web analytics
Philosophy of history Tom Holland

The Appian way

Christian morality is the seedbed that makes today’s secular West what it is, and for contemporary American racialists the hardest pill to swallow is that their movement has failed because of Christianity. And it will continue to fail unless they become true apostates, not only apostates from Christian dogma but also of the axiological side of Christianity: the so-called secular side. After all, ‘secular’ is just the tricky term St Augustine chose for his theological system, used even in our modern world, when in fact the ‘secular’ and the ‘religious’ have always been two sides of the same cultural coin.

Any racialist movement was doomed from the start, is doomed and will be doomed to failure unless it is understood that Christianity, or more specifically Christian morality, has always been the Devil for the white man. This includes the morality of today’s atheists whose worldview we here call Neo-Christian.

Only by telling us the story of the white race as it really happened in the Greco-Roman world (and here we can think of some essays from The Fair Race), together with elementary historical facts such as the non-existence of Jesus that Richard Carrier talks about, and how the New Testament was authored by Jews as David Skrbina believes, will it be possible to modify the collective unconscious of the white man—especially if we add to that a few pages from Karlheinz Deschner’s Criminal History of Christianity and the history of the Holocaust committed by the Allies, so well described in Tom Goodrich’s Hellstorm. The psychohistorical work of Tom Holland, who has lost faith in traditional Christianity is also pivotal even if, as a typical British liberal, he is our ideological enemy. But let’s use him as a useful idiot!

Holland hit the nail on the head when he said that National Socialism has been the most radical movement since Constantine, especially because it rebels against St Paul’s idea that there is no difference between Jews and Greeks (transformed today in the religious belief that there is no difference between blacks and whites): the original mental virus that caused the inversion of values. Holland also points out that the National Socialists repudiated the very essence of the emblem of the Cross: that a crucified victim is more morally worthy than the crucifying Romans. This idea persists in our times during mass hysteria phenomena such as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots of 2020 surrounding the death of George Floyd when countless whites, even outside the US, bent the knee before primitive negroes in the most humiliating way!

Holland has said in several interviews that the central emblem of Western civilisation, Christ on the Cross (now downtrodden negroes on ‘crosses’) provides a moral framework for understanding the Woke phenomenon. Before reading Dominion, in ‘On empowering carcass-eating birds’ in my book Daybreak I had already said that empowering transgender people was a kind of neo-Franciscanism, in reference to St Francis of Assisi (‘let’s love and kiss the new leper’), and quoted the biblical passage that the last shall be first and the first last. Analogously, speaking about whites bending the knee after the BLM riots, Holland has said that this grotesque self-debasement ultimately goes back to the Gospel narrative of the Passion, ‘to that very, very primal image of a man tortured to death by an oppressive state apparatus: Jesus on the cross.’ Not only at the end of Dominion but in his lectures this London historian has also said that a thoroughgoing rejection of Christianity would allow us to return to the ways of the blond beast. (As axiological enemies of Holland, we would add that the first thing this beast would do will be to drive the millions non-whites out of their lands and punish the recalcitrant as the Romans did in the Appian Way.) In a home interview with a conservative Australian, Holland added:

The modern who has more profoundly and unsettlingly understood just how radical that idea is—how radical the idea that the Cross, of all things, should become the emblem of the new civilisation—, was a man who was not just an atheist but a radical hostile, anti-Christian atheist: Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche said: this is a repellent thing. Nietzsche identified with the power and the glory and the beauty of classical civilisation; and he thought that Christianity, notoriously, was a religion for slaves. And he saw in the emblem of Christ nailed to the Cross a kind of disgusting subversion of the ideals of the classical world: a privileging of those who properly should be ground beneath the heels of the mighty. And he saw it as a kind of sickness that then, it kind of infected the blond beast as he called it: that the primordial figure of the warrior gets corrupted and turned into a monk, a monkish figure who is sick with poverty and sympathy for the poor and the oppressed…

Fascism, I think, was the most radical revolutionary movement that Europe has seen since the age of Constantine because unlike the French Revolution, unlike and the Russian Revolution, it doesn’t even target institutional Christianity: it targets the moral-ethical fundamentals of Christianity. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution are still preaching that idea that the victim should be raised up from the dust and that the oppressor should be humbled into the dust; it’s still preaching the idea that the first should be last and the last should be first just as Christ has done.

