In his most recent article what Hunter Wallace doesn’t mention is that the most conspicuous difference between the American racists of yesteryear and the Alt-Right of today is that the latter relapsed into Christian ethics, and by that I even include the secularists like Spencer, Johnson and MacDonald.
That’s why I dislike the term ‘cultural Marxism’ which inherently blames the Jews for the mess. I prefer the term ‘cultural Christianity’. (Ironically, in his discussion with a Negro anchor to describe himself, this term was used by Spencer on mainstream TV.) The big difference between Pierce and the Alt-Right is that the latter still has to revalue its ‘cultural Christian’ values back to Aryan values, beautifully illustrated by Yockey.
On lesser subjects, Wallace wrote: ‘Academics can’t figure out what the Alt-Right is because it is a post-literate discourse that is communicated th[r]ough tweets, images and memes’. I agree but then Wallace adds: ‘The psychopathic hatred of women was also relatively absent from WN 1.0 which generally complained about the lack of women in the movement. The idea that White Nationalists would be talking about creating rape squads would have been considered scandalous a decade ago’.
Wallace misses the point. When Pierce was young, women weren’t as nasty as they are today. I wonder if Wallace and the commenters on his webzine have read my summary of MGTOW, a movement I don’t endorse but which has nailed the women question.
Category: Axiology
Finally, La Santa Furia, the oratorio-opera of my late father, was premiered this Friday, and also today, at the Palacio de Bellas Artes.
La Santa Furia is a tribute to the Dominican Friar Bartolomé de Las Casas. One of the main prelates of the order of the Dominicans crossed the Atlantic, from Rome, to attend the premiere.
After today’s event, at the private banquet with over fifty select guests, I sat at a table with four Catholic priests who attended the opera. Never in my life had I shared the table with so many priests.
About La Santa Furia I have already written a bit on this blog (see e.g.: here) and will expand my criticism in a book. For the moment I would just like to respond to an email that came to me today from a most traditional Christian:
Cesar,
On your blog, you fantasise about burning all Churches to the ground. Did you ever hear Émile Zola’s quote on the issue? ‘Civilisation will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest’.
Of course, I, as a pre-Conciliar Roman Catholic, disagree with you, here. Do we really want to burn down Saint Peter’s—designed by Freemasons Bernini and Michelangelo? Its Egyptian Obelisk? Domed Roof? Do we really want to burn down Pisa Cathedral and other sublime architectural triumphs?
The Notre Dame in Paris was built by Templars. It has the twin towers, of Joachim and Boaz, representing the balance of hatred and love; black and white. Again, this is architecture that contradicts the ‘love your enemies’ slave morality of the Gospels.
A ‘bonfire of the vanities’ would be welcomed by Biblicists and puritans. The Bible—promoting mediocrity in everything—wants you to pray in your closet/inner room. It’s funny that in the KJV, Jesus Christ tells you to go into the closet! The KJV was translated by homosexuals.
I follow the fundamentalist protestants quite closely, and a lot of them only believe in house churches: worshipping Adonai and Messiah at home. Burning a lot of these crypto-Masonic and crypto-druidic edifices would be to play into their hands.
I agree with you: everything derived from Judaism, in Catholicism, needs to be ruthlessly expunged. In the Marcionite version of the myth of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, He shows up, miraculously; in Palestine, condemns Jews, calls for their extermination, and then ascends to Heaven. Crucifixion optional.
Unfortunately, the cause of Marcion did not prevail within the Catholic Church.
C.
Playing into the hands of the Protestants? Hardly: In my little Utopia no Protestant would remain alive.
As to the buildings, even before receiving this letter I had thought about the subject. I would respect the cathedrals, although I would order not to repair them throughout the millenary Reich. With time they would collapse by themselves, in an era when there is no longer any Christian on the face of the Earth.
In the case of St. Peter’s Basilica things are very different. The third article of Nietzsche’s Law against Christianity must be fulfilled: ‘The execrable location where Christianity brooded over its basilisk eggs should be razed to the ground and, being the infamous spot on earth, it should be the horror of all posterity…’
At this point it is necessary to confess something to my readers.
