web analytics
Alexandria Ancient Greece Ancient Rome Celts Cicero Degeneracy Franks Friedrich Nietzsche Goths Individualism Indo-European heritage Islam Plato Universalism

The Aryan problem

Dear César:

Not all Spaniards think like that. The causes of our decline in the past after the Christianization, and in the present, are due to ourselves. I refer to excerpts published in one of my posts last year:


periander_vat2Already in pre-Socratic times we can see this disregard for a fundamental part of our culture: in the whimsical and superfluous theogonies and cosmogonies of Epicharmus and Pherecydes, which rivaled the traditions collected and transmitted by Homer and Hesiod and confused the people through pseudo-Orphic and Pythagorean preaching about individual souls and religious proposals of “personal” salvation: individualists and universalists. They divided the people and ended up influencing Plato and some philosophers (Xenophanes). Finally, in post-Socratic times, coinciding with the Alexandrian period—culturally chaotic, cosmopolitan—, philosophical ethics circulated from Cynics, Stoics and Epicureans, already fully individualistic and universalist (transnational, stateless doctrines for “all men”) and consistent with the cultural decay of the time. I think that this was a big mistake; this contempt by the Hellenic “intelligentsia” as Nietzsche said. The Greek people lost their right to their autochthonous gods. This “intelligentsia” should have taken care of the native and ancestral legacy.

This attitude just ended up weakening the strength and security that the people had in their own cultural traditions. These traditions, these “worlds” were part of the ancestral collective memory of our people that was devastated, made it like a desert, annihilated by our own philosophers and thinkers. They were in some way responsible for this great loss, for that debacle, for that alienation which resulted in the loss of our cultures when Christianization took over. They neglected their duty, not only the education of the people, but the care and defense of our traditions (our worlds) before the Other. Our people lost their cultural property, or watched it sullied, undervalued, or ridiculed by their own kind.

The thing did not improve in Roman times when the schools of Stoics and Epicureans dominated everywhere in the Empire, and the words of Cato or Cicero could not avoid the dissolution, this disintegration of the cultural symbolic (colectivas) of Greeks and Romans.

The entry of Jewish, Chaldean, Egyptian and Persian sects found a disoriented people; neglected, abandoned, without guidance and their traditions scorned by the “enlightened” classes. They preyed upon the preachers of these sects. It was not only Plato or Christianity. Centuries of neglect and scorn put our people in the hands of these preachers of foreign divinities.

We can do the same reasoning with the traditions of Germans, Celts, Slavs and others. They seemed to be infected by the general attitude that Greeks and Romans had regarding their own cultures, not valued at all. The values, it seems, were elsewhere: in the economic and the military power, or in religions of “personal” salvation coming from the outside, which denoted disintegration and a previous decomposition of these peoples.

Nothing forced the Goths, Lombards, Burgundians and Franks to be Christianized but their greed for power and willingness to take over the remains of the Empire without reflection or discussion of its “ideological” bases, fully Christianized by the 5th century (the century of the Germanic expansions). This was not the case of forced Christianization, centuries later, of the Saxons and Frisians (by Charlemagne), or the politics from the top (the monarchs) as done by the Norwegians (Olaf “The Holy”) and the Slavs (Vladimir, also “The Holy”). The Germans could have been the liberators of Europe, but they put their arms in the service of a foreign faith and an ecclesia (priestly community). This attitude says very clearly how they were indifferent to their own traditions.

It was a betrayal. Our history would have been different if they had remained faithful to the cultural legacy of their ancestors.

Breaking the sacred bonds wrought what it wrought. And from the ominous Christianization of our people we have been suffering this cultural and spiritual alienation that affects us so much; this drift, this going astray, this wandering…

The post-mortem world of the Indo-European cultures has to do with the collective memory of the people. It is a “space” that houses the gods, but also the Fathers, all the ancestors without distinction. This can be seen in the Hittite or Aryan-Vedic world (with Yama, Manu’s brother, and the first mortal); in the Celtic world (remember the original Halloween), or in the Roman world (the Manes). Keeping memory and even worship of the absent, the departed, was part of the education and morals of our ancestors, and was a sign of distinction and nobility against other peoples. The Patricians were those who had Fathers, who kept memory of the Fathers, in the sense already said. Let’s say that this memory was part of the “being” for our Indo-European ancestors.

