Three-eyed raven, 3

Indented paragraphs are taken from Who We Are by William Pierce:

The Dorians of Laconia organized the Peloponnesian population in a three-layered hierarchy. At the top were the citizens of Sparta, the Spartiates, all of pure Dorian blood, ruled by their kings. At the bottom of the social structure were the Helots, or serfs, consisting of the aboriginal Mediterranean elements as well as many of the conquered Achaeans of mixed blood. No Spartiate could engage in trade or practice a craft. The Perioeci handled all their commerce, and the Helots provided all their other needs…

It is easy to imagine the Spartiates, upon their arrival in Laconia, surveying the moral decadence and the racemixing which had made the Achaeans such an easy conquest for the Dorians, and then instituting a carefully designed program to safeguard themselves from a similar fate. For a time this program succeeded; the moral character and the racial quality of the Spartiates remained famously high. But ultimately it failed in both regards…

They should have done what the Hebrews did with non-Hebrews in Canaan: exterminate them all. And this is still the problem with white nationalism today. American WNsts are not even willing to recognize that in an ethnostate the citizen of the Aryan Republic should not be allowed to marry, say, a Sicilian American. In a true Aryan ethnostate that conquers North America, mudbloods should not even have the right to reproduce. WNsts are committing ethno-suicide as they are reluctant to scientifically define the subject of who is really white. (See the article in The Fair Race, “The new racial classification”.) Pierce continues:

The Spartiates never succumbed to racemixing, but they did succumb to their own lifestyle. They would have been well advised to eliminate the Helots of the Peloponnesus and the Mediterranean population of Crete altogether and to establish a purely Dorian peasant class in those areas. Then they may well have been able to practice a successful eugenics program, maintain their moral health, and have a stable population too. But, of course, they did not have the advantage which hindsight gives us.

The other Hellenic tribes did succumb to racemixing. Their populations did not suffer the decline in numbers which the Spartiates did, but they suffered a decline in racial quality which resulted in their extermination, perhaps more slowly but just as surely—and less cleanly.

Note: The above quotations of Pierce’s book are contextualized in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (available: here). If life permits, next Tuesday I will comment on another passage from the same visionary chapter on Greece coming from the pen of the American ‘Raven’.

Response to Anglin

‘The sign of the times is degeneracy. This term, degeneracy, sums up all that is happening to the West’.

— Iranian for Aryans

I didn’t read all the article that Andrew Anglin published today, ‘When the Alt-Right Hits the Street You Wanna Be Ready’ but it’s clear for what I’ve read that we see the world in a completely different way.

In the first place, white nationalists have not realised that the main cause that there has not been a pro-white, mass movement is universal degeneration in the West. How I remember, when I was living in Marin County in California, those days when the US Senate rejected Reagan’s nomination for the Supreme Court of Robert Bork, author of Slouching to Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. Even Anglin himself promotes cultural degeneracy in his article with a photograph of the skinhead movement: some guys playing degenerate music. I have already said it and it is worth repeating: You cannot beat the Gomorrah that America has become with Gomorrahite art! That was the blunder not only of William Pierce as we shall see, but of John Tyndall on the other side of the Atlantic.

Today at dawn I discussed with a visitor the use of the swastika. I acknowledge that the matter is controversial and we can leave it aside. The central point is that no one in white nationalism that I know has realized that the main problem does not come from the movements since the death of Rockwell in 1967 until 2014, the date that Anglin puts in his article that marks the beginning of Alt-Right activism. The problem comes not only from the elites but the general people. Trying to save the white race is like trying to save the Romans from their degeneration in the days of Caligula or Nero. Only the conquest of the Roman Empire by a fresh breed of Northern Aryans did the trick. Alas, nowadays the worst degenerations come from hyperboreans.

If anyone understands this, it is clear that more than blaming racist organisations of the past, as Anglin does, we must blame the degenerate Zeitgeist in general: a Zeitgeist that Anglin himself, and those who comment on his blog, share with the degenerate music they listen.

