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 pamphlet 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.

Quotable quote

“1945 was the year of the total inversion of Aryan values into Christian values.”

Joseph Walsh

Published in: on June 27, 2017 at 1:54 pm  Comments (5)  

St Antiochus

Greek effigy coin of
Antiochus IV Epiphanes

A couple of days ago I resuscitated the idea of adding here further excerpts from the monumental Criminal History of Christianity. Four years ago I purposely left those excerpts with a short entry because Deschner’s last sentence provided much food for thought: “If the stringent measures against the Jews by Antiochus IV had taken effect, it would not only have meant the end of Judaism, but also ‘would have prevented the rise of Christianity and Islam.’ Our imagination almost fails to conceive a world so different…”

It is a pity that the sources for understanding the revolt of the Maccabees are the Old Testament and Josephus: both Jewish sources. Even so, what happened 2183 years ago can be deduced from those texts.

Early in 167 BC, the Greek Hellenistic king Antiochus sent an army to Jerusalem. He did it on Saturday so the Jews could not carry weapons. Thus, the Hellenistic forces entered the Jewish city without finding opposition. The soldiers of Apollonius, the general of Antiochus, destroyed much of Jerusalem and set up camp on a hill from which the Temple was dominated. That hill would turn into a citadel: the stronghold of the white man in Jerusalem in the next quarter-century.

Antiochus then proceeded to act directly against the Jews. He ordered them to accept the Greek customs; to desecrate the Sabbath and the feasts, to build altars for the white man’s gods, and to immolate therein animals which the Jews considered impure. The decree of Antiochus ended with these words: “Whoever does not obey the orders of the king shall be put to death.”

The very Jewish law became the target of the decrees of Antiochus. “You could not observe the Sabbath, keep the country feasts, or even declare yourself a Jew.” The possession of the Scriptures was a capital offense, and members of a congregation who were caught secretly celebrating the Sabbath were burned alive. “Two women were denounced for having circumcised their children. They tied the children to their breasts, so they walked about the city and threw them down the wall. ”

On the occasion of the festival of Dionysius, orthodox Jews were forced to parade in the procession. In the middle of the drums and voices in honour of the Greek god of wine, they marched with wreaths of ivy, symbol of the foreign god. Later, the whole procession, under pain of death, was exhorted to eat pork.

The way the Jews first reacted was by writing the Book of Daniel. The authors deceived the Jerusalemites into believing it to be a remote text they had just unearthed. As literary criticism has revealed the Book of Daniel was a trick: a vaticinium ex eventu or foretelling after the event written during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is from that book that the phrase of the abomination of desolation, desolating sacrilege, became famous.

Just compare how pre-Christian Aryans dealt with Jerusalem’s Jews with the standing ovations for Prime Minister Netanyahu in the American Congress last year! It is a pity that memes like “white sharia” are becoming popular among some white nationalists while the purely Aryan meme that should become popular is Nietzsche’s “transvaluation of all values” (see for example my post on Sweden I published today).

If nationalists transvalued Judaic values back to Aryan values, a new constellation of saints of the Ancient World would emerge. Not only the Judeo-Christian names would become gradually repudiated in the generations to come, they would even name their sons after Antiochus, Vercingetorix and Hermann.

Back in 2012 I asked in this blog, Why do we not celebrate the victory of Antiochus IV over the Jews, or Titus’ conquest of Jerusalem? The transvalued individual might well start calling the Hellenistic king as St Antiochus.

Linder on Christian ethics


What is still wrong with WN?

In my yesterday’s post I added an image of Matt Heimbach’s recent speech at Kentucky. That is ok, as he was one of the central speakers in Pikeville last month.

But Heimbach’s ethics is ultimately incompatible with race preservation. In this Red Ice interview for example, Heimbach says that he has no problem with giving, for free, food surplus to the hungry of the Third World. In my yesterday’s post I also linked to a Daily Stormer article but barely quoted from it. The Stormer is a neonazi website, not a Nazi site like The West’s Darkest Hour. This is what the Stormer editor wrote:

Prior to leaving camp, Heimbach gave a second speech, this time on National Socialism. It was the most clear and concise summation of that topic I think I have ever heard.