Forgetfulness or loss of these “spaces” had (and has) bad consequences. Precisely the Christian or Muslim preachers noticed such loss or damaged being; this symbolic amputation among the peoples, and therefore preached (and still preach) their values. The loss or decline or forgetting of these spaces leaves people orphaned and incomplete. This was the picture that the Christian apostles (Jews) found in the area of the Roman Empire: stranded peoples abandoned to their lot; incomplete, empty. They found the right spot to spread their worlds. They found people without “being,” without memory, without identity and already acculturated—by their own kind. Christian acculturation, or later Muslim acculturation, allowed these people to complete their symbolic being—at least spuriously in the outside.

What I’m writing down has a counterpart, a repetition in our contemporary European and Western world. Both are similar circumstances that repeat the cultural deterioration and we see a return to the same religious-cultural “offers”—the everlasting impostors, the usurpers. Not only Christians and the “people of god” (the Hebrew god) lacking a homeland (but with Israel as sacred land), but the “umma”, the stateless Muslim “nation” (though based in Mecca). And also the politicians and the intellectuals: from democratic universalism to proletarian internationalism (Marx’s “workers or proletarians have no fatherland”) to sociologists such as the cosmopolitan Adorno or Marcuse, or Derrida who preaches the philosophy of the philosopher as cosmopolitan and stateless.

It’s the same song again, the same charm, the same lure, the same trap.


You can find similar reasoning in my blogging of the last year (there are 68 pages) and the posts published this year. I would like you to read, at least, those entries.

The subject requires a great deal of debating with the participation of all Aryan nations: a process of self-gnosis that revisits at least our last two millennia, although in my opinion we should start with the cultural deterioration that has its beginning in the pre-Socratic times and reached its climax in imperial Rome (from Caesar on).

Well, César, I don’t take more of your time.



19 replies on “The Aryan problem”

Rodríguez’s views ought to be considered within the context of the long, sometimes depressing odyssey of the race as depicted in Pierce’s book.

I certainly may be wrong but from my vantage point, the only white communities equipped to survive any collapse will be Christian in some form and I suspect they will become far more militant afterwards. That is to say, there will be very little tolerance for these pagan fantasists.

At some point, some should realize that the ‘concept’ of a Man manifest as God (Son, Trinity, etc) is metaphysically too powerful to be done away with. Whether people dislike the shape it has taken, as an idea, it is still superior to the pantheistic ‘nature/personality’ Gods.

This article also seems to assume that there was anything of ‘substance’ before Epicharmus and pals started to corrupt Western civilization.

That is to say, there will be very little tolerance for these pagan fantasists.

“Pagan” is Christian newspeak. Have you read my excerpts of Homo Americanus ?

I have been doing some research into mythology for other reasons and came across this:

Head of the Roman pantheon, sky god and general father figure: Jupiter; archaic Latin: Jovis Pater
Head of the Greek pantheon, sky god and general father figure: Zeus Pater
Head of the Vedic pantheon, sky god and general father figure: Dyaus Pitr
Linguistically reconstructed name of the head of the proto-Indo-European pantheon, sky god and general father figure: Dyeus Phater (hard p sound)
Latin word for “god” typically used in Christianity to refer to the single Christian god: Deus
In the Germanic pantheon, Odin is worshipped as the Allfather (and is a sky god), but there is evidence that Tyr – “Tiwaz” – used to be the figure in that role.
And of course the Christian prayer that begins, “Our father who art in heaven …”

So some of the core concepts in Christianity are just a modified version of the same basic religious concept that has been present in Europeans for about as long as they have been talking. When you add in all the stuff that the early Church outright stole from Mithraism, it starts looking really hard to separate out the pre-Christian nature of things from what it all got turned in to.

I think the starting point must be Alain de Benoist’s description of paganism as being multipolar, of the premise that there are multiple authorities, each equally valid in its own sphere, instead of a single totalitarian one.

I managed to read Manu’s reply and he misunderstands my ‘threat’. This relates to the possible ‘collapse’ and the fact that our current liberal luxuries eg. the ability for everyone to create their own religion through the internet – will also disappear.

Whether Christian or pre-Christian, was Socrates not convicted for speaking against the ‘state’ Religion?

