A few years ago, a troll who used to troll this site made the observation that I, despite my origins, hardly talked about Francisco Franco.
First of all, as I recently recalled on this site, the history of Spain ceased to hold my attention ever since a 7th-century Visigoth king allowed their people to be infected by Christianity to the extent of overturning the old Gothic prohibition against mixing their blood with those from the Iberian peninsula who didn’t come from Germanic tribes. (The first emigrant Goths set out from some territory in present-day Sweden for what is now Poland and the mouth of the Vistula river, and ethnically replaced the inhabitants there.) Precisely because of such old miscegenation, ancient Hispania became Spain, about which Kenneth Clark told us in his famous TV series: ‘Some of the most offensive omissions were dictated by my title [Civilisation]. If I had been talking about the history of art, it would not have been possible to leave out Spain; but when one asks what Spain has done to enlarge the human mind and pull mankind a few steps up the hill, the answer is less clear. Don Quixote, the Great Saints, the Jesuits in South America? Otherwise she has simply remained Spain, and since I wanted each programme to be concerned with the new developments of the European mind, I could not change my ground and talk about a single country’. That happens when the Aryan mixes his blood, and the same can be said of the Portuguese.
Secondly, the Spanish Civil War was a war between Christians and neochristians. The influence of hardcore Stalinism, especially in the last years of the war, was considerable. Many secular neochristians, the famous international brigade of forty thousand volunteers, went to fight for the Republican side. None of them knew what had happened, and was happening, in the concentration and extermination camps of the Soviet Union, nor did they have any idea of the holocaust in the 1930s that was to be called Holodomor.
A Spaniard of that time wouldn’t have understood my position. Christianity was practically abolished during the Republic and I would have supported, for tactical reasons, Franco’s Catholic nationalists. How is it that someone who wants to see Christianity disappear sides with the enemies of the Republican cause? Because it was necessary to fight against the Red Front, which was then still influenced by the exterminationist Jews of the Soviet Union, and because atheistic neochristians are far worse, for our holy words, than ordinary Christians.
It is as simple as that.
And this is true even today. The Woke monster (already since the Spanish Civil War, which was also a feminist war on the Republican side, the word ‘progress’ was used) is even worse than the old-fashioned Christians not only on the American continent where I live, but in other parts of the West. As we have said many times on this site, the problem with atheistic neochristianity is that the universalist, egalitarian ethics not only remains but grows, like cancer, once traditional Christianity is abandoned.
The Christian ethics of equalising what is unequal—from Paul’s verse in Galatians, a mustard seed, to the great tree where birds nest, passing through the egalitarian ideals of the founders of the US, and the French Revolution—has been the archetype that has infected the white man’s soul since Constantine and the following emperors murdered the classical world. But, ironically, Christian ethics enter a state of final metastasis once the Christ archetype is removed from the equation, as in traditional Christianity Christians sublimated their need for sacrifice with the image of the crucified god of the Jews (now they simply sacrifice themselves, specifically, the fair race).
What is extremely striking about the thousands of volunteers who went to fight for Republican Spain in pursuit of the egalitarian archetype is that some of them were English, Swedish, Swiss and even German when Hitler was in power! How was it that they didn’t go to fight for Hitler to defend their race? The basic and fundamental reason that Germany lost the war is that this archetype, implanted in the Aryan psyche since Constantine, still possesses our soul. That’s why Nietzsche said that his philosophy would only be understood after the next great European war. And it is only until our century, when the triumph of the egalitarian archetype seems absolute in the West, that some old-fashioned Christians have begun to perceive how mad this final phase of metastasis is, e.g., in the political attempt to equalise trans people, who obviously suffer from acute psychosis, with normal people.
The fair race could only be saved by rebelling against the archetype that has been killing them for seventeen hundred years. Traditional Christianity can no more save us than it saved Spain, now a Woke country, after Franco’s death.
Editor’s note: Here are some excerpts from the seventh chapter of Richard Weikart’s book.
______ 卐 ______
Under the leadership of Madame Blavatsky, theosophy had tried to blend a mystical racism with a scientific view of an evolutionary hierarchy of races. Despite professing the brotherhood of all humanity, theosophy taught racial inequality, and Blavatsky even endorsed the extermination of inferior races. Lanz also drew inspiration from non-mystical, non-occult sources, such as the physician and racial theorist Ludwig Woltmann. Before founding his own journal, Lanz wrote an extended review of Woltmann’s book, Die politische Anthropologie, for a freethinking journal and waxed enthusiastic about Woltmann’s racist doctrine of Nordic superiority. Woltmann’s book had been written for a prize competition for the best work on the political and social implications of Darwinian theory. He synthesized Darwin’s theory of natural selection with Arthur Gobineau’s theory of the racial superiority of the Nordic race.
