Karlheinz Deschner (1924-2014) was a liberal German. I started reading him in 2002 when I was also a silly liberal. I would not wake on the jewish question until early 2010. But Deschner, like all Germans of our times who aspire to see their books in the bookstores, never woke up. He even criticised historical “antisemites.”

The reason I read some of his books fifteen years ago is simple. The difference between Deschner and liberal theologians like Hans Küng (The Church) and conservative historians such as Paul Johnson (A History of Christianity) is that the books of this pair conceal a great deal of historical facts.

It is incredible how a scholar who has abandoned Christianity (like Deschner) can criticise it in a way that Küng or Johnson never dreamed of, so much so that presently the histories of this pair seem to me intellectual charlatanry.

After awakening to the realities of the jewish problem I realized that Deschner’s information, despite his mistaken point of view, still can be rescued. It only has to be processed through the POV of one who has revalued his values regarding the jewish question.

In the previous post and the following Saturdays entries, we will see what Deschner says about how the early theologians denounced the jews. Although for the liberal Deschner that was part of the “criminal history of Christianity,” the information it provides serves us to understand early Christianity.

After the next Saturdays entries in which I will reproduce antisemitic passages from these early theologians, I will add others in which Deschner denounces the sins of the church against other Christians and those they labelled as pagans.

If Germany had won the war, Deschner, who appears above in Nazi uniform, could have, awakened on the jewish question, written his history on criminal Christianity from our point of view. Unfortunately, because of the Anglo-Saxons (who in my opinion behaved worse than the jews), Germany lost the war. Yet Deschner’s monumental work, even as it came from this defeated and inverted Germany, is a milestone. It presents the history of Christianity from a very different angle of what we know.

Remember that I excerpted Deschner’s introduction to Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums as an article for The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, and can be read as a PDF: here.

Published in: on July 15, 2017 at 10:28 am  Comments (5)  

Greg Johnson

“Greg, you do good sermons. Perhaps you missed your calling.”

Johnson’s fan

Swedenborgian Church (San Francisco, California)

It’s true what I said earlier today: that in a dispute between White Nationalists I don’t take sides—because I am not a WN. But I’d like to rephrase what I already wrote on December 2012 about Johnson:

Take note of what he said in a 2010 lecture at the Swedenborgian Church of San Francisco. The lecture was “outed” in the WN community, much to his embarrassment. At the Swedenborgian meeting Johnson said:

“What most inspired me was his [Emanuel Swedenborg’s] discussion of the life of Christ and the meaning and the mystery of that… Swedenborg gave us the means to understand that mystery.”

After quoting Scripture Johnson asked, “What does it mean to say that ‘God is with us’?” and went into a theological peroration where he added:

“…a child was born. A child that somehow was the God of eternity. This unique incarnation is the great mystery. It is the conundrum of theologians and metaphysicians. Why was Jesus born? Why did God become man? Swedenborg claims that this was not part of Plan A… Jesus was Plan B… because of certain contingencies that [should not have] happened.”

Johnson then used autobiographical vignettes mentioning his childhood and his father to illustrate “Plan B,” presumably what God felt obliged to do when mankind fell into the original sin. He even mentioned the word “salvation.” At some point Johnson seemed to endorse the infinitely monstrous belief that it’s within God’s freedom to send us to Hell. (As an aside, see my piece on eternal damnation: here.) After speculating on the Second Coming, Johnson finished his lecture with an “Amen” and the Swedenborgians started to pray.

Listen this audio to hear, in Johnson’s own voice, his traditional homily. It sounds like the Catholic doctrine I was taught as a kid before my First Communion.

Johnson has been both a critic of Christianity on his webzine, and a pious Christian at his church in San Francisco. He literally had it both ways before his activities with the Swedenborgians were outed. As to his other persona, take note of what Johnson commented on The Occidental Observer:

[Christianity] did undermine racial exclusivity for nearly 2,000 years. Racial and subracial differences were no bar to marriage, as long as both parties were Christian.

And on another WN forum:

Christianity will not be dead until its secular offspring, liberal universalism, is dead as well. But you know that, don’t you? Christian fanatics are precisely the ones who believe that blood differences don’t matter.