The Nazis do not buy into that.

In the post-WWII world westerners culminated the inversion of healthy values that started with Constantine. They enshrined the privileges of the unprivileged and the universality of all human beings—orc immigrants included—because they now live in the shadow of what enshrined the opposite: Hitlerism; and, given their Christian programming, that scares them. As Holland said at the end of another interview, ‘to cling to the idea that, say, racism is the ultimate sin is still for deeply Christian reasons. It’s possible to imagine a different world in which the strong are powerful and in which the world is divided into the civilised and the barbarians because that’s what the Ancient World was like, and that’s what the Nazis enshrined. It’s perfectly possible. The fact that we regard them as abhorrent I think is testimony of how Christian we remain.’

What Angela Merkel did, opening the doors to two million refugees in anti-Nazi Germany, is ultimately an extreme form of following the parable of the Good Samaritan. Always keep in mind that Jesus didn’t exist but that some Jewish rabbis, the mythmakers, wrote the New Testament. No racialist movement that fails to see this can succeed because despite their rabid anti-Semitism racialists continue to, ultimately, obey the Jews who wrote the NT. They are jew-obeyers. They all live, atheists included, under the moral sky bequeathed to us by the mighty archetype of ‘God on the Cross.’ And outside racist forums, the attempt to make not only the dispossessed blacks but poor transexual people the first, and the healthy white man the last, is but the final metastasis of an inversion that began to take root in our collective unconscious as early as the 4th century of the Common Era.

For decades, in my soliloquies I have often said to myself: ‘A fish cannot criticise water.’ We live in a matrix. Without knowing it or recognising it, secular humanists have been swimming in Christian waters since what misleadingly they call the Age of Enlightenment (actually a ‘Dark Enlightenment,’ as some right-wing intellectuals have pointed out). Ultimately this whole issue of ‘human rights’ is nothing more than a transposition to the legal plane of the Pauline ideas that there is no difference between Jew and Greek, woman and man. In the Athenian democracy only the native males of Attica had the right to vote. Neither slaves nor women nor mudblood foreigners could do so. The assumption that we owe modern democracy to the Greeks is false: we owe it to Christian mandates. Furthermore, modern westerners commit what I call, again in my soliloquies, the psychological fallacy of ontological extension. They believe that all cultures share their humanitarian values when not even the ancient Greeks, the Romans or Norsemen did; let alone billions of contemporary Muslims, Chinese or Hindus. In Holland’s words, ‘the conceit of the West is that it has transcended Christianity to become purely universal; purely global, and therefore it can market itself in those terms. But its values, its assumptions, its ethics remain palpably bred of the marrow of Christianity.’

The term catholic derives from the Greek, katholikos. If we translate ‘universal human rights’ into the Greek of the first centuries of our era, we would be talking about ‘catholic human rights’ insofar as catholic means precisely universal in the sense of no longer making distinctions between Jew and Greek, woman and man, slave and free man: all are now equal in the eyes of a Semitic god. Human rights are catholic in this universal sense. Hitler targeted the idea there exists such a thing as universal human dignity, as well as the idea that the first should be last. From his viewpoint, our viewpoint, and I am talking to those who will read Savitri Devi’s Memories and Reflections of an Aryan Woman, or our books Day of Wrath and On Exterminationism, there is no such a thing as rights. Only the moral duty to dispose of the obsolete versions of Homo sapiens. This is the ultimate repudiation of the Christian heritage. And the horror that most westerners feel at the figures of Hitler and Himmler is nothing other than their continued enslavement to the archetype of the Jew on the Cross which they are still unable to exorcize from their psyches, even if this symbolic ‘Jew’ now takes other forms.

If we see Christianity and the French Revolution’s human rights as two sides of the same axiological coin, let us venture to say that the perfect symbol of our counter-revolution would be for thousands of blonde beasts starting to wear T-shirts emblazoned with Himmler’s face while burning churches, crucifying those who tried to destroy their race and wiping their asses with the remains of the pages of the now destroyed Bibles all over the West, but especially in the US. And the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which symbolises the historic inauguration of Neo-Christianity, must be razed to the ground as well.

As Nietzsche would say, Umwertung aller Werte!