[Left, Joseph Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882), a French aristocrat.] Woltmann was a biological and racial determinist, believing that not only physical characteristics, but also mental and moral traits, are hereditary. Thus, one’s destiny is predetermined in one’s biological makeup. Race, according to Woltmann, is the key to historical development, because some races—the fair-skinned Nordic one especially—were superior. The Nordic race, he stated, is “the highest product of organic evolution,” and they were the founders of civilization. Further, he believed that races arose through an ongoing racial struggle for existence, and, like Gobineau, he thought that racial mixing was deleterious, leading to racial decline.
Though Lanz used the term Aryan rather than Nordic, many of his ideas about race were similar to those of Woltmann and other Nordic racists. Lanz believed that “race is the driving force behind all deeds,” determining the destiny of all peoples, or Völker. Racial wisdom was thus the paramount value, motivating him to establish a religion of race. Lanz warned that the Aryan race was threatened with decline, and his religion aimed at rescuing and preserving this endangered, but valuable, race. The key peril confronting Aryans was racial mixture. One of the more bizarre claims that Lanz made—based on his mystical interpretation of the Bible—was that the Fall happened when Eve copulated with an animal, producing progeny who were half-ape and half-human. These “ape-people” that Eve bore were the ancestors of the inferior races around the globe, such as black Africans, and their animal blood tainted all inferior races. This Fall involved racial mixture with a vengeance, and it dehumanized all non-Aryans, who supposedly had admixtures of animal blood coursing through their veins.
Unlike Hitler, who despised the Hebrew Bible as the effluvium of the Jewish mind, Lanz claimed that Moses was a Darwinist who—if interpreted in the proper mystical sense—taught Aryans how to triumph in the racial struggle through conscious racial selection. Lanz maintained that the Jews had succeeded historically despite their inferiority because they had appropriated the biblical wisdom that was really intended for Aryans. Aryans should embrace the Bible, including the Old Testament, “as the hard, racially proud and racially conscious book, which proclaims death and extermination to the inferior and world domination to the superior (Hochwertigen).” Unfortunately, Lanz continued, a false kind of love had been incorporated into the Bible by some misguided souls.
Elsewhere, Lanz elaborated that the kind of neighborly love and compassion that most people equated with Christianity, and which appeared in the Bible, was based on a misinterpretation hypocritically taught by the inferior races, the so-called “ape-people.” The word “neighbor” in the Old Testament really meant, he assured his fellow Aryan racists, one’s racial comrade. Thus the command to love our neighbor really “means that we only have to love our racial comrades, thus those who stand closest to our kind and our race.” In a 1907 issue of Ostara, he warned his fellow Aryans that they were committing race suicide by extending generosity to those of inferior races. Rather, they should always discriminate racially in their charitable giving. (Apparently, Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan meant nothing to Lanz—or to Hitler.) Ominously, Lanz compared racially inferior people to weeds needing to be pulled. A major theme in this pamphlet and many others was the need to introduce eugenics measures to improve the race.
Many of Lanz’s doctrines became core tenets of Hitler’s worldview: the primacy of race in determining historical developments, Aryan superiority (with the Aryans being the sole creators of culture), the Darwinian racial struggle, the need for eugenics policies, and the evils of racial mixing. Hitler also shared Lanz’s view that Aryans had developed an ancient civilization in the mythical Atlantis. In a passage of Mein Kampf that decries racial mixing in a manner reminiscent of Lanz’s writings, Hitler admonished the state to elevate the status of marriage, which under the present system was supposedly contributing to biological decline. By hindering the marriages of those he dubbed inferior, he hoped marriages could “produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape.” By claiming that racial mixture could result in human-ape hybrids, Hitler was pulling a page out of Lanz’s repertoire. No wonder [Wilfried] Daim was struck by the similarities between Lanz and Hitler and supposed that Hitler’s ideology hailed largely from Lanz’s writings. Given all these parallels, most historians acknowledge the likelihood that Lanz’s Ariosophy influenced Hitler’s ideology, either directly or indirectly.
But another like-minded Ariosophist in Vienna, Guido von List, was probably even more influential among early twentieth-century Pan-German nationalists than his colleague Lanz. He introduced the swastika symbol into Aryan racist circles before Lanz, and his ideas were widely discussed in the Pan-German press in Vienna. List and Lanz propagated similar occult racial ideologies, and they belonged to each other’s organizations. Before becoming entranced with occult thinking, List wrote for Pan-German publications. He carried this intense nationalist and racist heritage with him into his occult Aryan religion.