See my brief collection of anti-Christian comments authored by Johnson: here. Even today, five years after I wrote the above, Johnson still can’t see that misleading both his WN readership and his church was wrong.

Published in: on June 19, 2017 at 5:09 pm  Comments (4)  

This Time, 7


A passage from This Time the World
by George Lincoln Rockwell

I read and reread the Bible, as I had not done before, from beginning to end. I was appalled at the demand by God for human sacrifice, for the eating of human body waste by the Lord, for the horrible cruelties and atrocities demanded by the Lord, according to the Old Testament…

Most of all, I wondered at the idea that if there were a few simple ideas and facts to be understood to enjoy eternal life and happiness, here and later on, and God were all-powerful, He had made it impossible for me to believe those ideas and facts because of the very mind which he gave me! And then I am to be threatened with eternal damnation for not believing that which I cannot believe! My first reaction was atheism.

I did something I deeply regret and shall never do again. I had begun to discover my own power of persuasion and, in the eternal bull sessions of a boys’ school, religion is not exempt as a topic. I was genuinely sorry I had lost my belief in Christianity, for it has truly marvelous power to sustain and help one in times of tribulation. I began to discuss the matter with a devout Catholic boy who tried with all his heart and might to make me see my error. We skied five miles over to his church to see a priest he said could straighten me out and I was truly anxious to be shown my error, if error it was.

But the matter turned out differently. Coldly and scientifically I argued with the priest, refusing to let him lead me into the inevitable non sequiturs, redundancies, etc. and brutally holding to logic. He was reduced, eventually, to exclaiming, “You just must believe. You have to believe!” I told him I could not believe and asked him if he were not able to help me do what he said I must. He shook his head sadly, no doubt convinced that I was determined not to understand.

The effect on my friend was something I had not counted on. All the way back to the school we skied in silence. When we got back, he said not a word and for days avoided me. I felt a secret shame for which I could see no reason. Eventually, he told me that he had been forced to agree with me and had lost his faith. That he was no happier about it than I, with my own loss of faith, was obvious. In fact, he was even more stricken. The result was to set me thinking on what I had done and whether it was right.

I saw then what I believe all great religious teachers knew, but could not and did not say. The ordinary man is too weak and too helpless in the whirling vortex of life to sustain himself on his naked human will and his cold human reason. Only with some kind of deep belief in an all-powerful magical being of some kind can the masses of humanity maintain social and reasonably worthwhile lives. Without such a belief, they can see no reason for not immediately indulging themselves in their most animal and immediate desires and they despair in the face of death unless they can imagine something further.

As long as men are thus ignorant and weak-minded, they must have some such spiritual crutches. So religion, far from being an “opiate”, is truly the sustainer of the masses of people. He who destroys religion before humanity has progressed far beyond its present primitive intellectual state is helping to destroy civilization.

I am an agnostic, which means that to all proposals and explanations of the mysteries of life and eternity, I say, “I do not know and I don’t believe you or any other human does either.”

At the same time, I stand firmly for positive, ethical religions, whatever they may be and believe they must be protected and given the greatest freedom to do what they can to lessen the awesome burden of human misery on this tiny planet. I know there will be many intellectuals who will reply that religion has caused untold torture and suffering to stamp out “heresy”, but in view of man’s need for emotional catharsis in today’s immensely frustrating world, and in view of Pavlov’s experiments, I believe that religion is the poor man’s “psychiatry”, his only “escape” from intolerable pressures of society.

Since that ski-trip to the priest up in Maine, I have never tried to argue anybody out of his religion and have given strict orders in the American Nazi Party that religion is simply not permitted as a subject of discussion for anybody. We have Protestants, Catholics, atheists and agnostics among our membership and all of them are equally welcome and valuable.

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.



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.

The type “Jesus”


by Friedrich Nietzsche

Note of the Editor: I reproduce the following explosive fragment (for the 19th century mentality) of the Spring of 1888, that was not published in German until 1970, because of this comment in the previous thread:

Jesus is the counterpart of a genius: he is an idiot. You feel his inability to understand a reality: he moves in circles around five or six terms, which he formerly heard and gradually understood, i.e., has understood them wrongly—he has them in his experience, his world, his truth—the rest is alien to him. He speaks words used by anyone—but he does not understand them like everyone; he only sees his five, six floating concepts. That the real mannish instincts—not just the sex, but also those of struggle, pride, heroism—are never woke up at him; that he remained as backward and childish as the age of puberty, that belongs to a certain type of epileptic neuroses.