That’s bunk of course. Heimbach’s speech was but Southern Nationalism (listen to it: here). While I like Southern Nationalism and wish they had won the war, it must not be confused with National Socialism.

As I have iterated many times in this site, the problem with southern nationalists, white nationalists and even American neonazis is that they are stuck with Christian ethics. For those who have not digested the articles on this site about “axiology” I recommend listening very, very carefully what Alex Linder recently told a South African about the Christian problem. To me this is a problem more serious than the Jewish problem, insofar as it is a kind of malware for the Aryan mind: a malicious software that whites must erase as soon as possible.

To erase it you can read my book Day of Wrath mentioned on the sidebar, a copy of which recently I sent to Linder. If you don’t want to read it, listen the Linder interview after minute 27:30, or more to the point around minute 40 and contrast it with the ethics of normies.

“Christianity: The Dangers of putting Religion before Race” (Note of June 21, 2017: The Thought Police at You Tube cancelled this account.)

The interview is a treasure of commonsensical arguments by Linder against the scale of values that is killing whites around the globe, a scale even shared by many in the white nationalist community. I liked particularly something he says around minute 55: “Who dominates this world? People who don’t believe in the afterlife,” referring to the Jews.

Impeachment of Man, 3

by Savitri Devi

Excerpted from Chapter III: Joyous Wisdom

Western Free Thought, in all its different forms, has, as we pointed out, retained Christian ethics while doing away with Christian metaphysics. It is not other-worldly at all, but it has never preached or even conceived a love more comprehensive than that of humanity. And every one of its aspects, from Descartes to Karl Marx, is as man-centered as any philosophy can be.

In other words, there have been, and there still are philosophies “faithful to this earth.” But we know of no historic civilization based upon a joyous earthly wisdom, implying active love towards all living creatures; upon a religion of this world and of this life in flesh and blood, which would be neither man-centered nor pessimistic, nor lacking truly universal kindness in the Buddhistic sense of the word. We only know of a very few individuals who have put forward such a philosophy, professed such a religion—consciously or unconsciously—from time to time.

With regard to animals—and plants—the believers in man-centered creeds seem to be governed by the mere consideration of gain and loss. They seem to be people for whom living things have a price in connection with some purpose for which they can be used, not a value in themselves. And the highest purpose they can dream of is the “service of humanity.”

Why? Goodness knows. Probably because they themselves happen to be human beings. To admit the existence of something higher and more precious than “man”—and having more “rights” than he to health and enjoyment—would be to concede that man (i.e., themselves) can be justly used in the interest of that thing.

And they do not want to reach such a conclusion—surely not. They are willing to exploit living nature; but they shrink from the possibility of being themselves exploited in their turn, even in the interest of such superior beings as, for instance, inhuman Gods, or for the greater welfare of the less exalted but more tangible master races that might appear on the international stage. The result is that the only God they can think of, if any, is a man-loving God who created no master race save mankind itself, to which he gave as a birthright domination over the whole scheme of life.

Our votaries of man-centered faiths are the last people to understand the believers in the right of the superior or more efficient races to exploit the inferior or less efficient ones. Our philanthropists, burning with partial, fanatical love, who would willingly destroy the whole of the animal world in order to save one human idiot, are the last people to understand the ardent nationalist who would, with a smile, sacrifice mankind to his own country’s pride. They have an altogether illogical yet undeniable fondness for human beings, but none at all or very little for other animal species, even for other mammals.

If, on the other hand, a man feels for humanity in general and for every one of his human neighbors in particular, why should he stop there? If he feels it is “wrong” not to treat other men as he would himself like to be treated, why does he not feel the same with regard to all sentient creatures?

The followers of man-centered creeds never think of that. They speak of human “rationality” and of the usefulness of human beings; yet they never ask whether the person whom they are about to help has actually made use of his capacity to better his surroundings or to work for others. They just help him—even if he be the most consummate imbecile, suffering the result of his own foolishness; even if he be the most useless, self-centered old bachelor, having never cared for anybody.