Like Lanz, he claimed he was recovering ancient Germanic wisdom that had been lost, and he wanted to replace Catholicism with his mystical faith. He preached Aryan supremacy, the need to engage in the struggle for existence against other races, and eugenics measures to improve the vitality of the Aryan race. In 1908, he explained the core of his message: “The high meaning of this custom [of ancient Aryans] lay in the intention of a planned, widespread breeding of a noble race, which through strict sexual laws would also remain racially pure.” List wanted to reconstitute an ancient Germanic priesthood with esoteric knowledge that could elevate the racially purified and ennobled Aryans to dominate the globe.
We do not know if Hitler had any direct contact with List or the List Society when he lived in Vienna. Brigitte Hamann, however, believes that Hitler’s racial ideology had more in common with List than with Lanz. List, for example, taught that the Aryans evolved into a superior race during the Ice Age. They were steeled in body and mind by the harsh conditions, and they had to wage a bitter battle against the elements. Natural selection eliminated the weak, sickly, and less cooperative, leaving the robust, healthy, and more moral members to propagate their superior biological traits. Hitler narrated a similar tale of Aryan origins in his 1920 speech, “Why Are We Anti-Semites?” List also viewed nature as the source of divine power, and according to Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, he reduced all morality to just one ethical precept: “Live in accordance with Nature.” Hitler’s ethical views also stressed conformity to nature and its laws…
In August 1918, shortly before the end of the war, he [Rudolf von Sebottendorff] founded the Thule Society in Munich as an organization to foster German nationalism and Aryan racism. The Thule Society adopted the swastika as its symbol and “Heil” as its greeting, thus contributing to later Nazi practices.
In June 1918, Sebottendorff acquired the Münchner Beobachter as the mouthpiece for the Thule Society. In order to attract young Germans to his movement, he featured sports articles in this newspaper. However, its real purpose was to advance his racist and ultranationalist views, so he also published articles on these themes. One early article he wrote was “Keep Your Blood Pure,” which sounds remarkably similar to Hitler’s racial philosophy in Mein Kampf. In this essay, Sebottendorff asserted that race is the key to understanding history. He was incensed that Christianity had led some Germans to embrace racial equality. He wrote,
Encouraged by Christianity they propagated the doctrine of the equality of humans. Gypsies, Hottentots, Brazilian natives, and Germans are supposedly completely equal in value. Too bad the great teacher, nature, teaches otherwise. It teaches: This equality is nonsense. It is the greatest lie that humanity has ever been talked into. To the destruction of us Germans. There are higher and lower races! If one values the racial mish-mash, the “Tschandalen” [this was Lanz’s term for inferior human races that had resulted from a human-ape hybrid] the same as the Aryans—the noble humans—then one commits a crime against humanity… Wherever one looks in the past, the bearers of Germanic blood have always been the bearers and creators of culture.
The affinities with Hitler’s worldview are obvious: racial inequality, the role of nature in confirming racial inequality, and the Aryans as the sole creators of culture. When Hitler came to power in 1933, Sebottendorff boasted that he had laid the intellectual foundation for Nazism.
Sebottendorff’s view of Christianity was similar to Hitler’s, too. He criticized many of its features, especially its tendency to promote human equality. While appreciating Luther’s anti-Semitism, he noted that it was nonetheless deficient, because it was based on religious, not racial, considerations. He also dismissed the notion that people should turn the other cheek. Rather, he proclaimed, they should strike back until their opponent remained on the ground. Strangely, Sebottendorff thought Jesus approved of this pugnacity, for he continued, “That was also the opinion of our Savior: He came to bring the sword”…
A different movement, neo-paganism, also held sway over some leading Nazis, especially Himmler and Rosenberg. Neo-paganism, the attempt to resurrect the old Germanic gods and goddesses, sometimes overlapped with occultism, though some neo-paganists were staunch opponents of it. Both schools of thought were anti-Christian in their orientation. The occultist Sebottendorff, for example, tried to resurrect the worship of Wotan and other ancient Germanic gods. Himmler and Rosenberg saw neo-paganism as a way to bring Germans back to their original pre-Christian religion. Neo-paganism countered the universalizing tendencies of Christianity and emphasized the distinctiveness of the Aryan race, even in their religion.
Despite all these historical connections between Hitler and occultists, the popular idea that Hitler was an occultist—or at least powerfully influenced by occultism—faces serious objections…
On racialist forums some reproduce the statistics of Jews in the US compared to Jews in, say, Weimar Germany pretending, by that simple comparison between two countries and two eras, to understand why America is in such bad shape.
But that’s not a very scientific way of thinking insofar as, I understand, there are comparatively few Jews in Norway, and the ethno-suicidal liberalism of that country is as delusional as that of the US.