True, the racist organisations of the past erred. Arthur Kemp personally told me that in a beautiful town in England a few years ago. Pierce, for example, refused to form a political party and believed that doing activism from a mountain could make a difference. In addition, and that Kemp did not tell me, the money that Pierce used to buy a degenerate music company should have been used to form a publishing house for his books—and many other radical books.

Tactical blunders have been committed in the previous organisations certainly. But not the strategic errors that Anglin and many others imagine. Due to Western degeneracy, the history of Golden Dawn, which has used neo-Nazi aesthetics, should make us see that our message can only be broadly preached—as in Greece—after an economic collapse. This is a reality that white nationalists have not studied and should do. It was the collapse of the Deutsche Mark what catapulted Hitler, and a crisis similar to that of 1929 in the United States can re-visit the US sooner than we imagine.

For new visitors unfamiliar with my criticism of white nationalism, see my article in the Addendum: here.

Those wishing to get started on the subject of those who predict another financial accident in the US as serious as that of 1929, may begin: here.

Three-eyed raven, 2

Indented paragraphs are taken from Who We Are by William Pierce:

The four centuries between the Dorian invasion and the flowering of the literate Classical civilization are referred to by most historians as “the Dark Age,” for much the same reasons that the period between the fall of Rome, more than fifteen centuries later, and the flowering of Mediaeval civilization is also called “the Dark Ages.”

In both cases a people of an older civilization, who had begun to succumb to racial mixing and decadence, was overwhelmed by a more vigorous and racially healthier but culturally less advanced people from the north. And in both cases a period of gestation took place over a dozen generations or so, during which a synthesis of old and new elements, racial and cultural, occurred, before a new and different civilization arose from the ruins of the old.

Unfortunately, most historians tacitly assume that the records of political and cultural activity which have come down to us from periods of civilized literacy provide all the data needed to yield an understanding of the historical process. The state of development and degree of organization and complexity of city life are taken as a yardstick by which to evaluate the significance or historical importance of a particular period. And if one’s standards of value are geared to such things as the volume of commerce, the gross national product, or even the intensity of scientific, literary, and artistic activity, such a yardstick may seem, at first glance, to be proper.

But there are other standards of value, such as those of the National Alliance, which differ somewhat from the customary ones. For it is not in the external forms of organization and activity of a people that we see the most important criteria for making a judgment as to the significance of a particular period, but rather in the actual racial constitution of a people and in the dynamic processes which, for better or worse, are influencing that racial constitution.

Unfortunately, those are not the standards of white nationalists. For instance, it is common among anti-nordicist WNsts to use the card of the Iberian conquests of the 16th century and the Iberian colonisation in the following centuries as proof that Iberians were equal to the English—completely ignoring the fact that in those centuries Iberians were polluting their blood both in the Americas and in the peninsula itself; in the case of Portugal, even with Negroes.

Although the basic racial constitution of a people is always intimately related to that people’s achievements in commerce, science, industry, art, politics, and warfare, still the two sets of criteria can lead to fundamentally different evaluations of a given historical period. This is a consequence of the fact that race building and decay are usually strongly out of phase with civilization building and decay.

Thus, the long ages between the periods of maximum civil activity—ages which the historian customarily ignores as being of only slight importance—may very well be periods of the greatest interest from a standpoint of racial dynamics.

It is, of course, true that the periods of maximum civil activity are precisely those which yield a maximum of written records, artifacts, and the other raw materials from which the historian builds his tale. But relative abundance of evidence should not be interpreted as equivalent to relative historical significance, regardless of the historian’s value criteria.

The record of the rise and fall of pure races constitutes the primary history of mankind, and the rise and fall of civilizations occupy a place of secondary importance. This statement may seem self-evident to those already accustomed to looking at history from a racial viewpoint, but it is by no means generally accepted by historians today. Until it is, much historical writing will continue to be flawed in a fundamental way.