Several times I have said on this site that Day of Wrath is just a selection of Hojas Susurrantes and ¿Me Ayudarás? What I have not clarified with enough emphasis is that these last two books are basically autobiographical, where I tell a family tragedy in which Christianity played a central role. From that family drama, the selection I made for Day of Wrath astutely eluded the tragic narrative. The internet is not the place to tell personal tragedies. (Incidentally, La Santa Furia translated into English reads Holy Wrath.)
The only thing I can say here is that I can only be vindicated with the absolute destruction of Christianity and those I call Neanderthals: something that could only happen posthumously, insofar as I do not have the philosopher’s stone.
But vindication is not only mine. The fate of the Aryan race is closely linked, in a negative way, to the religion of our parents.
Of the living men whose name every pro-white has heard, I only have met two of them personally, both in England. One of them, a traditional Catholic, was not long ago, along with other protesters, in the Jewish quarter of London to protest publicly.
I would never do such a thing. For me it is obvious that the white traitor is worse than the Jew, and that we should focus on the cause instead of the symptom. Without White betrayal there would be no Jews in power. This is even inferred from Rome vs. Judea, as well as in my comments on the Kriminalgeschichte translations. To paraphrase Codreanu, there would be no mosquitoes without the swamps of our sins. Superficially, white nationalists focus on mosquitoes. This site focuses on the swamp.
So instead of going to protest a kike neighbourhood, if I did activism I would do a demonstration never done before in the West. I would do picketing outside the Vatican, or the most important churches in Europe and America, with slogans like Nietzsche’s ‘Transvaluation of all values!’ Or Zola’s quoted above: ‘…until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest!’
No swamps, no mosquitoes. If whites abandoned Christian ethics the JQ would be resolved overnight. In other words: if the tens of thousands of white nationalists were not like Franklin Ryckaert but shared the santa furia of this blog, the non-gentiles would already be trembling.
Obviously I did not say any of these things during today’s meal sitting next to so many priests, including the Dominican who made a special trip from Rome.
I behaved like a saint.
Categories
Neochristian Ryckaert
The commenters on The Occidental Observer are once again talking about metaphysics, this time about a much healthier form of conceiving ‘god’, pantheism, than what the followers of the Abrahamic faiths do.
Franklin Ryckaert’s comment piqued my interest. It demonstrates that secularised racialists cling to Christian ethics:
- Unfortunately Pierce engaged in violent fantasies, not only in his two novels The Turner Diaries and Hunter, but also in his regular American Dissident Voices. I have listened to all his ADV and value most of their contents, but there is hardly any one of them in which he doesn’t fantasize about persons or groups “who should be hanged”. Such fantasies do not help our cause.
- The leadership of the National Alliance has now found its worthy successor in Kevin Alfred Strom, who is as gifted as Pierce and does not engage in violent fantasies.
Gifted as Pierce? You can imagine who will win the racial wars: the Jews and the Muslims who want to kill Aryans, or the white nationalists who still turn the other cheek…
First article.— Western civilisation is under the grip of an anti-white ideology that has been imposed in every white country after the traitorous Second World War.
Second article.—Aryans are being exterminated by genocidal levels of immigration: a wholesale European, North American and Australian population replacement for non-whites.
Third article.—Ergo, the 21st century will be the darkest hour of the fair race.
Fourth article.—Aryans either gain a sense of themselves or they are going extinct. Only an ethnostate will save them from extinction; that is, only complete sovereignty in a Fourth Reich, brought about by the expulsion of non-whites, including Jews, will save whites.
Fifth article.—If the ethnostate is formed, a Constitution may start with the words: We hold these truths to be self-evident: Men are created unequal. All men are unequal—nowhere in the natural world, and Man is part of Nature, is anything equal. Equality does not exist in Nature; only in the abstract world of mathematics and in the minds of delusional humans.
