The PDF of Revilo Oliver’s article
on Christianity is now available here.
Categories
Category: Christendom
Categories
Xtianity:
A religion for sheep, 3
by Revilo P. Oliver
Published by Liberty Bell Publications in 1980,
under Oliver’s nom de guerre Ralph Perier.
God’s race
The Fathers of the Church got down to work near the end of the second century, when, incidentally, the Emperor in Rome, although he bore a Roman name, was a man from northern Africa, probably of mixed Semitic and Berber ancestry, whose native language was Punic, a Semitic dialect. Their overriding purpose, to judge from the results, was to preserve and protect the Jewish connection, which the Marcionites and other “heretics” had threatened.
When the Christians started scribbling gospels around the middle of the second century, they produced a very large number, and the composition of gospels to suit the whims or ambitions of would-be holy men went on through most of the next two centuries.
From such compositions, the Fathers of the Church collected and selected their favourites, making such revisions as they deemed expedient and probably composing supplements. These they eventually put together into a small anthology, which they called a “New Testament” and thus indissolubly joined to the Jews’ story book, which they called an “Old Testament.” The final selection of pieces for the anthology is said to have been made in 367 by Athanasius, a particularly bull-headed holy man, who is still revered for his services in establishing the incomprehensible doctrine of a three-in-one-god, of which Jesus was 33%. His authority made it thenceforth impossible to compose new gospels with any chance of implanting them in the canon he had established. Thereafter, revision of the stories about Jesus was limited to short interpolations and verbal substitutions.
A Christian artist’s conception of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, which had secured the official endorsement of Roman Emperor Constantine, and which served to marginalize the many Christian sects (and their innumerable gospels) which had been competing with the “Fathers of the Church” — and set the stage for their persecution.
The effect of this combination of “Testaments” was to impose on Christians, under pain of eternal damnation, the odd belief that, throughout the greater part of human history, the Jews were the Chosen People of a terrible and truculent god, who savagely and often capriciously afflicted the lower races when they did not cravenly submit to his Master Race. To be sure, the Jews temporarily alienated his affections when they crucified one-third of him, but Christian doctrine assures us that God will eventually “change their hearts” and they will come flocking back to Jesus. (No one seems to worry about the morality of changing a man’s mind by a psychological process that must resemble hypnosis.) In the meantime, God still loves his erring children, even though they worship only a third of him, and they must be preserved for the coming miracle of their reconciliation with daddy.
Another consequence of the Fathers’ convenient doctrine is that the Jews were God’s Race until a date that Christians now set at sometime between A.D. 29 and 34; thereafter, they became a religion, since Jews who have been laundered in holy water miraculously cease to be Jews.
The effect of this paradox was to make Christianity seem anti-Jewish and therefore attractive to all the goyim who resented their exploiters, while preserving for the Jews their prestige as a wonderfully “righteous” and “god-fearing” people, who had long been the intimates of the Christians’ own god.
Of the many advantages that Christianity conferred on the Jews, none was greater than the privilege of masquerading as a religion and thus concealing their race. It ensured them the protection of both church and state as they rapaciously amassed wealth in mediaeval Europe. One has only to ask oneself what would have happened, had Chinese or Malays swarmed into the cities to set up their enclaves (ghettos) to monopolise commerce, practise usury, and control finance. Even more important, it gave them perpetual access to the seats of power.
We are told that Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492. Nonsense! By that time, Jews were safely and immovably ensconced in every important segment of Spanish society as “converts.” A century later, one-third of the archbishops in Spain and of the higher clergy was composed of Jews who practised Christian rites in public and privately snickered at the stupidity of the goyim. Toynbee estimates that Jews formed about the same proportion of the nobility. And no one need be told that a tightly cohesive third of any organisation has effective control of it. The Inquisition, to be sure, caught a few of the marranos who were careless or inept in their dissembling, but that served to reassure and pacify the populace.