While I agree with both Nazis and white nationalists that Jews shouldn’t live in the West, it seems to me crystal clear that the root aetiology of Aryan decline must be sought in a factor that explains both Norway’s liberalism and, say, the miscegenation that occurred south of the Rio Grande when the Inquisition prevented avowed Jews from migrating freely to the New World. (A film shot in Mexico about what the Inquisition did to Jews in the city where I live can be seen: here.)
The root aetiology, Christian ethics, has so permeated the white mindset that even secular white nationalists like Greg Johnson use Christian pity to suggest that we should side with the main victims of the recent war: the Ukrainians. And if that’s not enough, Johnson flatly speaks of Ukrainians as ‘white’, as if the images we get from the war don’t show them as mudbloods. Just compare Johnson’s pity, who in 2010 was still talking about Jesus in his San Francisco church, with the SS piece I included in The Fair Race:
Racial differences
Races differ not only in their natures, but also in their values. Some races have great creative gifts; others over the centuries never raise themselves above the most primitive level. Think of the fruitful plains of the Ukraine, and imagine what German industry and German ability could have done with them! Compare them with the sandy soil of Mark Brandenburg. The smallest village there displays a culture that towers over Bolshevism’s model cities and collective farms.
Caption: A Russian Village in the fertile Ukraine,
a German farm on land wrested from the sea.
The environment does not form people…
…people form the environment.
The accomplishments of the Nordic race are the highest of any race in Europe. This is shown in many splendid cultural monuments, not only on European soil, but also deep in Asia and Africa. The investigations are at an early stage, but we already know that there is hardly a nation in North Africa, the Near East, Iran, India and as far as Turkistan that does not show wonderful evidence of Nordic cultures. It must fill us with pride that in our own homeland, in Germany, culture has bloomed in unbroken lines for more than 5000 years, created by people of our blood, our nature, our ancestry.
Until Christian ethical injunctions in secularized form are seen as the primary aetiology of the current value system, many white nationalists will continue to blame Aryan decline solely on the Jew. If someone wants to be a monocausalist, let him be monocausal!: but please regard the Christian problem as an epiphenomenon of the Jewish problem.
When you have a people who have become so dependent on this egalitarian worldview for so many centuries, and failed every single opportunity to break off this addiction, it starts to look like the drug dealer is just doing business, and the drug addict has an incorrigible deathwish.
One could write a history of White decline called ‘Two Thousand Years Together’.
It’s Whites who like to get high on slave morality. They’ve been getting higher and higher on this Christian drug ever since Constantine.
They’ve finally overdosed in 1945, and now the White race is lying comatose on a hospital bed full of Jewish doctors, lucid-dreaming about a perfect world full of brown people.
Nature has tested Whites’ spiritual resilience to a poisonous mental software, and they’ve failed repeatedly. The jews were merely the vector for that poison. Time for the final verdict: genocide.
Had the Third Reich survived, it would’ve brought a superior human race to this world—the Ubermensch—which would be practically immune to this mind poison; then the drug-dealing jew would have to peddle his pity-loving bullshit elsewhere.
It will take a catastrophe of unforeseen magnitude—and centennial duration—for the white human to stop pitying the angry brown subhuman mass that wants to kill him.
Abhor pity towards mankind – four words of Savitrian wisdom.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Mauricio was responding to a typical white nationalist (they believe that Jewry is the root cause of white decline). In the comments section I just added these words:
As Thomas Kuhn saw, the same information can be processed in a completely different way between two subjects. So different that, depending on how we process the info, the paradigm shifts. In science, the classic paradigm shift would be from the geocentric to the heliocentric system. Although 17th-century astronomers had exactly the same information, it depended on how they interpreted the data.
This caricature reflects the paradigm shift from the JQ, which currently reigns in white nationalism, to the CQ—Christian question—that I propose. The caricature is interpreted by some white nationalists as archetypal Jewish subversion, as if to imply that the kikes hypnotised us through religion:
Regardless of whether or not that was the intention of the caricaturist, I see the same information differently. The kike didn’t hypnotise us. There is white agency. Just look at the faces of these white idiots. They simply love what the kike tells them. For two millennia white Christians have been willingly indulging in evil by following the gospel. And the same can be said for secular white nationalists who continue to subscribe to the same ethical code that we see in the caricature.
The caricature shows a malicious Jew selling us Christian ethics. The orthodox interpretation of our decline, which we see every day in The Occidental Observer, blames the Jew. But with the same info that MacDonald sees, I see whites as the real culprits. Who dares to believe such bullshit, the white family in the above caricature? The same info can be interpreted differently depending on our internal will. While white nationalists see a couple of kike silhouettes, I see in ochre colour the bitter cup that Christianity made us drink since Constantine:
The image above can also be used as an illustration of a paradigm shift. Who to blame: the Jew who wants to sell us the teachings of Jesus or the white people drinking this poisonous Kool-Aid with their eyes wide shut—including the ‘racist’ commenters linked above from Occidental Dissent and The Unz Review? Who is worse: the white imbecile or the foreign subversive?