Sixth article.—The Priest of the Fourteen words is an anti-Judeo-Christian law-giver. The first commandment in his tablets of stone is ‘Thou shalt keep thy blood pure’. To avoid miscegenation, another commandment must dictate the necessity of not using non-whites.
Seventh article.—If we now remember Nietzsche’s Law Against Christianity, the rest follows from this…
_________
Page 517 of the forthcoming 2018 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.
What is striking in the recent debate between Andrew Anglin and Carl Benjamin (also known by his YouTube pseudonym, Sargon of Akkad) is Benjamin’s schizoid stance that, yes, white people have the right to exist—but they don’t have the right to reverse the genocidal levels of immigration!
Reason for this schizoid disorder? This secular man subscribes Christian ethics, particularly a secularised version of the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount; Pauline universalism, and an out-group altruism that did not exist before Christianity.
Categories
Pseudo anti-Christians
I am presently reviewing, for the last time, Evorpa Soberana’s text and have little time to deal with Hunter Wallace’s ‘First Things: The Anti-Christian Alt-Right’.
Suffice it to say that the author he cites, Matthew Rose, is wrong to consider ‘Greg Johnson and Richard Spencer as examples of the anti-Christian wing’. I have iterated many times that Johnson has delivered pious Christian homilies at a San Francisco church (his recordings are available online) and Spencer has said in mainstream TV that he is ‘a cultural Christian’.
We have also seen on this site that Spencer and Johnson ultimately subscribe Christian ethics: they are pseudo anti-Christians.
Wallace, a Lutheran, errs when writing, ‘Christianity has long since been dethroned as the dominant culture in the United States’. He hasn’t realised that every Aryan who worships the Jewish god, like as Wallace himself, is ethnosuicidal—see the PDF of Soberana’s text that will be available soon in this blog.
Wallace also said that ‘The Alt-Right shouldn’t get hung up on being anti-Christian because Christianity is infinitely malleable’ and adds several examples of this. As I said, I have no time to rebut his examples but my forthcoming translations of Karlheinz Deschner’s books will show that this Semitic cult has always been noxious for the white race.
Categories
Faith of the Future, 5
by Matt Koehl
V. The Tragedy of 1945
The fall of Berlin to the Eastern hordes in 1945 represents a decisive turning point in the history of the world. Very few have yet grasped its real import, although many have argued the hypothetical possibilities of a different denouement to that fateful conflict. Unfortunately, the scenario was predetermined and involved elements which even superhuman agency could not contain or overcome.
The events of 1945 were in fact, but the concluding scene of a great tragic drama which began on April 20, 1889, when a very remarkable figure made his appearance in this world to herald the start of the second half of human history. But although the birth of this extraordinary personality signals the beginning of a new age, his earthly work was constrained by exigencies under an Old Order.
And it is here that the element of tragedy is introduced. For he came into the world during a historical cusp—during the period when one order is dying and another has yet to be born—which foredoomed all of his finest efforts and precluded the possibility of a fulfillment of his Idea during his mortal lifetime.
It is perhaps the greatest of historical ironies that it was Adolf Hitler, the father of a new age, who offered the West its last opportunity for resuscitation and renewal. By infusing new spirit into the old civilization and by defending its major institutional forms—as the Führer proposed—it is conceivable that the Old Order might have been able to protract its historical life, perhaps even for another millennium.
It was not to be, however. The decay was too advanced. In its diseased and delirious condition, the West rejected the one hand which could have rescued it from impending death.
Beyond that, however, the contradiction between the values of the Old and the New was simply too great. In the final analysis, these values were mutually exclusive. And so the Second World War was, in fact, a “war against the West,” as critics of National Socialism have charged. It represented a titanic struggle between the Old and the New. Unfortunately, the entrenched forces of the Old—even in their decadent and moribund state—proved momentarily too formidable for the incipient New.