Edward I banished the Jews from England in 1290, and we are told that England was Judenfrei until they swarmed in (with their money-bags) under Cromwell. No one, I believe, has tried to compute how many Jews, in keeping with the immemorial tactic of their race, had themselves sprinkled with the Christians’ magic water, took English names, and tried not to laugh at the British in public. And one can only guess how much the masqueraders had to do with the rise of Puritanism, a brand of Christianity that was primarily based on the “Old Testament,” and the revolution that placed in power fanatics who, for example, made the observation of Christmas illegal.
Christians today wax irate when they are shown translations of certain passages in the Jewish Talmuds, which are said to prove how much the Jews hate Christianity. It is true that there are pejorative references to Jesus of Nazareth, who was certainly one of the christs who contributed to the composite figure in the “New Testament.”
No one seems to notice that the Talmuds speak as pejoratively of the last of the important christs in antiquity, of whose Jewish orthodoxy there can be no question.
Assuming the name Bar-Kokhba, he caught thousands of the Greeks and Romans off guard and butchered them, and he carried on a guerrilla war of terrorism for almost three years until the Roman legions gave proof that Yahweh had again forgotten to send celestial reinforcements to help His People exterminate the goyim. Nevertheless, the Talmudists denounce him bitterly, even changing his assumed name from Bar- Kokhba (“the son of the star”) to Bar-Koziba (“the son of the liar”). The Jews hate him and asperse his memory because he failed.
Theologians who are concerned to show Christians how much the Jews hate their religion translate as “Christians” or “Christianity” some or all of a dozen words and phrases in Rabbinic, of no one of which is the meaning so indubitable that the Jews cannot quibble about it. It would be a waste of time to quibble with them. The Jews do feel contempt for persons who believe the Christian tales, and they do hate our race, which is probably meant by those words and phrases which are not merely synonyms of goyim, their general term for races and peoples who perversely refuse to recognise the vast superiority of the Jews.
Categories
Xtianity:
A religion for sheep, 1
by Revilo P. Oliver
Published by Liberty Bell Publications in 1980,
under Oliver’s nom de guerre Ralph Perier.
OUR contemporaries are coming to a radically new understanding of the Jewish problem. One by one, and independently of one another, several of our best minds have re-examined the historical record or analysed the forces that are today driving our race to suicide. And each of them has come spontaneously to the conclusion that Christianity was a Jewish invention, devised for the specific purpose of enfeebling and paralysing the civilised peoples of the world, on whom the Jews were preying in antiquity and have preyed ever since.
A century ago, Nietzsche perceived that our civilisation, although it seemed to have an absolute mastery of the whole world, was infected by a degenerative disease, a cancer of the spirit that would destroy it, if our people did not have the intelligence and the fortitude to excise the malignancy. He came to the conclusion that Christianity was a “transvaluation of values,” a mental virus cunningly invented and propagated by the Jews to implement “Jewish vengeance and hatred, – the deepest and sublimest hatred in human history.” Our contemporaries, whether or not they have read the Genealogy of Morals, reason largely from events that have occurred or from historical evidence that became available since Nietzsche’s day. They come to substantially the same conclusion.
The origins of Christianity are extremely obscure. No historical record of its beginnings has survived, and scholars can only draw deductions from the earliest historical references to it and inferences from its confusing and incoherent mythology.
One thing is certain. Christianity was originated by Jews and based on oral traditions about one or, more probably, several of the Jewish agitators and miracle-mongers who bore the extremely common Jewish name of Jesus and called themselves christs. The word ‘christ’ comes from a Greek word that means ‘oil, grease,’ but which was used in the Jews’ uncouth dialect of Greek to mean ‘a messiah,’ that is, a man appointed by the Jews’ tribal god to lead his Chosen barbarians to a definitive victory over the civilised peoples, whom they implacably hated. One of the cleverest tricks of the Fathers of the Church in promoting their cult was to give to non-Jews the impression that ‘christ’ was the name of a person, and even to this day many Christians ignorantly believe that their god was a man who was baptised “Jesus Christ.”