This meta-perspective radically changed my normie POV of History. Now I see that the Early Middle Ages (or early medieval period), lasting from the 5th to the 10th century CE, is pivotal to understand Europe. Without the Raven’s powers of retro-cognition and his chapters on Greece and Rome, it would never have occurred to me that the periods when the race is consolidating in its purity are the fertile ground on which the best Aryan culture will grow. It is enough to compare English-speaking countries in this continent with those speaking Spanish and Portuguese to prove it. (Unlike ignorant white nationalists I don’t use “North America” because this term, in fact, includes Mexico.)

Something similar could be said about Europe. The anti-nordicism among many white nationalists is so religiously blind that they have not even been able to assimilate the genetic catastrophe that happened in Portugal. Anti-nordicism is one of the many reasons why I believe that white nationalism must die in the United States in the pursuit of a new religion for whites that embraces the ideals of German National Socialism.

Changing the subject, on Skype I have discussed with my friends about the Nazi symbols. Correct me if I am wrong: but it seems to me that you do not believe that we should use the symbols of the Germans of the last century.

My answer is that the swastika is a universal symbol for the Aryan race. Why not create a pro-white movement on both sides of the Atlantic using flags with the colours of the flag of each nation? From this angle, the swastika flag of American nationalists will include red, blue and white—in contrast to red, black and white in the flag that Hitler devised.

Note: The above quotations of Pierce’s book are contextualized in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (available: here). If life permits, next Tuesday I will comment on another passage from the same visionary chapter on Greece coming from the pen of the American Raven.

Three-eyed raven, 1

(The Raven almost seemed to be a part of the tree himself, tangled up in the roots as he was. Being stuck in a tree didn’t seem to matter to the old man much as he could consciously leave the body and make observations, and also have retrocognitive visions at will.)

How guilty are whites for their condition is easy to find out if we would only heed the visions of the only American who has written a story about the white race. Elsewhere I have said that in his weekly lectures, William Pierce gave the impression of subscribing to what I call type A bicausalism. But Who We Are, a mental voyage into the past of the white race, gives the strong impression that he was inclined to B type bicausalism.

I have already quoted long excerpts from his book on this site, on the Addenda and in the collection under the cover of the printed book The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. Yesterday it occurred to me that once a week I could comment on certain passages of Who We Are. For example, in the chapter on ancient Greece, Pierce tells us:

And there were also the non-Greek Pelasgians, the Mediterranean aborigines, who occupied the lowest stratum of Greek society and substantially outnumbered the Hellenes in Mycenaean times. As pointed out in the last chapter, the Mycenaean Greeks were influenced culturally by these Mediterraneans—and, as time passed, racially as well.

‘Three-eyed crow’, in the epic fantasy novels A Song of Ice and Fire, is an honorary title for the rarest paranormal visionary man among the hyperborean visionaries. I chose the title of the Raven for this new series because Pierce was, in my opinion, the mind that saw with greater clairvoyance the past, the present and glimpses of the future of the white race. It’s a real misfortune that Who We Are has not become a bestseller among American racists. That’s because, I believe, what the three-eyed raven saw most white nationalists do not want to see.

We could illustrate it with a scene filmed below the heart tree in Castle Winterfell in the latest episode of Game of Thrones. Sansa Stark left her brother Bran, who inherited the visionary powers of the previous ‘raven’, under the heart tree because of a disturbing revelation: Bran had seen exactly how Sansa looked on her wedding day. He had not been there physically: it was an out-of-body experience of something that actually happened miles away in the real world.

Like Sansa, white nationalists also leave the scene when confronted with a vision by a three-eyed raven. Consider this passage of Who We Are for example:

The Dorians, who had settled in central Greece a few years earlier, proceeded to conquer the Achaeans, occupy the Peloponnesus, and extinguish Mycenaean civilization. But, in so doing, they prepared the way for the rise of a new civilization which would greatly surpass the old one. Displaced Achaeans, Aeolians, and Ionians migrated to new areas, sometimes displacing those people already there and sometimes amalgamating with them.