Jesus is unheroic in his deepest instincts: he never fights. He who looks something like a hero in him, as Renan, has vulgarized the type into the unrecognizable.

Take heed of his inability to comprehend something spiritual: the word for spirit is in his mouth misunderstanding! Not the faintest whiff of science, taste, mental discipline, logic has fanned this idiotic saint: as little as it has touched his life. —Nature? Laws of Nature?— No one has revealed him that Nature exists. He knows only moral effects: a sign of the lowest and most absurd culture. This must be noted: Jesus is an idiot surrounded by a very clever people—only that his disciples were not that smart. Paul was absolutely not an idiot! From it depends on the history of Christianity.

Published in: on December 19, 2015 at 11:19 pm  Comments (10)  


BeatitudesSo HUMBLE yourselves, drop your hatred of negroes, and get work down at an inner city homeless shelter feeding pregnant black women and wayward crack-heads. Drop your racism! God loves all colors, especially the dark ones. After all, they’re the ones who’ve suffered the most.

That’s Christianity. There’s no way to make it pro-white. Christians must help the poor, stupid and weak. That means muds.

Sam Emerson

Published in: on December 18, 2015 at 9:57 am  Comments (32)  
Tags: ,

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 4


Night of 17th-18th July 1941

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together—No persecution of religions, let them wither of themselves—Bolshevism, the illegitimate child of Christianity.

When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours. In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.

On a question from C. S., whether this antagonism might mean a war, the Fuehrer continued: No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions.

But in that case we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying! It goes without saying that the whole thing needs a lot of thought. Everything will occur in due time. It is a simple question of honesty, that’s what it will finally boil down to.

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.

Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.

Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 29



14th October 1941, midday


The Churches—Difficulty of compromising with a lie—No truck with religion for the Party—Antagonism of dogma and science— Let Christianity die slowly—The metaphysical needs of the soul—No State religion—Freedom of belief.
Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can’t, or can’t yet, be explained—that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can’t satisfy them with the Party’s programme. Time will go by until the moment when science can answer all the questions.

So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse.

But one must continue to pay attention to another aspect of the problem. It’s possible to satisfy the needs of the inner life by an intimate communion with nature, or by knowledge of the past. Only a minority, however, at the present stage of the mind’s development, can feel the respect inspired by the unknown, and thus satisfy the metaphysical needs of the soul.

The average human being has the same needs, but can satisfy them only by elementary means. That’s particularly true of women, as also of peasants who impotently watch the destruction of their crops. The person whose life tends to simplification is thirsty for belief, and he dimly clings to it with all his strength.

Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their childish certainties until they’ve acquired others that are more reasonable. Indeed, it’s most important that the higher belief should be well established in them before the lower belief has been removed. We must finally achieve this.

the_wagner_god_wotan_by_andrekosslickIt seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. At that period the ancient world was divided between the systems of philosophy and the worship of idols. It’s not desirable that the whole of humanity should be stultified—and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.

A movement like ours mustn’t let itself be drawn into meta-physical digressions. It must stick to the spirit of exact science. It’s not the Party’s function to be a counterfeit for religion.

If, in the course of a thousand or two thousand years, science arrives at the necessity of renewing its points of view, that will not mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for it’s always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.

One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the disappearance of belief in God. That’s not to be desired. The notion of divinity gives most men the opportunity to concretise the feeling they have of supernatural realities. Why should we destroy this wonderful power they have of incarnating the feeling for the divine that is within them?

The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches. And that’s why they’re heading for ruin—for science is bound to win. I especially wouldn’t want our movement to acquire a religious character and institute a form of worship. It would be appalling for me, and I would wish I’d never lived, if I were to end up in the skin of a Buddha!

I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing with the religions. These latter must simply be forbidden from interfering in future with temporal matters. From the tenderest age, education will be imparted in such a way that each child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the State. As for the men close to me, who, like me, have escaped from the clutches of dogma, I’ve no reason to fear that the Church will get its hooks on them.

We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.

Published in: on September 22, 2015 at 10:31 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: , ,