Nietzsche saw that successful promotion of Christianity depended on a pretence of reciprocal hostility between Christians and Jews. It depended on making the Jewish cult, when peddled to the goyim, seem non-Jewish and even anti-Jewish. “Was it not,” he asked, “a necessary feature of a truly brilliant politics of vengeance, a far-sighted, subterranean, slowly and carefully planned vengeance, that Israel had to deny its true instrument publicly and nail him to the cross like a mortal enemy, so that ‘the whole world’ (meaning all the enemies of the Jews) might naively swallow the bait?” This policy, however, produced an unexpected backlash, which was only with difficulty brought under control.
It would take a volume even to summarise the scandalous and scabrous history of Christianity from its known beginnings around the middle of the second century to the triumph of a particularly shrewd and aggressive sect in the fifth century. There were hundreds of sects, each with its own bundle of gospels, peculiar doctrines, and adroit theologians, but among them there were dozens of sects that took seriously the purported antagonism of the Jews to the new religion.
One of the earliest of the Christian sects of which we have some record, and for almost two centuries one of the largest, was the Marcionites. It is noteworthy, by the way, that until quite recently, the earliest extant inscription from a Christian church came from a Marcionite church that was built in 318 and, of course, destroyed when the victorious sect got the power to persecute.
The Marcionites believed that the Jews were “the synagogue of Satan.” They denied that their Jesus had been a Jew. They saw that it was preposterous to claim that an incarnate god could die or would foolishly have himself crucified. They held that it was outrageous to identify the supreme god, who was a just god and loved all mankind, with the capricious, ferocious, and highly immoral god described in the Jews’ story-book, which Christians now call “the Old Testament.” The Marcionites naively thought those stories historical, but regarded them as a chronicle of the crimes perpetrated by the Jews and their supernatural accomplice, a much inferior deity whose abused power the supreme god had justly revoked. Other Christian sects took the logical step of frankly identifying the Jews’ god with Satan. This plausible identification commended itself to goyim who had to live with Jews and suffer their depredations.
We have no means of estimating numbers, but it is possible that early in the third century, taking the numerous sects as a whole, a majority of the Christians repudiated the notion that the wily Jews were God’s People and that the Jesus who was divine could have been a Jew. The anti-Jewish sects, however, appear to have thought of themselves as merely religions and to have believed what was said in their scriptures about love, faith, and peace. Content to believe certain dogmas and to observe rules that would assure them postmortem bliss, they seem to have had no interest in political intrigue and conspiracy, for which they had no talent. So they eventually fell victims to a gang of crafty, ruthless, and tightly-organised theologians, who are now known as the Fathers of the Church and given a prominence they cannot have had in their own time, when they must have appeared to be just another clique of salvation-hucksters.
When the Fathers of the Church finally got their hands on the police powers of the state, doubtless with much covert help from the Jews, they extirpated the anti-Jewish Christians with fire and sword, the natural instruments of Christian love as understood by ambitious holy men. Despite all the pious massacres in the fifth century, the anti-Jewish “heresy” has reappeared from time to time in later ages. It is found today in certain “fundamentalist” churches and, most clearly, in the group of loosely affiliated sects called “British Israel,” whose members probably have never even heard of the Marcionites or their other ancient precursors.
“British Israel” may be another ploy that backfired. It began in England at the time when Disraeli was crawling up to the British Prime Ministry and peerage. In its original form, it taught that the “ten lost tribes” supposedly taken captive by the Assyrians had been Anglo-Saxons, who migrated en masse from Assyrian territory to the British Isles. A handsome genealogy was concocted to show that Queen Victoria was a lineal descendant of a bandit chief named David. It followed, therefore, that God’s Own People, to-wit, the Anglo-Saxons and the Jews, reunited at last after many centuries, should jointly rule the world. That notion, however, imposed too great a strain on even Christian credulity.