Hospitals and asylums are open to all. And in bad times food is distributed indiscriminately to all the distressed, without any enquiry into the life history of each one. It is just the fact that they are beings, outwardly at least, more like himself than others—specimens of the human race. The humanitarian is a fellow who has rejected the logic of racialism, but has kept all the sentimental partiality attached to every form of group loyalty. He has done away with the “white man’s burden,” and discarded the pride of the master races as too unchristian-like or too “unscientific” for him.

But he still clings—or tries to cling—to that elemental blood solidarity which is the essence of all racialism. He clings to it, after having distorted it and broadened it to such an extent that it loses all that was vital and stimulating in it, in its earlier stages, without it generously merging into the higher solidarity of all life.

Un raciste manque: that is what the humanitarian is, and nothing more, so long as he fails to transcend his man-centered ideology.

Impeachment of Man, 1

by Savitri Devi

Excerpted from Chapter I: Man-centered creeds

Of all moral ideas, that of our positive duties towards creatures of other species (animals, and even plants) is perhaps the slowest to impress itself upon the human mind. It seems as though it were alien to the spirit no less than to the letter of all successful international religions, save Buddhism. And one who is fully conscious of its importance—one who recognizes in it the expression of a fundamental moral truth—may as well wonder in amazement how creeds that omit to mention it altogether (let alone to stress it) have yet been able to secure themselves such numerous followings, and, what is more, how their narrow conception of love is still claiming to be “the highest,” and how that claim rouses no protest on behalf of the better men. This is, no doubt, enough to lead him to gloomy conclusions concerning the inherent coarseness, selfishness and ugliness of human nature in general.

Theoretically, the man-centered creeds and philosophies sway the whole world minus the greater part of India, Burma, Ceylon, and the countries of the Far East to the extent that these have actually come under the influence of Buddhism. That does not mean that there are no individuals in England and America, in Germany and Russia, who look upon all life as sacred, and to whom the infliction of pain upon animals is even more odious that that upon human beings. That does not mean, either, that all people who, in India and elsewhere, are catalogued in the census reports Hindus, Buddhists or Jains are, in fact, paragons of active kindness towards all living creatures. Far from it!

But we notice that, from those very civilizations in which cannibalism was generally admitted, sprang, now and then, a few individuals—an infinitesimal, powerless minority—whom the custom disgusted. And from amidst a world in which slavery was considered as a necessary evil by respectable people, sprang a few individuals who condemned it, either openly or secretly, in the name of human dignity.

And we see that it is the opinion of those better individuals that finally triumphed. One of the best among the ancient Mexicans, King Nezahualcóyotl, tried in vain, in the fifteenth century A.D. to put a stop to human sacrifices within his realm. But today, the murder of a man, be it even as an offering to a deity, is considered a criminal offence and would be punished by law nearly all over the world. The minority, in Mexico, became a majority—and would have become so, apparently, anyhow, even if no Christian adventurers had ever landed there. Minorities often do, with time, become majorities.

To those to whom the age-old exploitation of animals seems normal just because it is practically universal and as old as man, we shall say that there are today people who strongly disapprove of it—never mind if they be but a handful scattered among millions of human beings still at a more barbaric stage of evolution.

There are men and women—and the author of this book is one of them—who, at the sight of one of their contemporaries eating a beefsteak in a restaurant or a chicken sandwich in a railway carriage, feel no less a disgust than some rare Mexicans of old possibly did when they saw the cooked limbs of a prisoner of war served up on gold and silver plates at State banquets. There are men and women today, few indeed as they may be, who are as much saddened when they see a tired horse drawing a cart as certain other “queer” people might have been once, when they met a slave cutting wood or grinding corn for his owner under the supervision of a merciless taskmaster.

Those few are now “dreamers,” “eccentric folk,” “cranks”—like all pioneers. But who can tell whether their opinion will never become that of average man, and their principles the law of the world? If not… then we believe that the human race is not worth bothering one’s head about at all.

All the splendour of the material world; all the grace, strength and loveliness of millions of beasts, birds, fishes, trees and creepers; the majesty of the snow-clad mountains, the beauty of the unfurling waves—all that and much more—is not worth, in God’s eyes, the immortal soul of a human imbecile—so they say, at least.

