see all this they avoid this depreciated profession like a boat the pitfalls’.

In the time of Augustine there are hardly any schools of philosophy in the West. Philosophy is frowned upon, it is a thing of the devil, the original father of all ‘heresy’, and it causes fear to the pious. Even in a centre of culture as important as Bordeaux philosophy is no longer taught. And even in the East, the largest and most important of the universities of the Roman Empire, that of Constantinople, has only one chair of philosophy out of a total of 31. The knowledge of something that had existed for a long time was lost in almost all areas. The spiritual horizon became increasingly narrower. Ancient culture languished from Gaul to Africa, while in Italy it practically disappeared. The interest in natural science vanished. Also jurisprudence, at least in the West, suffers ‘havoc’, an ‘astonishing demolition’ (Wieacker).

The bishop Paulinus of Nola, who died in 431, never read a historian: a typical attitude of the moment. Whole eras fall in the oblivion, for example, the time of the Roman emperors. The only renowned historian in the late 4th century is Ammianus Marcellinus, a non-Christian. Entire synods forbid the bishops to read ‘pagan’ books. In short: scientific research ceases; experimental testing stops; people think increasingly with less autonomy. A few decades later no doctor could heal Bishop Gregory de Tours, a man with a mind full of superstitions, but he could miraculously be healed through a drink of water with some dust taken from the tomb of St. Martin.

Only clerics will still read.
 

§ 5

St. John Chrysostom exhorting Aelia Eudoxia. Note how the Empress—the spouse of the Roman Emperor Arcadius—, in this painting by Jean-Paul Laurens, has people in her Byzantine entourage who are not whites.

Kevin MacDonald wrote:

Such individualism was not disastrously self-destructive. As Corey notes, “Christian universalism historically posed little to no danger to white survival because it was preached by whites living in a world ruled by whites; it was only in the multicultural Egalitarian Regime inseminated in the mid-twentieth century that Christian sacrifice was transformed into a call for racial suicide.”

Precisely because MacDonald, like most white nationalists who do not follow Pierce and Kemp, knows little of true history, he is unable to see that healthy religions promote the good of a tribe, and unhealthy religions, a phenomenon that appears in the imperial phase of a civilisation, forget what’s good for the tribe and start to speak solely and exclusively in individualistic terms, of ‘individual salvation’. Richard Carrier, whose book appears on the sidebar, has studied this phenomenon in several Mediterranean religions at the time of the decline of the Roman Empire, and MacDonald and those who believe that any form of universalism was not ‘disastrously self-destructive’ should become familiar with his work.

That religious individualism was toxic from the beginning is evident in the fact that in shifting from the good of the group to individualism (the Christian must think above all about the salvation of his soul), the foundations for miscegenation are laid. Once Constantine changed the name of the old Byzantium to Constantinople, the new capital of the Empire became a melting pot for all the races of the Mediterranean, in which the pure Nordid blood of the patrician Romans was forever lost.

MacDonald wrote:

Instead, Corey advocates a revitalization of Medieval Germanic Christianity based on, in the words of Samuel Francis, “social hierarchy, loyalty to tribe and place (blood and soil), world-acceptance rather than world-rejection, and an ethic that values heroism and military sacrifice.” This medieval Christianity preserved the aristocratic, fundamentally Indo-European culture of the Germanic tribes. This was an adaptive Christianity…

Adaptive Christianity, really? Some historians say Medieval Germanic Christianity started with Charlemagne, right? Kemp told me that he would rate Charlemagne well up in the top five most evil characters of European history. I recommend Thomas Hodgkin’s The Life of Charlemagne to those who have swallowed the Christian version of this evil man. If we keep in mind Deschner’s Christianity’s Criminal History we will see that even after the Aryan apocalypse of the 4th and 5th centuries, there were still many Germanic tribes in the 6th and 7th centuries who refused to worship the god of the Jews. Charlemagne forced these uncontaminated Nordids to worship the enemy god: a historical milestone related to that tardive metastasis, the philo-Semitic stage that the US is currently suffering.