Bizarre “geneology” issued by a “British Israel” group; many of their claims are now echoed by “Christian Identity” churches.
Today, the “British Israelites” accept the story that the “ten tribes” were Anglo-Saxons or, at least, Nordics, and hot-footed it from Assyrian territory to the British Isles or, at least, northern Europe. They further claim that the Jesus of Holy Writ was an Aryan, despite his distinctively Jewish name and the distinctively Jewish (or conceivably Egyptian) name of his supposed mother. They rely principally on some of the early Christian forgeries which explicitly describe that Jesus as having had blue eyes and blond hair and beard. They do not use, and seem not to know, the tradition, attested as early as any of the other Christian tales, that one of the Jesuses was the son of a Jewess by a soldier named Pandara/Panthera, who probably was not a Jew and could well have been a Macedonian or other Greek in a Seleucid or Roman army.
We must feel a considerable sympathy for the “British Israelites” of the present. They candidly recognise the Jews as the eternal enemies of our race. They are the best of the Christians and are making a valiant effort to free their religion from its Jewish trammels and make it conducive to the survival of our race. Unfortunately, their doctrine is historically preposterous and, what is even worse, demoralising. It makes our race the accomplices and beneficiaries of the ferocious god, Yahweh, who, according to the “Old Testament,” helped his pets swindle, plunder, torment, and butcher their betters in Egypt and Canaan.
On Friday I posted a 13-minute segment of a video under the title ‘Transvaluing Cross’ about a recent interview with Tom Holland. Now I’d like to embed the full interview, which lasts more than an hour:
At minute 11 Holland says something that explains secular Christianity:
‘If you are hostile to Christianity in the West, almost certainly you will be hostile to Christianity because of deeply Christian reasons’ (my emphasis).
Now that I’ve watched the full interview, I’ve noticed something that Holland fails to notice. When he talks about Roman sexuality during the Roman Empire he says that it was ruthless compared to our morality. But like any normie, Holland doesn’t know he’s talking about the decadent Roman Empire, not Republican Rome. Anyone who wants to learn about Aryan customs and habits when it comes to marriage should read what Tacitus said about the ancient Germans, or what Eduardo Velasco wrote about Spartan marriage.
Quite apart from that flaw, the interview is excellent for understanding the POV of this site, The West’s Darkest Hour. Holland explains admirably how Christian ethics transmuted into the civil rights preached by Martin Luther King, and the sexual ‘liberation’ that reigns today including the ‘rights’ of transgender people.
Nevertheless, ‘although progressives are deeply Christian’ says Holland, ‘for the first time in American history they are not acknowledging that’.
Categories
Transvaluing Cross
Categories
Bob vs Jews
You might get a headache after watching this video but the Christian proves our point!
Bob’s main argument was that throughout the Middle Ages Christians didn’t try to expel the Jews from their kingdoms permanently (e.g., Edward I / Oliver Cromwell). It’s fascinating that the red-headed Jew, after the 16th minute, tried to give an example to try to refute Bob the Christian. The Jew said that they were expelled from Jerusalem after the wars against Rome. But that was before Constantine! Those who prohibited the Jews from entering Jerusalem were the so-called ‘pagan’ emperors after the Rome vs Judea wars!
The Christian is right: the medieval kingdoms, before the Enlightenment, were comparatively tolerant of the Jews because they always expected that they would convert. In other words: without Constantine and the subsequent Christian emperors, intolerance against the Jews would have taken its natural course.
Let’s imagine the opposite case: that the Church had eradicated Judaism and, conversely, had tolerated what they called ‘paganism’. What would the world be like today? There would certainly be no Jewish problem! The way this Christian preacher, Bob, proves our point is impressive.
Even more fascinating is that after the 22-minute mark, Bob admits that the whole argument started (earlier) when he was arguing with a white nationalist. Unlike him, Bob sees nothing wrong with black people in the West cohabiting with us. The preacher yelled to the multitudes: ‘The Christian worldview has always been multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multi-national’ (exact moment: here).