That is why the hunting of tigers and deer, the butchering of innocent woolly lambs, so glad to live, the dissecting of pretty white guinea pigs or of intelligent dogs, are not “sins” according to the man-centered faiths—not even if they imply the most appalling suffering. But the painless chloroforming of worthless human idiots is a “crime.” How could it be otherwise? They have two legs, no tail, and an immortal soul. However degenerate they be, they are men.

I cannot help here recalling the answer of a French medical student, a member of the “Christian Federation of Students,” whom I has asked, twenty- five years ago, how he could reconcile his religious aspirations with his support of vivisection. “What conflict can there be between the two?” said he; “Christ did not die for guinea pigs and dogs.” I do not know what Christ would actually have said to that. The fact remains that, from the point of view of historical Christianity, the boy was right. And his answer is enough to disgust one forever with all man-centered creeds.

The God of the Christians, the God of Islam, and the God of most of those later Free Thinkers who are not out and out atheists, never succeeded in shaking off completely the habits he once had when he was but the patron deity of a few tribes of desert wanderers, slaves in the land of the Pharaohs. He was able to raise himself from the rank of a national god to that of a God of all humanity.

But that is all. His love seems to have been spent out in its extension from the “chosen People” of Israel to the Chosen Species of mankind. He had not in him the urge to broaden his fatherly feelings still beyond those narrow limits. It never occurred to him how narrow they were in fact and how irrational, how mean, how all-too-human that childish preference for man was, in a God that is supposed to have made the Milky Way.

The great creeds of the world west of India remained man-centered, it would seem, because they never could free themselves entirely from the marks of their particular tribal origin among the sons of Abraham. The Jews never were a race that one could accuse of giving animals too great a place in its everyday life and thoughts.

Christ, who came “to fulfil” the Jewish law and prophecies (not to introduce into the world a different, more rational, and truly kindlier trend of thought) appears never to have bothered his head about the dumb creatures.

We speak, of course, of Christ as the Christian Gospels present him to us. That Christ—we have no means whatsoever of finding out whether a “truer” one ever lived—never performed a miracle, never even intervened in a natural manner, in favour of any beast, as his contemporary, Apollonius of Tyana, not to speak of any more ancient and illustrious Master such as the blessed Buddha, is supposed to have done. He never spoke of God’s love for animals save to assert that He loved human beings a fortiori, much more. He never mentioned nor implied man’s duties towards them, though he did not omit to mention, and to stress, other duties.

If the Gospels are to be taken as they are written, then his dealings with nonhuman sentient creatures consisted, on one occasion, of sending some evil spirits into a herd of swine, that they might no longer torment a man, and, another time, of making his disciples, who were mostly fishermen by profession, as every one knows, catch an incredible quantity of fish in their nets.

In both cases his intention was obviously to benefit human beings at the expense of the creatures, swine or fish. As for plants, it is true that he admired the lilies of the fields; but it is no less true that he cursed a fig tree for not producing figs out of season and caused it to wither, so that his disciples might understand the power of faith and prayer.

Fervent English or German Christians, who love animals and trees, may retort that nobody knows exactly all that Jesus actually said, and that the gospels contain the story of only a few of his numberless miracles. That may be. But as there are no records of his life save the Gospels, we have to be content with what is revealed therein. Moreover, Christianity as an historical growth is centered around the person of Christ as the Gospels describe him.

To say, as some do, that every word of the Christian Gospels has an esoteric meaning, and that “swine” and “fishes” and the “barren fig tree” are intended there to designate anything but real live creatures, would hardly make things better. It would still be true that kindness to animals is not spoken of in the teaching of Jesus as it has come down to us, while other virtues, in particular kindness to people, are highly recommended. And the development of historical Christianity would remain, in all its details, what we know it to be.

There has been, it is true, in the West, in recent years—nay, there is, for nothing which is in harmony with the Laws of Life can ever be completely suppressed—a non-Christian (one should even say an anti-Christian) and definitely more than political school of thought which courageously denounced this age-old yet erroneous tradition, and set up a different scale of values and different standards of behaviour. It accepted the principle of the rights of animals, and set a beautiful dog above a degenerate man.