As we can observe in the forums of white nationalists, they do not want to distinguish between Nordics and Mediterraneans to say openly that there should be no genetic admixture between them. Unlike not only Pierce but also the National Socialists, nordicism scares them. For example, not long ago Greg Johnson, commenting precisely on this chapter, criticised Pierce’s value judgments on a conquest that had exterminationist tones of these mingled Greeks when the nordish Dorians started to migrate southwards. Pierce continues:

The Dorians were blonder than the Achaeans they conquered, but that is only because the Achaeans had been mixing with the Mediterranean aborigines for several centuries before the Dorians arrived; originally the two tribes had been of the same racial composition. But the Achaeans were certainly more civilized than the rude, new arrivals from the north, and it was 400 years before Greece recovered from the cultural shock of the Dorian invasion.

All of these passages from Pierce’s book are duly contextualized in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (available: here). If life permits, next Tuesday I will comment on another passage from the same visionary chapter on Greece coming from the pen of the American Raven.

Edward the Great

by William Pierce

In England, throughout the 13th century there were outbreaks of civil disorder, as the debt-laden citizens sporadically lashed out at their Jewish oppressors. A prominent Jewish historian, Abram Sachar, in his A History of the Jews (Knopf, 1965), tells what happened next:

At last, with the accession of Edward I, came the end. Edward was one of the most popular figures in English history. Tall, fair, amiable, an able soldier, a good administrator, he was the idol of his people. But he was filled with prejudices, and hated foreigners and foreign ways. His Statute of Judaism, in 1275, might have been modeled on the restrictive legislation of his contemporary, St. Louis of France. He forbade all usury and closed the most important means of livelihood that remained to the Jews. Farming, commerce, and handicrafts were specifically allowed, but it was exceedingly difficult to pursue those occupations.

Difficult indeed, compared to effortlessly raking in capital gains! Did Edward really expect the Jews in England to abandon their gilded countinghouses and grub about in the soil for cabbages and turnips, or engage in some other backbreaking livelihood like mere goyim? God’s Chosen People should work for a living?

Eduard_IEdward should have known better. Fifteen years later, having finally reached the conclusion that the Jews were incorrigible, he condemned them as parasites and mischief-makers and ordered them all out of the country. They were not allowed back in until Cromwell’s Puritans gained the upper hand 400 years later. Meanwhile, England enjoyed an unprecedented Golden Age of progress and prosperity without a Jew in the land.

Unfortunately, the other monarchs of Europe, who one after another found themselves compelled to follow Edward’s example, were not able to provide the same long-term benefits to their countries; in nearly every case the Jews managed to bribe their way back in within a few years.

The Aryan problem

encompasses the Jewish problem

Further to the discussion in the Kriminalgeschichte thread.

Regular visitors of this blog find rather puzzling that Greg Johnson is the most criticised white nationalist in this site. Some might conjecture that I abhor his homosexualist stance. But no: it’s the fact that Johnson subscribes Christian ethics what drives me mad. Let me steal a page from my first essay in Day of Wrath:

______ 卐 ______

Unlike the national socialists and William Pierce, nowadays white advocates are comfortably living under the sky of Christian and/or liberal ethics, as I will try to argue in this article [I refer to “Dies Irae,” the first essay of my book Day of Wrath]. Greg Johnson for one, the editor-in-chief of Counter-Currents Publishing, has been ambivalent on Pierce. He wrote:

Some time later, on April 22, 2000, I purchased The Turner Diaries and Hunter from Dent Myers at his Wildman’s Shop in Kennesaw, Georgia. Frankly, I found them repulsive, The Turner Diaries in particular. Pierce may have been inspired by National Socialism, but his model of revolution was pure Lenin and his model of government pure Stalin. If he had the power, he would have killed more people than Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined.