It must be noted here—and this is not without significance—that the Third Reich, the provisional state of the New, was itself heavily and fatally infected by ideas and elements carried over from the Old. The New had not completely prevailed against the Old. For that it had hardly had time; in fact, it had barely begun. The very nature of its introduction, which was dictated by the political and social realities of contemporary Germany, involved a gradual, evolutionary transition from the Old to the New, rather than violent upheaval—something which would have been neither feasible nor justifiable under existing historical circumstances.
In consequence, however, we find that by the outbreak of war in 1939, old thinking, old attitudes, old habits and old interests continued to persist in many quarters of German society. The new ways were still far too tenuous. Not even the space of a single generation had been granted for the introduction of necessary radical change, with the result that the new thinking and new attitudes which could have produced the extra margin of revolutionary morale to effect a different sequel never had an opportunity to develop properly.
Thus, the outcome of this tragic drama could not have been other than what it was. Fate had chosen the time and the place and had set the stage, and events proceeded in their appointed manner. Yet even this cataclysmic tragedy—with the immolation of its godlike protagonist and his martyr people—was historically necessary for two reasons:
- First, it resulted in a decisive blow to the Old Order, a mortal blow from which it can never recover and which assures its disappearance from the stage of world history; and
- Secondly, by clearing the field, it has served to release the new Movement from any lingering constraints, inhibitions or commitments with respect to the Old—thus enabling it to acquire the necessary freedom for the fulfillment of its revolutionary mission. This is particularly important to consider, for not only was 1945 a watershed in the larger history of the world; it was a great divide in the development of the Movement as well. A phase which had been essentially political and military now became spiritual—yes, even religious.
Militarily and politically, National Socialism stood defeated in 1943—completely. Had it represented merely a political or military structure, it could not have survived the collapse. The Idea of Adolf Hitler, however, was more than just political or military. It was above all spiritual—and spiritual ideas cannot be broken by brute force or military means alone. And yet, military might and physical compulsion were the only resources at the disposal of the Old Order, morally and spiritually it was bankrupt. And so its apparent defeat of National Socialism in reality proved to be something quite different.
For in the contest, the new Idea had lost none of its integrity—its inner substance—but remained spiritually undefeated, awaiting only the proper moment to make its reappearance. Indeed, it was precisely in this vital area that it proved itself stronger than ever.
Unimpeded by expedient—i.e., political—considerations of any kind, it was now completely free and unfettered to pursue its high destiny. Out of the crucible of the most horrible suffering and hardship, a Movement had emerged—inwardly purged, perfected in its faith, fortified, steeled and infinitely more conscious of its holy mission on this earth.
As we now move further into the future, we begin to perceive the faint outline of an awesome design: Adolf Hitler and his people had to sacrifice themselves so that the wonderful, new Idea could one day be reborn in exalted form as a glorious beacon and symbol for embattled Aryan mankind everywhere.
That was the purpose and essence of their heroic, Olympian struggle. And it is now upon this sacred foundation—one forged and hallowed in the flames of monumental tragedy—that a regenerate Movement must build, and in so doing give eternal meaning to the precious blood sacrifice of those martyred millions, representing a higher humanity, who fell with the faith of a new age in their hearts.
by Evropa Soberana
Appendix to the second chapter:
Nietzsche on the conflict ‘Rome v. Judea’
The two opposing values ‘good and bad’ and ‘good and evil’ have fought a fearful battle on earth for thousands of years…
The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called ‘Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome’. To this point there has been no greater event than this war, this posing of a question, this contradiction between deadly enemies.
Rome felt that the Jew was like something contrary to nature itself, its monstrous polar opposite, as it were. In Rome the Jew was considered ‘convicted of hatred against the entire human race’. And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values—to Roman values…
The Romans were indeed strong and noble men, stronger and nobler than any people who had lived on earth up until then or even than any people who had ever been dreamed up. Everything they left as remains, every inscription, is delightful, provided that we can guess what is doing the writing there.
By contrast, the Jews were par excellence that priestly people of resentment, who possessed an unparalleled genius for popular morality. Just compare people with related talents—say, the Chinese or the Germans—with the Jews, in order to understand which is ranked first and which is ranked fifth.