And thou, divine Death, where everything returns and disappears,
Receive your children into your starry bosom,
Free us from Time, Number and Space,
And give us back the rest that life has disturbed.
Leconte de Lisle. (‘Dies Irae’: Poèmes Antiques).
It is worth repeating, and insisting on, that along with the great cats, the masterpieces of Creation, the elephants and other noble herbivores, and the holy forests themselves, the pullulation of man threatens with death (slow, but certain) the most beautiful and gifted of the human races, especially that which interests us above all others: our Aryan race.
This is inevitable, unless intervention in the opposite direction, and in time, is directed by legislators and supported, if necessary, by force. It is inevitable, I say, for the simple reason that the inferior races are by nature far more prolific than the others (the same is true of the various species of four-legged mammals: mice and rats multiply so much more rapidly than lions and tigers!).
A racial elite can only survive if it keeps its blood pure. And it is clear that even then it can only continue to play its natural role, which is to command, both politically and in other areas, if it is part of a civilisation which, unlike today’s democracies, both popular and plutocratic, rejects any idea of giving priority to the greatest number. As soon as one accepts the principle of universal suffrage—one man, one vote, whatever the man—; as soon as one attributes to any man (of any race, even the least beautiful and least gifted, and even of any level of personal degradation) an immense ‘value’, superior by the mere fact that he is ‘a man’, to that of the noblest animal or tree, one puts the human elite in danger.
And the threat of impotence, of deterioration, and finally of death, which is thus brought to bear upon it, is all the more formidable, and all the more imminent, because preventive sanitary techniques more effectively prevent infant mortality and epidemics of all kinds from taking their toll on the weak of any race, and from keeping in check the tendency of the inferior races to swarm at the rate of the rodents.
For if nothing is done to slow down the rate of reproduction of these races at all costs, and if moreover a higher and higher minimum of education is imposed on them, it will automatically be they who will have the last word in a world governed by ‘the majority’—they, or rather a few raceless and faithless demagogues, skilled in manipulating them, and behind them the international Jew. For he is the eternal enemy of all racism (except his own), capable of creating or suppressing at a price of gold, the most diverse demagogies.
In India, this process has been going on for decades already, even for a century, since the moment they became victims of the false belief in the ‘value of every man’. The British have felt it their duty not only to Indianize their administrative services, but to Indianize them from below, by giving more and more benefits to the lower castes—i.e., races—of India at the expense of the Aryan castes. It is they, the English, and they alone, as I have repeatedly said, who are directly responsible for the accelerated decadence of this vast country, not for having ‘exploited’ it excessively, economically; but for having instilled in those who were to become its effective rulers, their democratic and humanitarian ideals.
They are responsible for this in two ways. Firstly, they set up their hospitals and dispensaries, their faculties and their medical research laboratories everywhere. They inaugurated, on a vast scale, the fight against epidemics and especially against infant mortality—against the rapid elimination of the weak—and in every way encouraged the Indians to continue it after their departure. Thus, and while the population increased in frightful proportions (it doubles every thirty years!), they applied to its enormous masses—of different races, but, in the increasing majority, of inferior races—those same democratic principles which haven’t ceased to infect Europe since 1789.
They trained in their school the Indians (Hindus of all castes but, increasingly, of the lower castes; Mohammedans, Christians) to whom they, first under their colonial aegis and then from the ‘independence’ which followed their departure, passed on the burden of power. They imposed universal suffrage; they gave equal importance as voters (however small) to the savage Kuki of Assam, the Naga, the Santal, the Gund, and the fairest-skinned Brahmin with regular features, a blood brother of the best Europeans, and more cultured than many of them. They have chosen, as their successors, Indians, educated in their school and psychologically dead to the racist spirit of the Hindu Tradition, and sure to continue their work of disintegration.
These Indians are now doing the impossible for the promotion of the masses of inferior races, ever more compact, more swarming, more invasive thanks to the decline in mortality. They have set up legislation that gives the greatest number of posts everywhere to the nationals of these masses, as soon as they have assimilated a minimum of literacy. The result is a generalized mess, incredible incompetence at all levels: an express telegram sent from Delhi, takes four days to reach Jammu; the Delhi buses leave at the convenience of their driver, and arrive when they can, etc. It also leads to corruption at all levels, in all departments. But that does not matter.