MacDonald wrote:

My view, developed in Chapter 3 of Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism is that traditional Christian theology was fundamentally anti-Jewish and was developed as a weapon which was used to lessen Jewish economic and political power in the Roman Empire. Here Corey describes the writings of the fourth-century figure, St. John Chrysostom [see painting at the top of this § 5], who has a chapel dedicated to him inside St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome as well as a statue outside the building. His writings on Jews are nothing less than scathing and reflect long-term tensions between Jews and Greeks in Antioch. And Chrysostom was far from alone in his hatred… The traditional Church was certainly far from friendly toward Jews.

Despite the fact that the Muslim Jihadists are anti-Jewish, many contemporary Jews promote the Islamisation of Europe for the simple fact that the best goyim (whites) must be destroyed according to them. Jews are willing to have some of their own fall in order to win their ultimate battle against the Aryans.

Something similar happened with the hostile takeover of the classical world by Judeo-Christians, many of whom had Semitic blood. Their anger was directed against the white world. They didn’t care that those fanatics MacDonald talks about committed anti-Jewish acts. What mattered was to overthrow the classical world at all costs.

MacDonald ignores that what was ultimately at stake, as explained in the climax of ‘Rome against Judea; Judea against Rome’ in The Fair Race, was this: ‘435 CE: In this year occurs the most significant action on the part of Emperor Theodosius II: He openly proclaims that the only legal religion in Rome apart from Christianity is Judaism! Through a bizarre, subterranean and astonishing struggle, Judaism has not only persecuted the old culture, and Rome, its mortal archenemy, adopts a Jewish creed—but the Jewish religion itself, so despised and insulted by the old Romans, is now elevated as the only official religion of Rome along with Christianity!’ That diabolical political game of different kinds of Semites is what MacDonald has failed to see.

MacDonald speaks highly of St. John Chrysostom, as if this ‘anti-Semite’ was a champion for the Aryan cause. What did this saint, so revered among clueless white nationalists do? Do nationalists know what happened to the immense Temple of Artemis, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World?

It was built near Ephesus in the 6th century BCE over an area considered sacred since, at least, the Bronze Age. Its construction took 120 years and it could be said that it was comparable to a cathedral.

St. John Chrysostom and his henchmen flattened it in 401 following a Christian emperor’s edict—the year after Chrysostom had instigated the massacre of 7,000 blond Goths in Constantinople! The stones were used for a tomb and a bath-house and a cross was raised on the spot where Diana’s statue had stood. What remains today of the temple can be seen: here.

It was the religion of the pure white that had to be flattened at all costs, not the Judaism that survived the Aryan apocalypse of the ancient world.

It is clear that history must be rewritten from the POV of the priest of the 14 words, and that stupid books like Corey’s must be vehemently repudiated if we want to save the race from extinction. Not only books of this type are bad history: they are as toxic reading of history as that which we could read from a Jew. But Christians are artificial Jews, right?
 

§ 6

MacDonald wrote:

And although Protestantism was generally far more amenable to Jewish interests even before its current malaise, there certainly are exceptions. Here Corey emphasizes Martin Luther’s writings on Jews. Luther emphasizes Jewish hatred toward Christianity and their sense of superiority vis-à-vis Christians, seeing the latter as “not human; in fact, we hardly deserve to be considered poor worms by them.”

I’ve been saying that people like MacDonald don’t know the stories of the white race written not by charlatans like Giles Corey, but by genuine racialists. Let’s read what William Pierce says in Who We Are about Luther:

The Reformation. Another factor which undoubtedly made the West more susceptible to the Jews was the Reformation, the lasting effects of which were confined largely to Europe’s northwestern regions, in fact, to the Germanic-speaking regions: Germany, Scandinavia, England and Scotland, Switzerland. The Church of Rome and its Eastern Orthodox offshoot had always been ambivalent in their attitudes toward the Jews. On the one hand, they fully acknowledged the Jewish roots of Christianity, and Jesus’ Jewishness was taken for granted. On the other hand, the Jews had rejected Jesus’ doctrine and killed him, saying, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25), and the medieval Church was inclined to take them at their word. In addition to the stigma of deicide the Jews also bore the suspicion which naturally fell on heretics of any sort. During the Middle Ages people took Christianity quite seriously, and anyone professing an unorthodox religious belief, whether he actively sought converts or not, was considered a danger to the good order of the community and to the immortal soul of any Christian exposed to him.