It’s all a little a strange to speak about the sacred traditions of our forefathers? What is correct for a Spaniard to hold sacred? Goth, Roman, Celtic-Iberian, Pre-Indo-European, Vedic, Nordic etc

I do find it disturbing that if a battle were to commence in Europe between Christian and Muslim factions, that many ancestral Europeans would not join the Christian side and thereby, help both Jews and Muslims to further destroy us

It is also thinkable that if a battle were to commence in Europe between Atheist and Muslim factions, that many Christians would hesitate to join the Atheist side. Yes, the triangular nature of the conflict is disturbing.

Well many Christians have already joined the Atheist factions (as Chechar points out in Red Giant). Abortion and divorce laws make any family or Patriarchy an impossibility. The Question is how many numbers do Atheists need before they actually start to help European tradition survive?

If Liberal/Secularism was one outgrowth of Christianity, then Fascism/Nationalism was certainly another. This is beside the point though… For any true counter movement to emerge, it will almost certainly have Fascist/Theocratic elements and many of us will have to swallow our pride when it comes to ‘How it should be’.

“If Liberal/Secularism was one outgrowth of Christianity, then Fascism/Nationalism was certainly another.”

I don’t think so; at least that’s not the message of “The Red Giant”. NS for one was inspired in the pre-Christian mythos of Germanics.

Roger wrote: …was Socrates not convicted for speaking against the ‘state’ Religion?

Socrates, never a champion of democracy, was brought up on charges most likely secondary to his association with the Thirty Tyrants, along with some personal intrigue relating to Antyus, a man dispossessed by the oligarchs, and a man who saw his son fall under the spell of Socrates. Melitus, for his part, may have simply been Socrates’ “Judas.” That is, an insecure man of petty spite, and perhaps one suffering from the fear of knowing that Socrates likely held him in contempt.

Xenophon discusses the charges: Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young.

But Xenophon’s later comment gets to the heart of the matter: [Socrates’] belief [in all matters] differed widely from that of the multitude.

The “multitude” was now the new Athenian democracy, and even in its limited form (that is, limited when compared to the grotesque form of today’s universal democracy) it was able to show a debased and ugly head.

Socrates was a pious man. And he was a citizen. For him it was a high honor to be Athenian, and Greek. Who, today, has civic virtue? Is it even possible, given what the polis has become? The drive for true civic virtue is what makes Golden Dawn, in Socrates’ native land, inspiring.

There is a peculiar trend, stemming probably from Nietzsche, to suppose that Western decline began with Socrates. In the context of who caused what, and who is ultimately responsible for civilizational decline, it is a curious, but nevertheless important question. However it is decided, I believe that Nietzsche, a man who could at times demonstrate penetrating insight, showed at other times, remarkable lack of insight.

I agree with you. Although this blog features Nietzsche as a master of aphorisms and wise epigrammatic statements, on the whole he lacked a sound historical perspective—just as Gibbon lacked knowledge that race is the prism through which we must judge history.

These days for example that I have been rereading Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols I find all too clear that his high praise of Napoleon was misplaced. Nietzsche was totally ignorant of the Jewish question (and therefore he could not condemn Napo’s emancipation of the subversive tribe) even when members of his extended family were perfectly conscious of it.

Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil aside (“the problem of Socrates”, etc), when I talk of “foundations of bicausalism” I have in mind exactly the character of LOTR’s Isildur and the curse that carries One Ring (see e.g., the featured post in WDH, “Wagner’s wisdom”). Since I was born in Mexico the character I have studied the most that incarnates Isildur is Hernán Cortés, the conqueror of the Aztec Empire for whom I feel no respect at all. It was him the one who institutionalized the practice of mongrelization that produced the ethnic horror I see every time I step outside my home in the region that, in Cortés’ time, was the beautiful Tenochtitlan.

Isildur / Cortés fell roundly under the curse of the Ring (chasing after gold; economics over race) and eventually laid the foundations of a culture of non-white “orcs”, something that has been repeating throughout history over and over again, as those who have read Pierce and Kemp know.

Of course: Pierce’s and Kemp’s histories of the white race are just a sort of prolegomena of what, if the race survives, will constitute the more academic and detailed histories we will have in the future. That these more scholarly histories don’t yet exist is proof that white nationalism, as a movement, is only en embryo.