The main thing is that people now say, abroad, ‘India’, instead of saying ‘the Indies’, and thus the illusion of an Indian ‘nation’ is born. The main thing is that this ‘nation’, or rather this State, which is the spirit of the degenerate, Jewish, humanitarian and pacifist Britons, continue to rule. It is a democracy and, to boot, a secular democracy—without official religion (because this title is refused to immemorial Hinduism), even against any traditional religion, in the manner of Emile Combes’ France: a State in which, some dare to hope, the cult of science and humanity—of science applied to the well-being and ‘happiness’ of ‘all men’—will increasingly replace the cult of the ancient Gods, according to the outdated dream of Auguste Comte.
The essential point is that this State is a multiracial democracy, in which all shades of inferior humanity are in open or latent, noisy or silent revolt against the few millions of Brahmins and Kshatriyas—even against those of them (as is the case with so many southern Brahmins) to whose ancestors the privileges and honours of caste were originally bestowed on account of their extraordinary merits, without having been Aryans.
Yesterday I changed the subtitle of this site by replacing the word ‘fourteen’ with ‘sacred’. Thus I also include the four words (to understand the latter the visitor would have to familiarise himself with my eleven books). Yesterday the thought also came to me that liberalism, which is now in its final metastasis in all former Christian countries (not only the originally Aryan countries, but Latin America as well), is ultimately a heresy.
As we have said several times, the Christian notion of the equality of men in the eyes of God was transformed, after the American and French Revolutions, into the equality of men under the law. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, this was transmuted in the US into equality for blacks and women; and, in the new century, into using the power of the State to denigrate the white male and achieve—at last!—equity.
The secular psychosis of today’s world only affects those countries that were once traditional Christian. Ethno-suicidal liberalism doesn’t affect the billions under Islam, the Chinese regime or the Indian people who still embrace Hinduism. However, that doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is legitimate. It means that a heretical faction of traditional Christianity, insofar as it secularised the gospel message (i.e., secularised the inversion of values in the New Testament), has taken root in all former Christian countries.
I have already discussed this in ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’ which can be read on pages 181-184 of Daybreak. But my initiative to call ‘heretics’ secular liberals, whose most extreme form today are the ‘woke’ people, came to me yesterday. That, heretics, is what they really are. The image of St. Francis is explained in the referenced article from Daybreak: a book which, by the way, remains unavailable in printed form as we haven’t raised the funds to solicit the services of a printer that won’t deplatform us.
Yggdrasil, in Norse cosmology, is an immense and central sacred tree. Around it exists all else, including the Nine Worlds. Speaking metaphorically, Judeo-Christianity destroyed it.
The translation of the fourth section of Ferdinand Bardamu’s essay about the toxicity of Christianity for the white race is available in the German section of this site (here). The English original can be read at the end of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (see sidebar).
Christians might object to what I said this afternoon (‘It is the Christian idea of the human soul that’s screwing the Aryan race’) arguing that it is in secular countries that the ethno-suicidal zeal of whites has reached its zenith; and that the belief in the afterlife of the past never reached today’s ethno-suicidal hysteria. That is very true, but still the idea of man as the centre of creation had, as Savitri said, Christian inspiration.
I have been trying to find, on the internet, a treatise on the history of the American white nationalist movement. I was impressed that in an old review in The Occidental Observer, an author recommended Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream, by Leonard Zeskind. The Observer reviewer recommended it not because he shared the Jewish author’s point of view, but because the book is so well researched (when I can afford it I’ll order it).
Then I tried to look for a text that came from the pen not of an enemy, but a friend of the white cause. But apparently none of the pundits of contemporary white nationalism has written it. Or at least none that I can recall in the Observer’s reviews of new books (correct me if I’m wrong).
Searching, then, in my home library, I remembered A Brief History of the White Nationalist Movement which I read eleven years ago: a small 77-page book with no date or author, but which was probably written in 2007 by Harold Covington. It’s a terrible book that you can read online. Hadding Scott unmasked Covington’s horrendous slanders of racialist competition; for example, what Covington says about Ben Klassen.
So I find myself in no man’s land: the scholarly book by a foe and the crude pamphlet of a novelist who thought he would have a following if only he could make them believe that only he, Covington, was an exemplary racist and the rest of the movement scum.
As I pulled Covington’s spiral-bound text from one of the high shelves of my library (so much so that I had to climb a step to reach it), I came across no less than the first of my spiral-bound collection of articles I read when I had just discovered American white nationalism.
The spiral-bound, which contains many texts from The Occidental Quarterly Online, is dated by my pen September 11, 2009. And when I started reading it, the next day at 1:35 a.m., I was in Spain where I had lived for almost a year (it was a return trip to the American continent). The article I began to read, on the ground as the plane had not yet taken off, was entitled ‘The Seven Pillars of White Nationalism’ and was written by Yggdrasil (elsewhere the author revealed himself as John Gardner). At the time my immature mind was transiting from Normieland to NS, and WN was a very useful stepping stone in crossing the psychological Rubicon.