15 replies on “The Appian way”

A magnificent article! Virtually the only thing I could add is that the framing of this drama is the total victory of the Aryan race on the planet as of 1914 or 1945. Coupled with the wonders of technology, it has given the Europeans every tool in the shed to carve out their perfect vision of the world.

This is the purest of morality tales, because the Whites were not and are not bound by any geopolitical interests, or by pragmaticism. The sky is the limit. And all they have done with that absolute power is miraculously and suicidally destroy their own empires – first for the sake of Poles and Jews, then women, Negroes and transvestites.

And it’s not like those empires were any good to begin with, Himmlerism-wise – both the British Raj and American Philippines then, and American Iraq and American Afghanistan now grew in population under Western tutelage. But just as with neo-Christianity, the more archaic form was slightly more racist and pagan.

P.S. As I have said before, I do not share Holland’s hope (or fear) that liberalism without its theological Christian foundations might falter. So far, it has only added in speed.

What I say above ties in with the previous thread, that it is not yet time for external jihad but for internal jihad.

White nationalists cannot go guerrilla yet because they don’t even know who the enemy is. If it were only the Jews, there wouldn’t exist the sea of brown people I see on the streets, who were already there at the time of the jew-wise New Spain. As folk of the type of Matthews, Breivik and Tarrant were unable to identify the real Enemy, they didn’t even know who to shoot.

It’s time to become familiar with the literature mentioned in the article, that is, time of internal jihad: the struggle with the inner demon. A tough mental warfare because it’s extremely disturbing to fight against our own parents; that is, against parental and social introjects: the malware installed in our minds (virtually all racialists had either Christian or neo-Christian parents).

Only the priest who is cleansed of these introjects will be able to lead the fight in the real world.

I would like to contribute with something that I partially mentioned before.

Most people today don’t learn their judeo Christians values from church (many of them have parents became atheist) but from popular culture; tv shows, movies and degenerate music.

Isn’t the main plot in jewish movies to prevent death of millions of neanderthals and stop the evil Natzis like antagonists? The last shall be first and first last mantra is present there.

This is how the mythmakers (now comicmakers) were able to inject the youth with the values of the New Testament. (see interesting link here).

If we could do same thing with the content that Caesar has provided here, we could take this internal Jihad to the next level. Competing with the mythmakers with myths of our own.

Mauricio mentioned a great idea of using AI to make graphic novels based on Aryan ideals. That could be a start.

We could help showing the light to many people who are ready to transvaluate their values but are still too confused to do so.

Only a catastrophe of biblical proportions will cause Aryan men to begin to question the dogma. Other than that, only those who have been martyred by their parents to the degree of internal breakdown will question the System’s Weltanschauung. And yet: it is not enough to have been martyred as a teen, since as I said in the other thread, out of a hundred insects that make their cocoons only one comes out winged.

On the other hand, people do get programmed in the church. One of the things Tom Holland observes in one of his videos is that as a child Angela Merkel heard sermons in her church from a preacher who implanted in her the idea that, once in power, moved her to invite two million refugees (I would say: Orcs) to Germany.

[quote]Holland also points out that the National Socialists repudiated the very essence of the emblem of the Cross: that a crucified victim is more morally worthy than the crucifying Romans[/quote]

What Holland (and you) have missed is that this concept was by no means unique to Christianity but was common in a multitude of religious traditions present in prior centuries – whether in the cult of Attis, or the substitution of a jester king in the early Hindu kingdoms, or the scapegoat customs reported among the legions on the Dacian frontier. Christianity refined all this down to its essence, and was successful because it was telling a story that was already present in people’s minds.

If the US federal government were to accuse Elon Musk of putting on a robot suit and personally interfereing in combats in Ukraine, a certain portion of the population would believe it, for the same reason.

The philosophical problem for you with this explanation, of course, is that it depends in no way on the Jews. In fact it is clearly measurable that Jewish mythology – while a primary ingredient of the eventual Christian one – is but another form of the mythologies common to multiple non-Jewish peoples, and the Christian mythology depends only in its surface form on Judaism and would still have substantially the same philosophical outlook had it been derived from one of the other cultures sharing the patterns in question. So I expect you cannot bring yourself to confront these facts. Which in turn will mean you will be unable to contribute meaningfully to solving the problem.