Firstly, a conceptual precision: native or primitive peoples do not have religion, they have culture. At this stage, and up to the emergence of the so-called universalistic religions of salvation (some of Semitic origin, and other Indo-European origin – Hinduism, Buddhism…), the culture of a people is their religion.

Thus, it is not a question of paganism (there was never such a thing), but of pre-Christian Indo-European cultures: Germans, Celtic, Greek, Roman and others. Completely unfortunate is the use of terms such as ‘Pagans’ or ‘new pagans’, which some groups adopt. In these groups is spoken even of ‘pagan marriage’ and similar things. As if Paganism had ever been a religion, a culture or a set of practices.

Incidentally, terms as Pagan, idolatrous, unfaithful, and similar, used exclusively by Jews, Christians, and Muslims to refer to the rest of the cultures, have the function to override or delete the differences between the peculiar and diverse cultures of the world, deny the same entity of such cultures. They are terms negative and destructive. A Christian or a Muslim not culture interested; for these, the world is divided into Christians and pagans or Muslims and unfaithful. There is not, therefore, Armenians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Egyptians, Chinese, Indians and others, but Pagans or unfaithful. These terms are not descriptive, illustrative or informative, of course; say absolutely nothing about the cultures so denominated -when applied to Egyptians and Greeks alike, for example (the only thing they say is that such cultures are not (or were not) Jewish, Christian, or Muslim).

Apply the term ‘pagan’ to the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Chaldeans… to the many ancient peoples of the environment was a way to destroy them; destroy their difference, their particularity; make them indistinguishable. First it had to rename the opponent; blur it, dehumanize it. The result is a confused, amorphous mass without identity, which is what was intended. Against this mass ‘pagan’, and even no-human, the war was done. Then as now.

Nor is it of polytheism, or of religion. Is it of culture, and this term all-encompassing, i.e. all the linguistic-cultural area of a people, its entire symbolic world. The culture of a people is their religion, because it is the culture that binds a people and makes one. We take into account that our age is the age of our culture; we are as old and as wise as she. We were not born yesterday, with Islam; or before yesterday, with Christianity.

Moreover, it is a duty to which we have with our Fathers, with our Manes; the duty to perpetuate his memory and preserve his legacy. And in the fulfillment of this duty is the faithfulness.

“Deserere Patriam” and “Sacrae Patria desererem” (to leave Fathers, defecting from the Fathers) were expressions used by the Romans to refer to those who abandoned the inherited ancestral traditions, and adopted a foreign (was Christianized, for example) -in this consist the unfaithfulness; and there is no others unfaithful that those who do such a thing. The abandonment of his family, his people, their blood, their ancestors… That abandonment, that desertion, this betrayal. That shameful, unworthy, reprehensible act.

It is very sad for me to see as European (and descendants of Europeans) makes war (hot or cold) against their own brethren from the ranks of judeo-messianism and Islamism. And this happens from nearly two thousand years.

I, as a European, assume the traditions of my ancestors be these Greek, Roman, German, Celtic, Slavic, Baltic, or Vedic aryas. And I have them simply by sacred. The blood (and the ‘genius’) of these related peoples runs through my veins.



“I don’t think so; at least that’s not the message of “The Red Giant”. NS for one was inspired in the pre-Christian mythos of Germanics.”

Oh c’mon Chechar. You might want to check out this collection on Nazi Germany at http://www.jettandjahn.com/. Of course they are biased but to say there were no common roots is laughable. Maybe Lib-Sec exploded in NthWest Europe but Italy, Spain, Croatia, Bavaria Germany were all Catholic strongholds.

For Americans (and others), Fascism and Catholicism were intertwined and their destruction was spearheaded by the same forces. But to claim the first 1000 year Reich had nothing to do with the 3rd is clear mis-direction.

But didn’t the Nazis intend to remove the crucifixes from the Bavarian schools? They reconsidered only when the churchmen protested.

The Jesuits may have inspired Himmler and the structure of the SS, granted; but the underlying ethos was more “pagan” than Christian.

A more complete formula:

Individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) + egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) + the Jewish culture of critique in the 20th century = a truly lethal brew for the White peoples.

Comments are closed.