Yggdrasil, in that first article I read in printed form when I first dipped my feet in the metaphorical river (I was actually about to cross, literally, the Atlantic), wrote something that does answer the Christian objection above:
Surprisingly, I was unable to find any coherent and helpful works in English translation from the Third Reich explaining how National Socialism might save us. Most of the major works of that period, including Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Century and Hitler’s Mein Kampf are dreadful tomes, which fail to recognize our basic predicament. The best explanation I can find of National Socialism is Lincoln Rockwell’s White Power.
On the next pages Yggdrasil adds:
The enlightenment secularized and neutered Christianity as a force in public life in response to the slaughters of the religious wars in Europe.
In place of Christianity, the enlightenment substituted a brand new faith—the brotherhood of man, in the vain hope that it would end intra-European violence. Of course, this new faith, based as it was upon demonstrable falsehoods, could only progress and be sustained with violence, and true to form, the blood began to flow almost immediately with the French revolution in 1791.
This new faith was tailor made to justify imperial wars of conquest, designed to bring the message of human equality and the material betterment of trade to those in need of uplift.
But it has always been resistance to that new faith from European groups that has prompted the most savage outbreaks of bloodshed, from the U.S. Civil War, to the Boer War, to the Revolution in 1918 in Russia, and ultimately, the German reaction to that threat.
The prosperity that followed WW II has reduced the inclination of Euros to resist the human equality mania en-mass, resulting instead in localized witch hunts, including war crimes prosecutions and hate crime laws.
As I have stated in prior posts, our challenge to this false god—the brotherhood of man [Editor’s note: the bastard son of Christianity]—must be adapted to the circumstances existing at the time.
It is completely clear that this particular delusion—like the crusading spirit of 1090 AD—is not merely a matter of internal belief, but rather external display adopted for the purpose of acquiring status through careless disregard of self interest and racial survival.
A few pages before Yggdrasil had written:
In our modern multi-cultural societies, this universalized image of the brotherhood of man has filtered down into the lower ranks, as individual clergymen translate the Sermon of the Mount to mandate a standardless tolerance of all things—turning one’s cheek to all manner of vice and overt attacks—a tolerance that is useful, so the modern clergy believe, for keeping pawns full on Sundays without regard to race, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation.
This was published a few days before my return trip, but we still need a treatise about the history of American white nationalism authored by a non-Jew. Incidentally, I believe it was Yggdrasil himself who in the middle 1990s coined the term ‘white nationalism’.
In no way is America run by Jews. Had America been run by Jews, it would likewise have genocided all the Arabs, Russians and other Asians. And then would have liquidated itself.
No, America is run on the spirit of universal love towards mankind, towards every individual—as long as he professes to love his neighbour, to ‘live and let live’, to accept the god of the Jews into his heart.
Source: The Unz Review (comments section) here. And in a previous thread he had said:
What is the opposite of materialism? Idealism, in the case of the Western civilisation—Christianity. Therefore, I blame not some ephemeral, rootless ‘leftism’. The maggots under the carpet do not self-germinate from spontaneous abiogenesis, as Pasteur proved. Likewise did the egalitarian liberalist cult have a predecessor in the message of universal love spread by the old Jew Jesus.
And in another thread he also responds to a monocausalist:
> ‘(((God’s Chosen))) are the only winners of WWII’.
It’s the Americans, stupid. The Americans who were 99% Nordic in 1945. (I don’t consider Negroes or Italians American.) The Americans had all the power in the world to do as they pleased. The Westerners were only limited by their merciful nigger-breeding Christian morality, fatally so…
America could have gassed all Mexicans, all Pinoy, all Japanese. America had all the power in the world in 1945 methodically to cleanse Iraq, Turkey, India and China. But didn’t. The reason—Christian cuckoldry. This is as clear as day! There wasn’t a capitulation in history as large as the American one. That’s when they had the bombs each of which could burn a million Asiatics alive. This pitiful sight abhors me to no end. History, return, and make the Anglo kill himself!…
I’d like to remind everyone that the triumph of the Taliban over the Christian faggots in Afghanistan in 2021 CE is but a foretaste of the final victory of the Asiatics in Korea in the future. That’s what happens when you pit Jewish love against racist hatred—hatred always wins. The sooner, the better.
In Adunai’s latest post he responds to Robert Morgan’s claim that technology is the bad guy of our movie:
Name me one cultural counter-current that has challenged Christianity since Julian—you cannot, only Hitler tried to commence such a revolution. Technology is an amplifier of the already existing substance. That is the issue with you—you think there was an invisible coup d’état in culture where Europe stopped being Christian between 1789 and 1900. No, a true apostasy looks like The Holocaust.