You’ve used multiple sockpuppets in the discussion threads on this site since 2018, so I won’t deign to reply to you (sockpuppets are not allowed here).

The Romanian troll rears his ugly head, trying to exonerate the kikes.
This time he’s making Iron Man references.

There is no philosophical problem.
Jews were integral to the creation of Christianity and it’s many offshoots, Marxism and Bolshevism included.

Even if the Jews were completely blameless in White decline, there is no valid reason why we shouldn’t gas every single one of the fuckers.
Jews are swarthy, ugly, defective non-Aryan sandniggers.
Their mere existence is an affront to Beauty.

Wow, I couldn’t have said it better myself. And what irritates me about white nationalists is that they are not exterminationists (killing them simply because they are not pretty and would potentially stain the Nordic physiognomy if someone mates with them).

Yesterday I saw James Edwards’ keynote at a meeting organised by Greg Johnson, with Kevin MacDonald present. The chasm between a Christian racialist and us is striking. The Christian isn’t allowed to hate. Although Edwards mentioned Jews in the lecture, as I say in the article, people like him are still Jew-obeyers in that only endless hatred saves: starting with hating those who perpetrated the war against Dixie (Edwards is a Southerner, of Confederate descent), let alone those who perpetrated the war against Hitler.

Only hatred can generate the state of mind necessary to reclaim the lands that once belonged only to Aryans. But I don’t see any of that from white nationalists—maybe a little hate here and there in the comments section of their forums, but not from their ringleaders.

I for one unironically hate two things about Hitler – his lack of hope in the future generations (expressed in the quote about his rashness to act when still alive), AND his respect for the Mongoloid race (another quote about them being ancient, etc.).

Of course, that’s strong meat to such an extent that voicing it is effectively turning into a comic book villain. Hence solitude.

One question I could think of is whether the constant pace of Christian revolutions can be compared to what can be gleaned from other cultures – especially the cadence of Chinese empires’ rises and falls. It does seem that the Christian earthquakes tend to focus on shaking the moral foundations of society, as opposed to a corrupt bureaucracy heaving under the barbarians’ blows.

I think it might help to point out that w/ christianity, you have to accept, not just a lot of sadistic, self-depreciating, ideology, but also share your space, society and worldview with the stench of all those fat nigletts packed into urban areas across the world. You want to go hit your knees and beg to a jew-invented god along side some foul disgusting negroess?

Apparently, from the political testament.

“Pride in one’s own race—and that does not imply contempt for other races—is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilisations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilisation to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them.”

Really hard to pinpoint the source, however. It’s apparently The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents, February-April 1945 by L. Craig Fraser (1978).

Or by Genoud:
The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents (February–April 1945). Ed. by François Genoud. Trans. from the German by Col. R. H. Stevens. Introduction by Hugh Trevor-Roper. London, Cassell, 1961.

This particular quote might have been forged by Genoud. Still, there’s barely no acknowledgement of Australia’s existential struggle, for example, and glee at the Japs’ involvement in the war. This cultural attitude of viewing civilised foreigners (Mongoloids) as more desirable than savage foreigners (Africans) was commonplace – see the English admiration for Japan in the early 20th century.

Of course, a proper racist materialistic attitude ought to be the utter opposite thereof – civilised foreigners are more dangerous, hence should be hated more than the savage ones. But it’s casting pearls before the swine.

Really hard to pinpoint the source

Therefore, there’s no reliable source for that!

Certainly, it is good to remember the all-too-common forgeries and fakes. Yet I do recall this another quote – given in a state of affect after December 7th, mind you.

“‘We can’t lose the war at all,’ was his relieved assessment of the situation. ‘We now have an ally which has never been conquered in 3,000 years.'”

Source: [153] Institut für Zeitgeschichte, Munich, ED 100, Diary of Walther Hewel (8.12.41); also quoted in David Irving, Hitler’s War, London, 1977, p. 352.

Quoted in: Ian Kershaw, Fateful Choices (2007).

Granted, the pragmatics of the Reich did work with other Asians – namely, the Jews in the 1930s with the resettlement to Palestine programme, and later with the Arabs (most famously, the Mufti of Jerusalem). There’s something to be said about political expediency… although it’s highly ironic they never attempted to stir a civil war in Russia.

Comments are closed.