What the Protestant reformers did for the Jews was give the Hebrew Scriptures a much more important role in the life of the peoples of Europe than they had enjoyed previously. Among Catholics it was not the Bible but the Church which was important. The clergy read the Bible; the people did not. The people looked to the clergy for spiritual guidance, not to the Bible. Among Protestants that order was reversed. The Bible became an authority unto itself, which could be consulted by any man. Its Jewish characters—Abraham, Moses, Solomon, David, and the rest—became heroic figures, suffused with an aura of sanctity. Their doings and sayings became household bywords. It is ironic that the father of the Reformation, Martin Luther, who inadvertently helped the Jews fasten their grip on the West, detested them and vigorously warned his Christian followers against them. His book Von den Jueden und ihren Luegen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, is a masterpiece. Luther’s antipathy to the Jews came after he learned Hebrew and began reading the Talmud. He was shocked and horrified to find that the Hebrew religious writings were dripping with hatred and contempt for all non-Jews…

Alas, Luther could not have it both ways. He had already sanctified the Jews by elevating the status of their history, their legends, and their religion to that of Holy Writ. His translation of the Old Testament into German and his dissemination of the Jewish scriptures among his followers vitiated all his later warnings against the Jews. Today the church he founded studiously ignores those warnings…

The great tragedy of Luther is that he failed to… recognize that no religion of Jewish origin is a proper religion for men and women of European race. When he cut himself and the majority of the Germanic peoples off from Rome, he failed at the same time to cut away all the baggage of Jewish mythology which had been imposed on Europe by Rome. Instead he made of that baggage a greater spiritual burden for his people than it already was. The consequence was that within a century of Luther’s death much of Northern Europe was firmly in the grip of a new superstition as malignant as the old one, and it was one in which the Jews played a much more explicit role. Before, the emphasis had been on the New Testament: that is, on Christianity as a breakaway sect from Judaism, in which the differences between the two religions were stressed. The role models held up to the peoples of Europe were the Church’s saints and martyrs, most of whom were non-Jewish. The parables taught to children were often of European origin. Among the Protestants the Old Testament gained a new importance, and with it so did the Hebrew patriarchs as role models, while Israel’s folklore became the new source of moral inspiration for Europe. Perhaps nothing so clearly demonstrates the change, and the damage to the European sense of identity which accompanied it, as the sudden enthusiasm for bestowing Hebrew names on Christian children.

The Reformation did more for the Jews than merely sanctifying the Old Testament. It shattered the established order of things and brought chaos in political as well as spiritual affairs—chaos eagerly welcomed by the Jews. Germany was so devastated by a series of bloody religious wars that it took her a century and a half to recover. In some German principalities two-thirds of the population was annihilated during the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in the period 1618-1648, commonly known as the “Thirty Years War.” Everywhere during the 17th century the Jews took advantage of the turmoil, moving back into countries from which they had been banned (such as England), moving to take over professions from which they had been excluded, insinuating themselves into confidential relationships with influential leaders in literary and political circles, profiting from the sufferings of their hosts and strengthening their hold, burrowing deep into the rubble and wreckage of medieval society so that they could more easily undermine whatever rose in its stead. / End of Pierce’s quote

Pierce fell short. Nietzsche saw beyond what Pierce saw: Luther revitalised Christianity when it had begun to die in Rome itself! Had Cesare Borgia reached the papacy in a world without Luther, the transvaluation of values—the salvation of whites!—could’ve started from the Renaissance in Rome. But exactly the opposite happened: the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation vindicated Christianity. One thing is clear: MacDonald is not a reader of Nietzsche. If there is a quote that I have quoted more than once, it is what Nietzsche says about Luther (skip until you see § 61: here).

MacDonald wrote:

Mainstream Christianity from traditional Catholicism to mainstream Protestantism was fundamentally adaptive in terms of creating a healthy family life.

Here MacDonald is not only ignoring the subject mentioned in §2: that a cohesive family is useless to our cause if marriages in Catholic Latin America have been, for half a millennia, between white and non-white. And regarding Europe MacDonald is also ignoring the catastrophe that occurred in Portugal. After their forays into Africa the Portuguese not only imported blacks to the Iberian Peninsula, but unlike the Anglo-Germans in North America who originally did not marry them, the Portuguese immediately proceeded to stain their blood forever, courtesy of an Iberian, Recceswinth-like Christianity that didn’t care about racial preservation.