Wow! What a way to expose Christianity!
Do you understand my claim now as to why the Christian Problem encompasses the Jewish Problem? Later Bob, when discussing with the other Jew said, ‘Do you know that the first Christians were all Jews?’ And then he says that the first edict of tolerance for the Jews was issued by Constantine in the year 315 (those who worshipped the true Gods wouldn’t have done such a thing)! But a few seconds later he says something that is not true: that there was always a place for pagans in Christianity. (Like the racial right folk, Bob ignores what Constantine, his successors—except Julian—and the bishops with Semitic blood did with those who worshipped Aryan Gods.)
Do you finally understand the concept of the transvaluation of Christian values (what Heydrich attempted)? When we think like him and not like Xtian nationalists, the Jewish problem will be solved—and the black problem, and the Hispanic problem, etc.
Categories
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Notre-Dame de Paris is a novel by Victor Hugo, published in 1831, that focuses on the unhappy story of Quasimodo, the gipsy Esmeralda and the archdeacon Claude Frollo in 15th-century Paris. Its elements—medieval setting, impossible loves, and marginalised characters—make the novel a model for the literary themes of Romanticism.
Hugo’s book opens with a popular celebration of the Epiphany of 1482 at the Palais de Justice. The play introduces us to Esmeralda, a gipsy dancer, Quasimodo, a deformed young hunchback who is in charge of the bells of Notre Dame Cathedral, and the archdeacon Claude Frollo, the bell-ringer’s foster father.
Esmeralda, thanks to her great physical beauty, attracts the poet-student Pierre Gringoire and Captain Febo de Châteaupers, but also Claude Frollo, who decides to kidnap her. Frollo then orders his protégé Quasimodo to kidnap her.
The intervention of Captain Phoebus de Chateaupers prevents the kidnapping from taking place and leads Quasimodo to be condemned to public torture. The hunchback is flogged in the square and receives all the hatred and insults of the people, who cruelly despise him for his ugliness. Quasimodo asks for water and Esmeralda climbs the scaffold to quench his thirst.
I don’t want to tell the whole story but I do want to point out that at midnight I modified the post about my 50 recommended films, reversing the order of the first two, for reasons I am about to explain.
Since the films on my list are arranged in order of their release, before the midnight change, I had The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) as #2, and Frankenstein (1931) as #1. But yesterday, when I started watching the 1939 film after half a century of not seeing it, I detected some terrible messages from its opening.
It didn’t take me long to discover that the director was born into a German family of Ashkenazi Jews and that he even returned to Germany after the Allied dogs won the war!
Fifty years ago I had seen this 1939 film in black and white with my family on television, and both my sisters and I loved it (some of Hugo’s high culture is reflected in this adulterated version of the novel).
Since then I had not seen it again: I only remember that as a child I was impressed by the story. But yesterday when I started watching it again, after so long, I realised, as I just said, that the movie starts with bad messages.
In Paris, there is a new order preventing the passage of gipsies. True, the director cast mudblood actors to play them, but typically in Hollywood (and we’re talking about 1939!) he artfully chose an Aryan actress to play the gipsy Esmeralda, and has the King of France say ‘Who cares about her race, she’s pretty’.
This 1939 film has scenes too burlesque for my taste today (how I have changed since I saw it fifty years ago!) and the Christian piety in Notre Dame couldn’t be missing: ‘Please, help my people’ says the Nordic actress playing Esmeralda when referring to the mudblood gipsies while the French ask Providence for riches in their prayers. Surrealism reaches the viewer when the movie’s bad guy, Claude Frollo, says ‘You come from an evil race’ to the Aryan actress posing as a gipsy.
I stopped watching the film at that point and started watching the original film of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I mean the one from 1923: a film that, this year, has just turned 100 years old!