It replaced the false ideal of “human brotherhood,” by the true one of a naturally hierarchised mankind harmoniously integrated into the naturally hierarchised Realm of life, and, as a logical corollary of this, it boldly preached the return to the mystic of genuine nationalism rooted in healthy race-consciousness, and the resurrection of the old national gods of fertility and of battle (or the exaltation of their philosophical equivalents) which many a Greek “thinker” and some of the Jewish prophets themselves had already discarded—politely speaking: “transcended”—in decadent Antiquity.

And its racialist values, solidly founded upon the rock of divine reality, and intelligently defended as they were, in comparison with the traditional man-centered ones inherited, in Europe, from Christianity, are, and cannot but remain, whatever may be the material fate of their great Exponent and of the regime he created, the only unassailable values of the contemporary and future world. But it is, for the time being, a “crime” to mention them, let alone to uphold them—and their whole recent setting—in broad daylight.

The opposite ideologies, more in keeping with the general tendencies of modern Free Thought from the Renaissance onwards, have only broken off apparently with the man-centered faiths. In fact, our international Socialists and our Communists, while pushing God and the supernatural out of their field of vision, are more Christian-like than the Christian Churches ever were.

He who said, “Love they neighbour as thyself has to-day no sincerer and more thorough disciples than those zealots whose foremost concern is to give every human being a comfortable life and all possibilities of development, through the intensive and systematic exploitation by all of the resources of the material world, animate an inanimate, for man’s betterment. Communism, that new religion—for it is a sort of religion—exalting the common man; that philosophy of the rights of humanity as the privileged species, is the natural logical outcome of real Christianity.

It is the Christian doctrine of the labour of love for one’s neighbours, freed from the overburdening weight of Christian theology. It is real Christianity, minus priesthood—which Christ thoroughly disliked—and minus all the beliefs of the Church concerning the human soul and all the mythology of the Bible.

In other words, the rejection of the belief in the supernatural, and the advent of a scientific outlook upon the material world, has not in the least broadened the Westerners’ moral outlook. And, unless they be consistent Racialists, worshippers of hierarchised Life, those who today openly proclaim that civilization can well stand without its traditional Christian (or Muslim) background, stick to a scale of values that proceeds, either from a yet narrower love than that preached in the name of Christ or of Islam, (from the love of one’s mere individual self and family) or, at most, from the same love—not from a broader one; not from a true universal love.

The generous “morality” derived from modern Free Thought is no better than that based upon the time-honoured man-centered creeds that have their origin in Jewish tradition.

It is a morality centered—like the old Chinese morality, wherever true Buddhism and Taoism have not modified it—around “the dignity of all men” and human society as the supreme fact, the one reality that the individual has to respect and to live for; a morality which ignores everything of man’s affiliation with the rest of living nature, and looks upon sentient creatures as having no value except inasmuch as they are exploitable by man for the “higher” purpose of his health, comfort, clothing, amusement, etc. The moral creed of the Free Thinker today is a man-centered creed—no less than that of Descartes and Malebranche and, later on, of the idealists of the French Revolution, and finally of Auguste Comte.

We believe that there is a different way of looking at things—a different way, in comparison with which this man-centered outlook appears as childish, mean and barbaric as the philosophy of any man-eating tribe might seem, when compared with that of the Christian saints, or even of the sincerest ideologists of modern international Socialism or Communism.

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.

Ethnosuicidal nationalists


Henry Wallis: The Death of Thomas Chatterton. The subject of
the painting was the poet who died after he poisoned himself.


______ 卐 ______


“‪Even the pro-white ‘movement’ seems beholden to this irresistible death-wish.‬”

—‪Joseph Walsh

The revelation has come to me that liberals, conservatives and white nationalists are, ultimately, on the same fucking page. The only behavioral difference between them is speed.

Gentile liberals, led by the Jews, are driving the train on the road to white extinction on high speed. Non-Jew conservatives are merely trying to lower the speed by softly hitting the break here and there to slightly hinder the liberals’ ways. White nationalists, already outside the train, are heading exactly toward the same direction but at a much slower, walking pace.