Note that Johnson, overwhelmed by his morals, is not even recognising here that the national socialists were the good guys for Aryan preservation, and the heads of the states he mentions the bad guys.

He epitomizes everything about the Old Right model that I reject: one party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperial-ism, and genocide. At the time, I remarked that as a novelist and political theorist Pierce was a first rate physicist.

I regarded him as a monster…

Take note that Johnson’s webzine is considered by some the crème de la crème of white nationalist blogsites, something like the haute culture magazines for the sophisticate, and that he presents himself as a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche to the webzine’s readership.

The trouble with Johnson is not only that he’s living a double life—criticising Christianity online and delivering pious, traditional homilies at the Swedenborgian Church of San Francisco—; he really wants to have it both ways. Sometimes he seems to be in favor of revolutionary action but other times he condemns violence. In Johnson’s own words in his so-called “New Right” manifesto, “the only gun I want to own is made of porcelain.” Doesn’t this amount to say that he rejects winning, since throughout history there has been no nation-building without violence?

Elsewhere I have quoted Nietzsche’s Zarathustra having in mind Johnson’s manifesto. But what would a genuine Zarathustran voice sound like? Simply put it, someone who advocates the transvaluation of some values back to the pre-Christian mores in the West.

______ 卐 ______

I wrote the above in 2012.

Few things annoy white nationalists more than to say that white decline is due to the suicide of the Aryans. Their mantra is that the jews are genociding whites; that it is homicide; whites are altogether innocent of their demise.

Actually it’s suicide, as can be seen even among many nationalists who, like Johnson, reject the concept Umwertung aller Werte. They’re still stuck with the Christian-inspired concept of the sanctity of all human life, brown and jew included: European man’s most deadly spiritual poison.

In addition to the historical arguments that have been presented in this site favouring the suicide hypothesis, we should also consider a sentence from the booklet Eugenics and Race (1959, revised in 1966). If its author, the anthropologist Roger Pearson, makes it until the next month he’ll celebrate his ninety birthday.

Pearson’s views drew on Arthur Keith. His Eugenics and Race summarises Keith’s philosophy thus: “If a nation with a more advanced, more specialised, or in any way superior set of genes mingles with, instead of exterminating, an inferior tribe, then it commits racial suicide, and destroys the work of thousands of years of biological isolation and natural selection” (my emphasis).

Miscegenation is what I call the sin against the holy ghost, as it cannot be reversed and does indeed destroys the millennial evolutionary work that produced the Aryan female beauties. Like Jared Taylor, David Duke and many others, Johnson says he wishes non-whites the best. This contrasts dramatically with how Biblical jews exterminated the competing tribes. Non-hatred of the Other led whites to fatal miscegenation in Sumer, India, Central Asia, Egypt and later in the Greco-Roman world.

Had the Aryans of the Ancient World the benefit of hindsight that Pierce developed in Who We Are, they would have imitated their Semitic neighbours. The moral for historically awakened whites, in Pierce’s own words, should be “extermination or expulsion” but never, ever use non-white labour!

In the Modern World what makes ethnic cleansing unthinkable for white nationalists is Christian ethics, which even permeates the secular mind of Johnson et al. See my recent posts about the jewish-Roman wars describing how pre-Christian Europeans dealt with the jews—without moral restraints.

As long as whites fail to transvalue their values back to normal I will be talking about white suicide and that the Aryan problem “encompasses” the jewish problem. Nevertheless, concurrently to the revaluation of values, to exterminate non-whites the human race, as a whole, must be impeached first. At my Ex Libris page the series Impeachment of Man and Raciology can now be read from the beginning (see also what Charles Darwin said about pro-white exterminationism). Since the Raciology article I posted today is the seventh and last of that series, I am considering the idea of adding excerpts from either Keith or Pearson.

Mondays will be dedicated to scientific racism. Keep tuned.