Now this is the one that is at #1 on my list not because it is very good, but because it has historical value for connoisseurs of cinematic art. This 1923 film is silent, although they added some music to it and it can now be seen, complete, in a colourised version on YouTube.
Although Esmeralda, in this century-old film, isn’t as Aryan as the other, in this version it is explained at the outset that her whiteness is due to the fact that she was born in a high cradle and, as a child, had been abducted by gipsies.
Naturally, being a hundred years old, the film is closer to theatre or operatic scenes than to the cinema that followed, once the human voice was technically synchronised with the soundtrack. That would revolutionise the Seventh Art.
I don’t want to get too much into the film from the point of view of the sacred words. That would mean messing directly with Victor Hugo—and that would mean another entry: an entry of literary criticism rather than cinematic criticism. Suffice it to say that baby Quasimodo wouldn’t have been allowed to live in Sparta, and that Hugo is right that Notre Dame reflects the soul of France which, unlike the teen I was half a century ago, is no longer the soul that interests me. (My surname, ‘Tort’, comes from France and Catalonia and my ancestors were devoted to Notre Dame of Lourdes.)
– For the context of these translations click here –
The emperor, the clergy and the imperial unity
Louis the Pious was even more accommodating to the clergy than his father, and the many historians who call him devout, clerical and prudish are quite right. Already at the beginning of his reign, the young monarch renewed all the ordinances that had been issued in the time of his predecessors in favour of the Church of God. For this, he relied almost exclusively on clerics, mostly ‘Aquitanians’, of whom Bishop Thegan, a personage well acquainted with the emperor, said that ‘he trusted his counsellors more than necessary’.
The one who probably became the emperor’s most important adviser was the Visigoth Witiza, whom he greatly revered, with his programmatic monastic name of Second Benedict, and who was the son of the Count of Maguelonne, one of the dreaded swordsmen. In any case, this Benedict educated in the courts of Pippin III and Charles I (his feast is celebrated on 11 February), took part as a good Christian—a ‘good Christian’ certainly, as well as a ‘great soldier’—in the military campaigns of Pippin and Charles, before the tragic death of his brother pushed him to wear the monastic cowl. But he failed again and again in his ascetic career. He left the monastery of Saint-Seine in Dijon because he found it too lax. Then, at his father’s estate of Aniane in Montpellier, he drove away his first disciples with his rigorism. He then professed the monastic rules of Pachomius and Basil, because he found the Rule of Benedict of Nursia useful only ‘for weaklings and beginners’. But when he again entered into a vocational crisis, he extolled the Rule of Benedict of Nursia, which he reviled as the only valid norm for a monastic existence.
But one can hardly speak of weakness in the Benedictine Rule. When monks were rebuked by a prelate, they had to prostrate themselves at his feet until he permitted them to rise. And if a monk ran away, Benedict ordered him to be dragged back with his legs locked and whipped. The saint also ordered to have a prison in every monastery, and the monastic prisons of the Middle Ages were barbarous, and the conditions of existence in them were extremely harsh, for imprisonment ‘was equivalent in its consequences to corporal punishment’. (Schild). Moreover, this monastic reform ‘always contained a touch of bitterness against human science and culture’ (Fried).
Abbot Benedict of Aniane—to whom Louis first entrusted the Marmoutier Abbey in Alsace and then, very close to Aachen, the monastery of Inden (Kornelimünster), a new foundation generously endowed with crown goods, a kind of model abbey in the whole empire—spent much more time at court than at his monastery. The sovereign went there frequently anyway, and so he was given the name of ‘the Monk’. Benedict, who ruled over all the Frankish abbeys, remained until his death (821) the key man at court, where he dealt with trifles, memorials and complaints as well as important and serious matters, advising the emperor above all on the vast politico-ecclesiastical reform begun in 816.