MacDonald writes about the traditional family in Christendom ignoring what happened in immense territories where Catholicism had a grip on the white psyche. And even in the US where miscegenation was not perpetrated for quite some time, the havoc that Puritans caused for their infatuation with the sacred book of the Jews can be seen in the names they gave their white children. Pierce is worth quoting again. He wrote:

Even before the Reformation a few Jewish names had been adopted by Europeans, but they were in most cases variations of the names of Christian saints of Jewish race: John (Heb. Johanan), Matthew (Heb. Mattathiah), Mary (Heb. Miriam), Ann (Heb. Hannah, supposedly the name of the maternal grandmother of Jesus). In addition, a few other purely Hebrew names had come into fairly common usage in parts of Christian Europe prior to Luther’s time: Adam, Daniel, David, Michael, Elizabeth, and Sarah are examples. During the l7th century, however, practically every name from the Old Testament came into general use. The madness reached its height among the Puritans, who scorned the names of their own ancestors and christened their offspring with such atrociously alien appellations as Israel, Amos, Ezekiel, Lemuel, Deborah, Reuben, Esther, Abner, Samuel, Nathan, Noah, Ephraim, Gideon, Jesse, Rachel, Susannah, Leah, Elihu, Abigail, Benjamin, and Abraham. The Puritans brought this pernicious habit with them to America, and Hebrew names were more common in the New World than European names during the Colonial period. / End of William Pierce’s quote

Don’t be surprised, professor MacDonald, that the US became the #1 philo-Semitic country of the world! So what’s the primary cause of white decline, Judaism or Christianity? What’s worse: the external enemy—the Jew—or the traitor—the Christian?
 

§ 7

Comment by Vig

Reading the comments here it shows how quickly attention steers away from the core topic and gets into the distraction of details.

As I have understood the issue here is that a reputed academic scholar has made significant statements as a result of a serious psychological research into the causes of the downfall of the culture and influence of the white Europeans. All this clearly under the banner of a conservative and right wing oriented view, which led him to the conclusion that Jewdom is the ultimate culprit of the (our) downfall.

Then the question arises, as Cesar has put forward on many occasions, that a man of such academic reputation as KMD has not dared to make the next logical step in his research and expose the phenomenal similarity between Judaism and Christianity?

Lack of courage, unwillingness or just lack of depth? Respectable as he may be he did not have the guts to be like a Nietzsche and dig till rock bottom, and criticize his own paradigms.

If you ask me the whole thing of academic debate especially in the field of the “alpha sciences” like psychology, is very often sheer sophistry. To see what the words really stand for you have to meet the author in person. Then why is this Christianity again and again creeping around the corner?

Because it is so deeply ingrained in our value system that it has become sub conscious. Then the question arises how much suffering will be needed to bring this festering wound to the surface?

If the more representative figures of the white nationalist movement fail to open up to the issue of the corrupting influence of Christianity, that means they did not have the existential experience that allowed you and me to understand the human psyche on a deeper level than the level that they are mentally operating on.

On that basis indeed white nationalism is a flawed initiative.

What I mean here is that traumatic experiences can initiate an emotional maturity that is beyond the retarded state that western humanity is in at the moment.

I think it is not negation but simple incapacity from their side.

The fact that there will come no answer from that side is because their whole social life has been narrowed down to the verbal, intellectual Hegelian discourse and exchange of ideas, while the answer to our crisis cannot be addressed on this level at all.

It is an ego problem. The ego blocks the expression of certain inner states that, if expressed, would indicate that one is emotionally and instinctively degenerated if at all recognized as such.

To have an authentic knowledge of one’s emotional and instinctive nature that makes the use of intellectual projections absolutely unnecessary, has become very rare for western man. Eine Kulturkrankheit.
 

§ 8

Kevin MacDonald wrote:

As I write this in the summer of 2020, we are experiencing what feels like the end game in the Jewish conquest of white America.

End game of the Jewish conquest or of the Christian conquest of the Aryan soul? Has MacDonald read the words of Joseph Walsh on the sidebar?: The deep-seated death-wish that seems to have taken hold of the collective subconscious psyche of the Aryan race after Hitler’s death is I believe a consequence of centuries of Jewish brainwashing via Christianity and its secular offshoots.