Let us compare the values of the self-styled White Nationalists with the real defenders of the Aryan race, the National Socialists:

• Hitler and the NS men organized themselves in a political party—the very first, elemental step to make a difference in the real world. The WN cyber-based “movement” on the other hand refuses to leave the homely comfort zone. Nationalists who are doing this: Every single “neonazi,” white nationalist, southern nationalist or conservative racialist today, including old internet sites such as Stormfront, American Renaissance, VDARE and Majority Rights. None of them has dared to form a racist party. (In the case of Greece’s Golden Dawn, they are not Aryans.)

• The NS men clearly defined their race as Germanic (which includes Austria, the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Switzerland and even some parts of the old Soviet Union; furthermore, Hitler dreamt to share the world with the Anglo-Saxons, especially with the English Empire). Those who advocate WN on the other hand are predominately anti-nordicists, and anti-eugenicists to the core. Like the American “conservatives” of the Republican Party who treat mestizos as equals, in order not to offend Mediterranean sensibilities they refuse to acknowledge that the standard for whiteness is the Nordic type. Many have no objection to grant amnesty to the off-white population in Europe, even if that means the eventual mongrelization of the real whites. Nationalists who are doing this: Most bloggers and commenters over the boards, especially at the WN webzine Counter-Currents Publishing.

• Hitler and the inner NS party abandoned Christianity, a Levantine-inspired religion which only enfeebles the Germanic peoples. Many WNsts, incapable of radical departures from our parents’ religion, unabashedly proclaim their Christianity and have blinded themselves about the toxicity of the Galilean cult. Nationalists who are doing this: Stormfront, the Traditionalist Youth Network led by the two Matts, James Edwards of The Political Cesspool, Occidental Dissent, the neonazi Daily Stormer and even Metapedia.

• The NS men, even the Catholics and Protestants, gave up Christian axiology and became pragmatic Nietzscheans. On the other hand Christian and secular WNsts subscribe it: both groups strive to appear as the proverbial “good Christians.” The neonazi Carolyn Yeager and the historian Arthur Kemp even have tried to rationalize away the Germans’ legit will to conquer those Slavs who had delivered their nation to the Bolshevik Jews. (Clarification: George Lincoln Rockwell and William L. Pierce flourished before the term “white nationalist” became fashionable. They were not WNsts but rather followed the spirit of Hitlerian National Socialism. Neither subscribed the Christian scruples regarding our interaction with the radical Other.) White Nationalists who still subscribe Christian axiology: With the exception of VNN Forum virtually all of them. Moreover, like Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent and many commenters in those forums, racialists freak out piously when a lone wolf makes a scene leaving some enemy casualties behind. Even Irmin Vinson, who wrote an apologetic book about Hitler, did this.

• Hitler and the NS men took for granted sexual polarity. Like all militaristic Western cultures they subscribed patriarchy—no woman was allowed in the leadership class. WN males on the other hand have become feminized beyond recognition. Most of them have no problem at all with the feminism that has been wreaking havoc in the fair race and the morals of the fair sex since the 1960s. The NS men had an absolute will to biological fertility. Feminized WNsts have no problem allowing career women in their conferences or practicing ethnosuicidal birth control. Nationalists who are doing this: With the exception of Andrew Anglin all notable WN websites and conferences, including the London Forum which admits women speakers, and even “revolutionary” or eccentric groups like those of Harold Covington and Sebastian Ronin.

Ethos. The German National Socialists simply and straightforwardly pursued the fulfillment of their duty to the point of dying heroically for the fate of their race. Like the Republican Romans their ethos was severe, Stoic and brutal. Feminized WNsts on the other hand still live under the illusion of the American dream, or the infantile pursuit of universal happiness. Like the late imperial Romans they are hedonists. They lack the Teutonic spirit of tribal sacrifice and the saying, “We don’t stand a chance unless our men become killing machines and our women birthing machines” sounds like antimusic to their ears. Nationalists unwilling to sacrifice themselves for the 14/88 words: All of them! Who lusts to become a bloodthirsty soldier or literally force our spoiled women to become birthing machines? With the exception of the late David Lane, Who treasures in his heart the history of the rape of the Sabine women which gave birth to the virile Republican Rome?