The reform movement of the abbot, inspired by the Rule of Benedict of Nursia, aimed at the formation of a single Christian people out of the numerous peoples of the empire—which corresponded exactly to state policy. It sought to make Christianity the basis of all public life; moreover, it wanted to establish the Civitas Dei on earth: one God, one Church, one emperor, whose office always counted within the Church more than any ministry conferred by God. The prelates were therefore strongly interested in the unity of the empire, and their leaders passionately defended the idea of such unity. But they were in no way primarily interested in the empire, but in the Church, with the benefit of the Church foremost in their minds.
Benedict’s monastic reform, his ‘principle of one rule,’ affected not only monastic life, the so-called spiritual affairs. At least as important, if not more so, was the ecclesiastical patrimony. The emperor did not want it to be divided or diminished either in his reign or in that of his successors. He also forbade the already long flourishing soul-hunting, the luring of children into the monastery with flattery to gain their fortune, thus prohibiting a practice which had been in vogue since ancient times and which is still practised today, namely the disinheritance of relatives in favour of the churches.
Categories
Editor’s preface
(pages 9-10 of the forthcoming Savitri’s book)
When Savitri Devi wrote the foreword that follows, I was seventeen and at the nadir of my life: mental hells into which my very Catholic father and his damned society had put me, as I confess in Letter to mom Medusa (see the book list on page 3). Curiously, a couple of years before that family tragedy I went to ask, in a bookshop, if they had any pro-Nazi books. An employee of the Librería de Cristal in the Cine Manacar in Mexico City, a fair-haired white man, hesitated a few seconds and informed me: ‘No’. True, that bookstore had the old Spanish translation of Mein Kampf, but what I was looking for was more recent literature.
If the worst country in all of Western history had never existed, the United States, Hitler might have won the war and, as I recount in The Grail, the last book in my autobiographical trilogy, the teenager I was would have been spared from the psychosis that two years after my visit to the bookstore would be brewing in my parents’ minds.
The book I was looking for at the age of fifteen was precisely this one that the reader now holds in his hands. I do not presume that this French-English translation is perfect. Far from it! But it seems to me that, of all the books by Savitri Devi (1905-1982), this is the one that best introduces us to the thought of this impressive woman.
If the American racial right is at a dead end, it is precisely because Americans have not had the nobility to see that only by making National Socialism their new religion can they save their race. Furthermore, unlike Hitler’s anti-Christian pantheism (cf. Richard Weikart’s Hitler’s Religion), the great failure of the pundits of the American racial right consists in not repudiating the Semitic religion of our abusive fathers. And abusive by necessity must be all those who traumatise their children with the idea of eternal torture, as I was traumatised as a teenager.
Although the hellish nature of Christianity reveals the twisted psychology of the Semitic mind, the typical anti-Semite ignores that the Jews created the New Testament for gentile consumption (cf. David Skrbina’s The Jesus Hoax). Anyone who invents a superheated torture chamber and then threatens billions of gentiles with it has a sick soul. Right after white traitor Constantine handed over the Roman Empire to his Semitic bishops (cf. Karlheinz Deschner’s Christianity’s Criminal History, also listed on page 3), the doctrine of hell became the greatest weapon of psychological terror used by Jews against whites. Ben Klassen was right on this point! And this is the kind of anti-Christian worldview I badly needed as a teenager to save me from the doctrines my father had put in my little head. Even now, so long after I abandoned Christianity, I am haunted by the idea of eternal damnation. As Gaedhal, a commenter on my website, The West’s Darkest Hour, told us by email:
If you fear a Jewish Hell, then you are controlled by Jews. I speak by experience. I know, rationally, that Hell doesn’t exist… However, more than thirty years of Catholicism means that I still believe in Hell emotionally. I still believe in Hell in my bones’ marrow. And this residual belief in Hell still has negative effects upon my psychology and behaviour. I probably have religious trauma syndrome…
Alas, the American racial right has been, since its origins, extremely addicted to Judeo-Christianity. I would even claim that white nationalism is an ideology that, at its core, functions as a gatekeeper preventing the transvaluation of our darkest values to Greco-Roman values: that is, the luminous values of Antiquity before the Semitic infection. Thus, white nationalists are actively preventing the Aryan man from freeing himself from the yoke that the Jews have created. How could we shake such a yoke from our necks?