Once the majority of Aryans had rejected Hitler they embraced what remained of Christianity, Christian ethics, with a vengeance. Aryans are aware of what our race is capable of becoming from the photos and films of NS Germany and many of them hate and fear their own race’s potential for greatness due to attachment to an irrational morality and so our race is in a sort of self-destruct mode.

If the National Socialists had won the Second World War our race would not have entered into this intense struggle to overcome the oldest and most effective weapon of the Jews, Christianity. So this post-1945 struggle with the mental disease of Christianity does serve a purpose in that it will either destroy us for good or make us even stronger.

Before Aryans can annihilate the biological Jew on the physical level they must destroy the alien Jewish mind virus on the mental level by overcoming Christian morality. /End of Walsh’s quote

But MacDonald wrote:

I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centered around the adaptive aspects of Christianity…

And what are Giles Corey’s conclusions and recommendations? Corey wrote, as quoted by MacDonald:

We must not tolerate subversion. Liberalism must go; we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the Enlightenment. We cannot afford to countenance any further anti-American, anti-family, anti-white speech, and this should be reflected in a new Constitution. Just as conservatism was not enough, the United States Constitution was not enough, with gaps that left it gaping wide for judicial “interpretation.” For another thing, we must circle the wagons and inculcate the Männerbund, restraining our individualism at least for the time being. For another, we must return to (((our Lord and Savior))).

I have added the triple parentheses to MacDonald’s quote of Corey. What these guys don’t know is that, as a commenter put it, thinking you can aid in saving the white race while, at the same time, bending the knee to Jewish deities—Yahweh and Yeshua—is some kind of combination of insane, dishonest, cowardly, naive, or very stupid. To bottom line it, it won’t and can’t work (see Ferdinand Bardamu’s complete essay that MacDonald rejected for his webzine: here).

This demolition that I have made of such a respected figure in white nationalism moves me to leave this site with these last entries for a period of time without adding new entries, although I will be answering the comments that don’t get off the subject of MacDonald and the Christian question.

Finally, even though I left the essay by a Spaniard, ‘Rome against Judea; Judea against Rome’ linked in a sticky post for a long time, it doesn’t seem that many visitors have noticed that that essay appears in Part I of The Fair Race, the PDF of which can be accessed on the sidebar. So I have no choice but to publish it in PDF separately and put it back in a sticky post. It is a shame that people like MacDonald have not read an essay that I consider central to understanding this site.

Especially the ‘Judea against Rome’ section of that essay explains the Jewish question better than any article MacDonald has published on The Occidental Observer, as the Spanish writer goes to the historical roots of the darkest hour in the West.

Charlottesville without stars or stripes

Or what does the word transvaluation mean in my mouth

There is something that I must add to what I said yesterday in the context of the current approach among race realists, which can be summed up in the already quoted words of Michael O’Meara, ‘The historical course offered by myth, in contrast to the inherently passive determinism of scientific rationalism, is a choice for heroes, not bookworms or computer hobbyists’.

But first of all I must say that the great failure of O’Meara was not seeing in Hitler the hero who created the new myth, the story that supplants the Christian one. Michael was simply unable to see the greatness of the Third Reich. Among Americans only George Lincoln Rockwell, after he finished reading Mein Kampf, saw that Hitlerism was a new religion. William Pierce got off to a good start, calling Hitler ‘our leader’ in National Socialist World in 1968. But then he got carried away by the American way and, instead of using the swastika for the new religion he wanted to create after Rockwell’s assassination, he devised another symbol (which nobody uses anymore).

The tremendous mistake I see here is that the American population cannot make contact with a higher archetype, as the Germans of the last century did. Americans are not the chosen people to create the new religion because their materialistic culture is completely uprooted from the history of their race, so well described by Pierce himself in Who We Are.

Yesterday I said that what is called history must be rewritten since, if it came from the pen of Christians or neochristians, the only value that history books can provide is raw material that must be relocated in the numinous context of the fourteen words.