Today I discovered that on December 2016, in the comments section of his blog, Hadding Scott had responded to my March 2016 inquiry in the same thread. I refer to his important article “On the origin of the word racist.” In his response to me Scott wrote:

That Wikipedia article is fraudulent. The council wrote that declaration because they objected to the formation of a Bulgarian national church. They did not use the word racism at all; they used the word φυλετισμός (phyletism), which is best understood to mean tribalism or, in this case, nationalism.

Matthew Raphael Johnson discusses that council and its corrupt motives in one of his talks. Phyletism really is not a sin in Christianity; it is in fact traditional.

Since Hadding waited more than eight months to answer my question, in the 2017 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour I included a quotation reproduced in small letters here that I’ll remove for the next edition of the book.

Changing subjects, Metapedia has pages linking to William Pierce’s podcasts (here) and his articles (here and here). As I have said elsewhere, in my opinion Pierce had the most penetrating mind among all the American “racists.”

Published in: on June 28, 2017 at 11:02 am  Comments (3)  

Siege, 5

Above a whisper

My own formal initiation into the ranks of the “hard-core” took place in the barracks and the ward rooms of the American Nazi Party headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, during the latter half of the 1960’s. There, amidst the off-hours high jinks, the “smokin’ ‘n’ jokin” typical of the paramilitary style of the day, would come forth expressions of unsanctioned, forbidden ideas of violence and revolution more closely resembling those of the Enemy we were regularly fighting in the streets of Washington, D.C., as the Vietnam War raged ten thousand miles away. We believed in what we were doing but most of us felt uncomfortable, left wanting with the current program and strategy. We wanted to attack the real Enemy, and, furthermore, we were more than tired of knocking down Enemy minions only to have them get back up later.

We openly confided among ourselves—the duty officers, the pressmen, the clerks, shippers, the rank-and-file troopers—that what was required was a gaping hole knocked in the System order-of-things so that blood could be splashed from one end of the country to the other. None of the officers ever voiced these same opinions and, to be sure, they never inquired of ours. Nothing was open for discussion between these two sharply distinct levels.

It was Right Wingism at its darkest. It was never spoken, never printed and was, in fact, taboo in official Party dealings. In those days we were still wasting our time—and our blood—defending the honor of an all-but-dead Republic against a mob of vile Jews, Liberals, Blacks, etc., demonstrating for its final demise and, in our printed propaganda, taking a futile and sado-masochistic trip by dredging up the most recent outrages committed by Blacks in the streets and Jews and traitors in the government.

The loss of Commander Rockwell was so recent and his memory so fresh then that we carried on in his absence as though we expected his eventual return. As it turned out, no one had the vaguest idea of what to do or how to do it. The prevailing school of thought was that of “Professionalism & Orthodoxy”, in other words, to continue the “1933 approach”. I recall one heated occasion when I crossed ideological and strategic swords with one junior officer at the headquarters building. I was talking then a very adolescent version of what I’m talking now and his response was that I would one day have to be “restrained”… by the Party. He hasn’t been active now in many years.

But just as vividly I recall the first snapping of the ice in the earliest springtime of our Movement as we have it today. The refreshing and invigorating changes were first provided by Dr. William Pierce, as our propaganda chief then, in his hugely effective and widely listened to “White Power Messages” that thousands of people across the country would call in to hear. He had recorded a message in reference to a certain clique of Senators and Congressmen who were busy selling-out the soldiers in Vietnam.

He concluded that one doesn’t talk against people like these, one doesn’t vote against them in the next election, one kills them. About that same time, during one of his addresses to the First Party Congress in 1969, after he had invited questions from the floor and one naive delegate asked what we should do with the White race traitors, he spoke not a word but, gesturing with thumb and index finger forming the barrel and hammer of a pistol being fired, brought the entire assembly to its feet in the loudest outburst of cheering and applause heard during that three-day gathering.