Which of them has proved victorious for the time being, Rome or Judea?
Surely there’s not the slightest doubt. Just think of who it is people bow down to today in Rome itself as the personification of all the highest values (and not only in Rome, but in almost half the earth, all the places where people have become merely tame or want to become tame): in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess—in front of Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet maker Paul, and the mother of the first-mentioned Jesus, named Mary.
This is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered.
(On the Genealogy of Morality, sections 1, 15 and 16.)
Categories
Greg & Styx
I am relocating this entry I had posted yesterday—:
Further to ‘Alt-Right vs. the sceptics’. I have heard part of two more audios with Greg Johnson: the one about Carl Benjamin (‘Sargon of Akkad’ in the YouTube subculture) and an exchange with a vlogger who uses the ridiculous pseudonym of Styxhexenhammer666.
Even if I could talk fluent English I’d never debate the Alt-Lite: they’re goners far from my left. I can only punch those on my immediate left (including Greg). However, those who are at my immediate left, like Richard Spencer and Johnson, may be winning the debates against those at my far left; and therefore could be considered stepping-stones towards our side.
—because exercising on my stationary bicycle this morning I listened fifteen more minutes of the Greg/Styx exchange. What is really notorious is that both, white nationalist (Greg) and civic nationalist (Styx) thoroughly subscribe Christian ethics. They’re perfect examples of what in this blog we have been calling ‘secular Christians’: both seem to be more concerned about not using violence on non-whites in the formation of the ethnostate than on the survival of their race.
This is typical of atheists, that I call secular Christians.
I also removed the link to one of my recommended articles on the sidebar (a link beside of which I had recently added Alice’s white rabbit little pic), ‘A postscript to Dies Irae’ because it is too strong meat for the newcomer. But yesterday a friend called to my attention ‘The White Man’s Destiny’ he found on /pol/ that sharply contrasts with Greg & Styx’s Neo-Christianity:
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures
This is exactly what we should be striving for. A highly militant, exclusionary, technocratic meritocracy built around the ideas of radical Traditionalism.
A society hell-bent on expansion and the preservation of one’s own kind and culture, at the detriment of all others.
This is the only natural, sane response to a world filled with sub-human filth and degenerate untermensch whose only goal in life is the extermination of everything just and pure.
We tried to give the Other its chance.
We bent over backwards accommodating them; we shared our technology, our art, our literature, our accomplishments; we educated them, fed them, allowed entire broods of them to settle in our ancestral lands; we humbled ourselves, apologizing for imaginary slights and groveling at their feet for the perceived transgression of taming this planet and bringing the torch of civilization to the world—and for what? All our efforts were rewarded with scorn, hatred, jealousy, and outright malevolence.
We need a new system—something more noble than the petty mercantile aspirations of Semites; something greater than the slave-like morality imposed upon us by alien religions.
A society built on unshakeable, indelible foundations, woven from our own racial stock and governed by the guiding light of Apotheosis: that driving, all-consuming framework of beliefs that the White Man is his own God, that he is God, the keeper of his own destiny—noble by birth, master by choice, tyrant by need, and ruler by right! We tamed this world once, and we can do it again.
But first, we must burn the heretic, kill the mutant, and purge the unclean.
And then, when we’ve freed ourselves of weakness, empathy, remorse, and guilt, when the last sub-human has been cleansed from Terra, and the last trace of their existence purged from this planet, we’ll ascend to the stars, and make them our own—and the galaxy will tremble.
This… is Our Destiny.
Let’s say we are Germanophiles. We want Nordic imperialism and we want to liquidate every other culture that is not Nordic, after all.
I believe if a person doesn’t identify this way they are not seriously pro whites. Unfortunately most of the white nationalists are Russophiles.
Other problem: most of the identitarian and European nationalists are not even racists. They just want to be separated but don’t believe in superiority and are fans of Alexander Dugin.