To give just one example. Recall what I have made of the work of Karlheinz Deschner, his criminal history of Christianity. Although the late Deschner was antichristian, his scale of values was clearly liberal, that is, neochristian: a pseudo-apostate to use my neologism. Deschner’s encyclopaedic knowledge had to be appropriated to turn his legacy around our point of view: the POV of the transvalued man. And the same must be done with the rest of the other historians.

Yesterday I also said that what galvanised men in National Socialism were its marches and events in the streets. From this angle, the only thing that imitated them well, other than Rockwell when I was a kid, was the Charlottesville event three years ago. However, regardless of whether the government ambushed those who demonstrated, the demonstration was schizophrenic because of the American flags they carried. It is as if the Nazis of yore had carried the symbols of the degenerate Weimar Republic on their marches instead of coming up with a new flag.

That the racialist movement that raises the American flag is schizophrenic is seen in its inability to realise that, with its three anti-white wars—the 1860s, the 1940s, and today’s cold war that is already turning hot—the United States has become Mordor, and that using its symbols is mind splitting.

As far as I know, the only contemporary racialist who has understood that you have to hate the US to save the Anglo-German DNA is the Canadian Sebastian Ernst Ronin. Even at that Rockwell failed when trying to mix the swastika with the stars and stripes flag. Don’t be fooled, white nationalists: Since the United States was founded as a worshiping nation of Mammon and the god of the Jews, it is unreformable. The United States can only be repudiated and put an entirely different political animal in its place.

If the American racialist movement were not charlatanic, its proponents would not only begin to rewrite history from Who We Are, but reject both materialistic comfort and Yahweh. They would also begin to learn Germanic languages and would even try to change their American accent to how it sounded in England in Jane Austen’s time. Furthermore, after the Revolution bonfires would burn the books of accepted wisdom, including Bibles, degenerate music and Hollywood movies; in addition to the destruction of churches and the public lynching of those who oppose it.

Mount Rushmore will be nuked and another American mountain will boast colossal granite sculptures representing Leonidas, Hermann, Hitler and that of the new American messiah who led the racial revolution (a man whose name we still ignore).

For the transvaluation of all Christian values to Greco-Roman values to be complete, public opinion won’t give a damn if, instead of nymphs, one or two generals of the ethnostate have had ephebes as cute as Björn Andrésen or Max Born when he was a teenager. (On the other hand, having sex between same-sex adults will be frowned upon as it was frowned upon in Greece and Rome.)

Since that’s impossible given the level of the inflated ego in today’s American nationalist, only a convergence of catastrophes that kills vast numbers of whites around the world will straighten the ways of survivors.

Now that I saw the title of the latest article of The Occidental Observer I couldn’t contain the feeling of what O’Meara said about bookworms and computer hobbyists compared to the heroes we need, including the new messiah whose name we ignore. Without soldiers and transvalued heroes the academy is useless. In other words, the first rightful steps were made in Charlottesville, not in the pieces that Kevin MacDonald publishes. Now we would have to do the same but without the enemy flag, devising a swastika flag for American consumption.

But demonstrating in the streets will be impossible as long as Uncle Sam lives. If the US government didn’t exist, whites would easily win a war against BLM and (((those who finance it))). But killing Sam will be impossible as long as Christians and neochristians dominate both conservatism and white nationalism itself. Without infinite hatred there is no revolution. And with the psychic toll that Christianity bequeathed to us, there will be no place for infinite hatred.

Curiously, American racialists have already heard about the keys to save the race in both Who We Are (transvalued academy as opposed to KMD’s neochristian academy) and The Turner Diaries (bloodthirsty soldiers). But they follow a different path because they insist on being slaves of parental and societal introjects, including the enemy flag.

Although white advocates acknowledge that Jews hate, they are unable to link the info between two elemental neurons and imitate them. Being children of the Christian and liberal ethos they really believe, even many secularised racists, that we should solve our problems without violating the command to love our neighbour. Otherwise they would have already amalgamated their selves with the spirit of the Diaries.

Mine is constructive criticism of white nationalism insofar, unlike destructive criticism, I point out the way that could potentially save them.

Misguided sons of Bentham

I hadn’t listened to Mark Weber in years. I like him because, unlike many in the pro-white movement, like David Irving Weber is willing to change his opinion about what our enemies call the ‘holocaust’ if the historical evidence points in that direction.