So it was out, above a whisper, and, more than that, it was official. In less than one year. Dr. Pierce was out of the Party and on his own with the endeavor he still currently heads. Through a number of cosmetic and tactical changes in style and technique, he has never in thirteen years compromised his stand as being among the foremost of the Hard Core Idealists. And whose name and organization carries more weight in Movement circles today than Dr. William Pierce and the National Alliance?

Vol. XII, #8 – August, 1983

Who we are

Originally published as a series in his newspaper and magazine, Who We Are is the final work of Dr. William Pierce, founder of the National Alliance.

Starting with the evolutionary origin of the White race, this book explores the classical Greek and Roman civilizations, the White peoples of the Mediterranean basin, the rise of the Germanic powers, the Vikings, Christianity, and National Socialist Germany—leading to a profound examination of the Second World War and the racial crisis facing the European race and the civilization it created today.

Who We Are contains, characteristically for the author, a highly critical appraisal of Jewish influence in Europe, and ends with a proposal of how the essence of the West can be saved.

This edition contains the entire text and almost all the illustrations which accompanied the original. It has also been fully indexed.

Two ways of looking at history

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

______ ______


Part IV:

Ethno-suicide: Christian ethics

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


Two ways of looking at history

How would we have felt if, as children, our father returned home with a boy of an alien ethnic group and forced it into our bedroom as a new “brother”? How would we have felt if, after resenting this betrayal and picking on the unfortunate intruder—as children usually do—, our father sends us, not the intruder, to a boarding school?

Forget every film you have seen to date: because that’s how the real Wuthering Heights novel began.

In his travels Mr. Earnshaw finds a homeless boy. Once more, forget every Hollywood image because the skin of this boy was similar to that of “a little lascar.” Mr. Earnshaw decides to adopt him and name him “Heathcliff.” Brontë describes Heathcliff as “dark-skinned gypsy in aspect.” Naturally, Mr. Earnshaw’s legitimate son, Hindley, finds himself robbed of his father’s affections and becomes bitterly jealous of the little lascar.

Every single critic of the novel, even the most conservative, seems to have missed the racial aspect of this fascinating drama. I would go so far as to suggest that, once the ethno-state is established, Wuthering Heights will be picked as one of our classics. It conveys the tragedy of pushing, against the legitimate heir’s will, an alien that after some time hostilely takes over the entire family estate and starts hunting down key Anglo-Saxon characters in a life dedicated to revenge. Such is the plot in Wuthering Heights (gypsies are so good at that…).

The drama of the novel only ends when—after the deaths of Mr. Earnshaw, Catherine Earnshaw, Isabella Linton, Edgar Linton, Hindley Earnshaw and Linton Heathcliff (the son of the gypsy who dies as a result of the abuse perpetrated by his father)—Heathcliff finally dies and the second Catherine can, at last, reclaim a life together with her first cousin.

Only pure whites survive at the end of the drama.

Mr. Earnshaw, whose altruistic fondness for the gypsy boy would cause havoc, reminds me what today’s whites are doing not with a single family, but with their entire nations: a deranged Christian sense of compassion transmuted into secular, anti-white liberalism. The drama of Wuthering Heights was located in the Yorkshire manor. But presently this is happening by means of non-white immigration into every white heartland. Whites in positions of power are basically religious ideologues, having replaced self-flagellation and lifelong chastity with anti-white activism and out-group altruism. Just replace “Mr. Earnshaw” with “Western elites,” and the “White people” with “Hindley”—Mr. Earnshaw’s legitimate son—, and you will see how this classic has depicted our current woes in truly prophetic ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have quoted the retired blogger Eric above, that Lawrence Auster used to call the “Nietzschean of the North.” Presently I fully agree with Eric that what we are witnessing is nothing else than the historical demise of Christianity. The metaphor that he used explains it all: “When a star dies, in its last phase it expands into a red giant, before it shrinks into a white dwarf. Liberalism is the red giant of Christianity. And just as a red giant is devoid of its core, it expands thousand-fold while losing its substance and is about to die. The world I live in consists of Christians and liberals. It’s their world and I do not belong to them.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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