Only Hitler saves. Savitri Devi, Hitler’s Priestess, saw this with extraordinary clarity! And the white man who does not want to recognise this is doomed to extinction.
César Tort
8 December 2022
After much work, the PDF of the revised first volume of our translation of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminal-geschichte des Christentums (Krimi they call this work in Germany), Christianity’s Criminal History: Volume I, is finally ready.
Compared to the foreword I published last month, I added several paragraphs to that foreword (grey letters mean that those sentences also appeared in the previous foreword):
One thing I have noticed about virtually all dissident right-wing intellectuals and commentators, including the racialists, is that they do not try to reinvent the history of the white race as William Pierce did in Who We Are. They do the opposite: they rely on Christian or secular authors ignorant of the real history of the West. So-called dissidents do not seem to realise that, to understand their darkest hour, it is necessary to make a clean sweep of everything that is taught in universities about the humanities and to start rewriting history from scratch.
That is why I chose the weirwood tree as the symbol of my website. It reflects that what we should focus on is the historical past of the white race, the true past (read The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour listed on page 3), not on what is said even in the (semi-normie) forums of the racial right. Whoever is able to touch the millenary tree and see the past not as we are told it happened, but as it actually happened—especially the history of Christianity!—changes his worldview all at once. In his after-dinner conversations, Hitler, who had touched the sacred tree, said: ‘Christianity is the greatest regression humanity has ever experienced.’ Alas, as the Romanian philosopher Emil Cioran, who once described himself as a Hitlerist, wrote, ‘The whole world has forgiven Christianity.’
Well, not the whole world… As I confess in my philosophical autobiography De Jesús a Hitler, Christianity played a key role in the destruction of my teenage life and my twenties, something I will never forgive. The tragedy that destroyed several members of my family motivated me to embark on a long odyssey in search of the sacred tree in order to, retrocognitively, visualise my past. But Karlheinz Deschner’s ten-volume tree has too many branches and whispering leaves in which those who have barely taken their vows can get lost…
Which is why I have abridged it.
Such is the importance of seeing the historical past as it really happened, that I will put Deschner’s book second on the list in a new featured post!
Although the next book of my Daybreak Press will be Savitri Devi’s Reflections of an Aryan Woman that we translated from French, we will continue to upload entries from Deschner’s magnum opus until we can publish the second volume of Krimi.
I take this moment to remind my racialist visitors that The West’s Darkest Hour provides a different paradigm from white nationalism for understanding the decline of the West. While the Jewish problem, in our view, is a catalyst, it is not the active substance that is poisoning the white man. The active substance is Christian ethics.
Let me illustrate it by comparing Mexico to the US. It is less bad to live in a place like the 21st-century Woke US than Catholic New Spain of 1521-1821, which thanks to the Spanish Inquisition controlled Jewry to prevent subversive activities. Ironically, thanks to the heat that Americans are already beginning to feel due to the strong Jewish catalyst, the ‘frog’ is realising that they want to kill it. By contrast, without that powerful catalyst in New Spain, after three centuries the ‘frog’ ended up burned because it didn’t even feel the heat. Pure Christian ethics without Jewish subversion was enough to mongrelize the Iberian whites south of the Rio Grande without them even noticing it. In other words, the CQ is the actual poison; the JQ, a mere catalyst. Thank you, kikes, because your catalyst is so strong that it’s beginning to awaken Americans from their lethargy (cf. Greg Johnson’s article published today about the Kanye ‘Ye’ West controversy)!
Incidentally, there is a chance that an online friend will publish the above-linked PDF as the print version of Christianity’s Criminal History: Volume I on IngramSpark. It is a book that deserves to be on our bookshelves as a hard copy. (I cannot do it myself because I don’t have the time to master the software to design book covers.)