In his recent interview with Greg Johnson and another guy, Weber said interesting things. But like his interlocutors, the ‘operating system’ of his mind, so to speak, remains neochristian.

I recently talked about Michael O’Meara and linked a couple of his articles. Although Michael never broke as openly with Christianity as we do on this site, he knew much better how the collective unconscious of the white race works than the authors of today. He knew that what we need is a myth that galvanises the Aryans to the point of producing a new religion. Unlike Savitri Devi, Michael failed to realise that this new myth, this new religion, had already been born in Germany and that Hitler had been its prophet. But at least Michael had a much better notion of what moves the collective imagination of races than today’s racialists.

The case of Weber and his interlocutors exemplifies this. After 1:41 Weber warned us not to view history as good guys versus bad guys. What a tremendous mistake, as we are about to see. At the end of the Johnson-led show, Weber pointed to two places where we can buy important books (here and here). But Weber’s failure is precisely not to see things in a mythical way, as the Jews do.

Although Jews have been repeating their myths for thousands of years, even white racists are reluctant to recover their history. If I use the metaphor of George R.R. Martin of ‘a man merged with a weirwood’ it is because this site, unlike the others, provides just the historical myth that the white man needs (summarised in The Fair Race). The great mistake of Weber and other racialist scholars is that they read Christian or neochristian historians. If there is something in which I distinguish myself from all of them, it is in my claim that we must rewrite the history of the white man to save him: hence the metaphor of the three-eyed crow, an old man fused with the tree of historical wisdom that, retrocognitively, could see the past.

The first attempt to rewrite history from the POV of the new myth occurred in Nazi Germany. I have already said, for example, that when I was living in Gran Canaria, a Spanish island next to Africa, I learned that Himmler’s scholars had travelled to the island to collect information on the aboriginal blonds who had lived in the Canary Islands before the arrival of the Spaniards.

On this side of the Atlantic, only William Pierce that I know of began to rewrite the history of the white man: a book that apparently does not appear in the two book sites linked above. It is true that Pierce’s book is merely a ‘story’, in the sense of a preliminary readable essay on the more erudite histories to be written about the race. But that’s how the rewriting begins: with a simple, inspiring and captivating story, not with huge volumes that few will read.

Who We Are is the myth that would emerge in a movement that leaves behind the failed methods that Michael O’Meara warned us about a decade ago. The only thing that will return the soul to the European-descended peoples will be a pro-white myth, something analogous to LOTR but that did happen in the real world. And that myth begins with stories (the current story of the West is good for Jews, not for Aryans: egalitarianism for all).

Is this so hard to see? Apparently yes. Like Jared Taylor, Weber appeals to the intellect, not to the numinous aspect of the human soul. I remember that some time ago Weber wrote texts and then read them on his radio podcasts. Even Carolyn Yeager, who had her own podcast, warned him that such practice could result in burnout. But neither Weber nor those who read Johnson’s webzine can see something so obvious.

What the Nazis did was to appeal to the numinous side of the Aryan race, with all those quasi-religious rituals that they did on the streets and, even more numinously, at Himmler’s castle in Nuremberg.

The mistake of virtually all the pundits of American racialism reminds me of an anecdote by Octavio Paz. In a meeting between American writers and a Russian in which Paz participated, he immediately realised that ‘the sons of Bentham’ were on completely different wavelengths, according to the phrase he later used, of that of the Russian: a fan of a Russian poet who appealed to numinosity whose name I don’t remember. Mixing Anglo-Saxon pragmatists with a spiritual Russian was like mixing water with oil.

Many of the pundits of white nationalism today resemble these sons of Bentham, ignoring what Michael tried to tell us: It is the poet who creates nations, not the scientist.

Published in: on August 6, 2020 at 1:06 pm  Comments (6)  

La Blouse Roumaine


Left, The Romanian Blouse by Nicolae Grigorescu (1838-1907).

I understand better and better why almost no white advocate values Pierce’s book, which opened my eyes to the real history of the West. And I’m not just referring to this recent exchange with a commenter. I am also referring to what is said outside this site.

In this recent conversation between an American and a Romanian we see the causes. Both are Christians and both are clueless about the double aetiology of the dark hour of Westerners: their religion and how WW2 ended up enthroning the gospels’ suicidal message, even in the secular world.