Enemy #1: materialism / consumerism. Hitler and the NS men pursued collectivism, honor, structure, order and militarism always in harmony with the aesthetic drive of the Aryan soul. In Uncle Adolf’s table talks for example the subjects of the most beautiful Western architecture, painting and classical music are omnipresent as the blueprints of what the Reich would be after the consolidation of his conquests. On the other hand, even those WNsts who think like real men and advocate a final solution to the non-Gentile problem pursue the freedom of the civilian societies and, to boot, the cult of the atomized individual: libertarianism. In WN forums you don’t see much criticism of larger factors of white decline than the Jewish problem such as the mercantile societies that degenerated in capitalism and, presently, full-blown hedonistic materialism: the uttermost corruptor of the Aryan soul for any honest reader of the History of the white race. Nationalists who have not assimilated the wisdom behind the saying “The Cathedrals were built to the glory of God; New York was built to the glory of Mammon”: countless, including Alex Linder of Vanguard News Network.

• The NS men aimed for war and conquest. Adolf Hitler said: “Any other course that does not lead to the strongest race ruling mankind, means mankind has passed the peak of its development and the end will not be the reign of any supreme moral idea, but degeneration into barbarism and eventually chaos.” Feminized WNsts on the other hand cherish democracy, pacifism and even the secularists make the sign of the holy cross when sighting true Aryan militarism. Compare the Führer’s words with a statement of Kevin MacDonald during an interview by a Jew (!) about the differences between WN and NS: “The white advocacy movement, as I see it, is not exterminating anybody. It is simply going to assert our interests within the democratic form of government that we have… It doesn’t advocate conquering Mexico, you know—anything like that. There are lots of differences.” White nationalists who think like the professor and his Occidental Observer: All Christian nationalists; the (European) New Right and the American New Right—which are not Christian—, the poseurs of Alternative Right (and Richard Spencer’s Radix). In his videos David Duke even shares the Christian sense of compassion for the colored races.

• Finally, Hitler and the NS men recognized the problem of cultural degeneracy in general and degenerate music in particular. Hans Severus Ziegler opened the exhibition “Degenerate music” in 1937 in Düsseldorf. Later, it was presented in Weimar, Munich and Vienna. The hedonist WNsts on the other hand enjoy themselves with the American-Negro phenomenon of rock antimusic. They are basically wiggers. The commenter whose words I quoted in the epigraph has also said: “Degenerate music leads to the extinction of the White race. It is racially suicidal.” Here is a good quote from Encyclopedia Dramatica:

Whereas the original Nazis actually maintained their German culture, celebrating, appreciating and reveling in German art, literature and music, modern-day Nazis get their culture by listening to a lot of White Power Rock’n’Roll. Never mind the fact that rock’n’roll is essentially African-American folk music borrowed by the White Man, and that “borrowing” something from another culture is the definition of multiculturalism and that Hitler devoted an entire chapter of Mein Kampf describing how the degradation of Aryan culture would lead to the extinction of the white man.

Nationalists who have promoted degenerate music: countless since the old podcasts by Kevin Strom, and more recently Alex Kurtagić, Greg Johnson and many, many more. Virtually all male hosts, guest speakers and listeners of WN radio podcasts love simian music, including some internet shows hosted by one of our best European minds, Tomislav Sunić. In a nutshell, presently all white racists, even the sophisticate, are inadvertently committing racial suicide.


My priesthood

From this post henceforth I’ll add further entries only if I see big events in the news (more spectacular events than the Jihad attacks in Paris and San Bernardino last year). The inescapable fact is that in WN there is no actual resistance against the genocidal mass immigration of non-whites and forced fraternisation with them. Apparently George L. Rockwell was the last National Socialist of the West. Being a true Nazi involves forming a fascist party in Europe, or much more difficult, in North America—something that contemporary racists not dare do.

Trying to summon or discipline bourgeois racists that don’t leave the internet destroys the morale of the true fanatic: the priest of the 14 words. Unless these cowards become brave, unlikely in a race that is presumed dead, I must do something else. Pity!: with no Aryan men offering real resistance to the System I have no choice but to try to fulfill my priesthood alone.