The American and the Romanian speak of how the Jews took over the US, but they fail to clarify how it was that the Americans so easily sold their souls to the devil. For example, Hunter Wallace concedes that southerners lost power after the American Civil War, and that the Yankees in turn ceded power to Jews in the decades from the 1920s to the 1940s. But not a word did he say, nor did his interviewer, that there was a war both ideological and of blood and fire against Jewry in those decades.

Their blindness has to do with Christianity. A few years ago I wondered why Solzhenitsyn, whom I quoted in my post yesterday, ‘Weirwood tree’, did not support Nazism if he wanted so badly to liquidate the Soviet state. Some years ago an Englishman answered me, on this site, that it was due to Solzhenitsyn’s religion (the same religion of the Romanian girl).

After 1:20 the Romanian, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, said: ‘We will have a strong Christian revival’ and added: ‘Christianity is part of who we are’. Let’s compare it with what is said in Who We Are (new visitors to this blog would do well to read it).

Only later did they start talking about the aftermaths of the Chinese virus, without realising that the dollar is going to fall. But that’s another song.

Criticising G.L. Rockwell

by Verdigris

This is one of the problems I had with George Rockwell’s White Power. He did apologise to Europe for WWII but at the same time he was speculating on a leader for the white race and seemed to think Europe needs America to save itself. This personally irked me because Europe already had that leader. They can blame the Jews all day long but it wasn’t the Jews who gleefully pulled the trigger, they just pointed the gun.

Sometimes I get this feeling that Americans and English care about Europe only so far that they can tie it back to their own exceptionalism.

They’re also naïve and ignorant on the Christian question. They seem to think that because Christianity is “attacked”, this makes it an intrinsically white religion. They would do well to read Celsus’ On the True Doctrine: Jews and Christians, and Christians and Christians have been squabbling since the first inception of that religion.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s reply: I have complained dozens of times why Pierce’s Who We Are, published on National Vanguard from 1978 to 1982, never was popular among white nationalists. Presently I am the only one who publishes part of it in my Daybreak Press!

Gradually the thought dawned in my mind that it’s simply because Pierce introduces the most relevant chapters of white history outside the American continent. And American white nationalists are still stuck with their provincial history (just as Mexican nationalists don’t want to know much of the history of Spain).

Recently, for example, Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent published a series of articles about the Vikings. He is stuck with the story that the Norsemen were the bad guys and the European Christians the good guys; and that only their Christianization solved the Viking problem. Just compare this interpretation of history with what Pierce wrote in Who We Are about the Vikings.

My prediction is that white and southern nationalists won’t become National Socialists in the US. They will cling to their American and Confederate flags. Fortunately, the collapse of the dollar that is coming will start their lesson in humility…

William Pierce’s blunder

Recently Will Williams commented on this site. In 1992 Williams became Membership Coordinator for Pierce’s National Alliance, continuing with the Alliance until Pierce’s death in 2002.

Today I was about to read what Williams linked, ‘Ideology of the National Alliance’ but then I realised that not even they mention Pierce’s only non-fiction book, his story of the white race. This means that the ‘Alliance’ that Pierce left behind makes no hard copies for his book.

Although this vindicates my initiative to have an abridged version of Who We Are within The Fair Race, I cannot put all the blame on the National Alliance. Piece himself committed a great mistake when in the 1990s he used his savings to acquire partial ownership of a records company of degenerate music.

Before Americanizing his movement, Pierce was closer to German National Socialism.

The first issue of National Socialist World appeared in the Spring 1966 and was edited by Pierce. The publication was quarterly and would have a run of only six issues, the last one being in 1968. The publication had an appeal to a well-educated elite, each issue having over a hundred pages. Three thousand copies were initially printed and a promotional mailing was sent to libraries, news agencies, and some prominent right-wing politicians. The mailing generated a hundred and twenty subscriptions.

Had Pierce remained closer to the German movement of the previous decades, he wouldn’t have committed a gross blunder: spending his precious savings in a company of degenerate music. With that money he would have founded, instead, a publishing house. Presently, his legacy would appear backed by a house of more than half a century, and Who We Are wouldn’t be out-of-print.

Published in: on December 20, 2019 at 8:32 pm  Comments (16)