Here’s my plan as a hermit. My books on childrearing [1] could help the future ethnostate, which capital should already be in Berlin had it not been for the Anglo-Saxons. But this State would only be reborn if this race repents from its unforgivable sin—if that is possible.

Saint Jerome Reading by Giovanni Bellini[1] I refer not only to Hojas Susurrantes but to two more series of several books each: Extermination and From St Francis to Himmler.
My working hypothesis is that non-abusive childrearing will prevent both mental disorders and even treason in the Aryan ethnostate.



September update

Michael Bell has recently authored “The caste system of the Alt Right” that shows an image of the Egyptian pyramids at the top. Instead, the editor should have chosen the symbol of the truncated square pyramid, so common in the architecture of the Mesoamerican civilizations.

In his flawed caste system Bell places white nationalists at the top of the pyramid, but they in fact belong to a lower caste, as explained above (see also the recent interview of me by Jake that has been published at The Right Stuff).

It is the National Socialists and a couple of American fighters, Rockwell and Pierce, who were at the top of the complete square pyramid. Bell also omitted Linder who, as an exterminationist (and an anti-Christian) could share a place at the top.

This said, after Hillary Clinton’s blunder in delivering an anti-Altright speech, it has been mainstreamed. Bell’s article may still be useful. Newcomers can now map the Altright thanks to that article, especially the castes at the very bottom of the pyramid.



Too young was this community to face this millenary Monster. As a young Hero he failed in his first attempt to defeat it. Too old and cunning such monstrosity. He gobbled up the boy, and the young Aryan community, in a few years.

Manu Rodríguez

Alfred Rosenberg argued for a new “religion of the blood” based on the innate promptings of the Nordic soul to defend its noble character against racial and cultural degeneration. He rejected Christianity for its universality, for its doctrine of original sin (at least for Germans whom he declared on one occasion were born noble), and for its teachings on the immortality of the soul. Absorbing Christianity enfeebled a people. Rosenberg stated: “The general ideas of the Roman and of the Protestant churches are negative Christianity and do not, therefore, accord with our [German] soul.”

In January 1934 Hitler appointed Rosenberg as the cultural and educational leader of the Reich. The Sanctum Officium in Rome recommended that Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Century be put on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum for scorning and rejecting “all dogmas of the Catholic Church, indeed the very fundamentals of the Christian religion.”

During the Second World War Rosenberg outlined the future envisioned by the Hitler government for religion in Germany, with a thirty-point program for the future of the German churches. Among its articles:

• The National Reich Church of Germany would claim exclusive control over all churches

• publication of the Bible would cease

• crucifixes, Bibles and saints were to be removed from altars

Mein Kampf would be placed on altars as “to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book”

• the Christian Cross would be removed from all churches and replaced with the swastika.

Many consider Rosenberg the main author of key National Socialist ideological creeds. But after the war the Allies, under the lead of American and English Christians, executed him.

Foreword to the 2015 edition


After more than a year of publishing the original version of this compilation, and my continuing research on the whys of white decline, I have only modified my views about what I wrote in my interim report about the word “racism” on page 29. Thanks to the input of Hadding Scott, Jack Frost and Vance Stubbs on this issue, and a rereading of Nietzsche, I now believe that “racism” is not necessarily Newspeak in the sense of a “control word for whites”—more or less what the Metapedia definition also says. I now see that it’s our Christian-inspired sense morality what spawned an axiological inversion that is destroying whites around the globe. According to Metapedia:

Racism is a term usually only used by critics. Official definitions of racism often state that the term should only be applied on the belief that some races are superior and on negative actions due to this. In practice it is often applied as a form of ad hominem on anyone believing in the existence of races or even on persons advocating restricting immigration, persons criticizing another culture or multiculturalism, persons supporting their own country/ethnicity, etc.

Metapedia is a Christian-friendly online encyclopedia. However, potentially “racism” could be a term mostly used not by our enemies but by us! Had values not been inverted by Christianity and its bastard son, liberalism, racist attitudes would be considered a virtue, as Nietzsche saw:

Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against “race”: the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love.

I repeat: presently we should see racism as a great virtue, not as a despicable vice.

Umwertung aller Werte!

20 December 126 (Anno Hitleris)
20 December 2015 (Anno Domini)