Adunai’s italics. However, he uses a straw-man against me: ‘Chechar’s idyllia is lions eating straw with lambs’, something I’ve never claimed of course (the 4 words is something altogether different).
The Aryan problem is similar to what we cannot see from a ship when we spot an iceberg. That’s why racialists focus only on what they can see: the JQ, what is on the surface of the sea.
Kevin MacDonald’s recent article is splendid to understand my point of view: the Aryan problem is much more massive than the Jewish problem.
MacDonald quotes a recent Twitter thread of a young, blue-eyed blonde whose face might as well appear on this site’s sidebar, but who relishes that white people like her are becoming a minority in her country.
The serious thing is not so much this Tweet of a woman who hates her beautiful race. The worst part is that, as MacDonald points out, her Tweet garnered thousands of approvals from many other whites who hate themselves and yearn for them to become a minority. (I had already become aware of this phenomenon with the gigantic numbers of whites marching, on behalf of blacks, in various western cities in the wake of the BLM destructions.)
Neither in the comments section of The Occidental Observer nor in The Unz Review, where Ron reposted MacDonald’s article, is the professor’s diagnosis of what he calls ‘altruistic punishment’ questioned. MacDonald alleges in his diagnosis that such a phenomenon of self-hatred is related to individualism, and puts whites as genetical individualists.
If there is one thing that others and I have complained about MacDonald, it is that he analyses the West from the start of Christendom. Ancient Sparta and Republican Rome were not individualistic societies, and neither were the Vikings and Goths (and let’s not talk about Nazi Germany). MacDonald’s hypothesis collapses when we introduce the history before Christianity, and even more so when we see that open and shameless self-hatred began in 1945, as I haven’t tired of reiterating with the links in the article that the sticky post leads to.
Although MacDonald’s article is worth reading, there is universal blindness in racialists who comment on his article’s thread, both on his forum and Ron Unz’s site. Neither wants to see the havoc Christianity wreaked on the psyche of the Aryans.
When I lived in California in the 1980s, I was extremely surprised to discover the televangelists. One of them, Charles Stanley, said something before an audience of well-to-do white worshipers that I will never forget: ‘… because I deserve hell’. Obviously only his faith in Jesus could save him from everlasting torture, but the conviction with which he said that, and the expression of the faithful Aryans who listened to him, I have not been able to get out of my head.
Now that the Aryans are without their Jesus, insofar Christianity is in crisis, what remains has been malware of infinite guilt albeit in secular form. Several times I have pointed out that this is what Tom Sunic said, with milder words, in Hungary during that dinner at which the government (supposedly the most nationalist in Europe) put Richard Spencer in jail.
I don’t know how to reiterate it anymore, but the links in the sticky post contain the key to understanding this suicidal passion of the white man. It is unfortunate that very few are following me on this site. Let’s just compare the number of my followers, those fully aware of the CQ, with the number of neo-Christian whites who were fascinated by the Tweet of the pretty ethno-traitor.
What can save the white man from this suicidal drive which dwarfs the Jewish problem as in the image above? As I reiterated recently in one of the discussion threads: only an apocalyptic convergence of catastrophes! At the moment the only thing a desperate reader can do is trolling other racialist sites with, say, the essay on Judea versus Rome also linked in ‘The Iron Throne’.
It cannot be repeated or emphasised enough: intolerance, religious or philosophical, is characteristic of devotees of ‘man’ regardless of any consideration of race or personality. As a result, it is the real racists who show the greatest tolerance.
No doubt racists demand from their comrades in arms absolute fidelity to the common faith. This is not ‘intolerance’; it is a question of order. Everyone must know what they want, and not adhere to a doctrine and then make reservations about it. Whoever has objections to formulate—and above all, objections concerning the basic values of the doctrine—has only to remain outside the community of the faithful, and not to pretend to be the comrade of those with whom he does not share faith entirely. No doubt also the racist is ready to fight men who act, and even who think, as enemies of their race. But he does not fight them in order to change them, to convert them. If they stay in their place, and stop opposing him and his blood brothers, he leaves them alone—for he is not interested enough in them to care about their fate, in this world or into another.
In the third Book of his Essays, Montaigne laments that the Americas were not conquered ‘by the Greeks or the Romans’, rather than by the Spaniards and the Portuguese. He believes that the New World would never have known the horrors committed to converting the native to a religion considered by the conquerors to be the ‘only’ good, the only true one.
What he does not say; what, perhaps, he had not understood, is that it is precisely the absence of racism and the love of ‘man’ that are at the root of these horrors. The Greeks and Romans—and all ancient peoples—were racists, at least during their time of greatness. As such they found it quite natural that different peoples had different gods, and different customs. They did not get involved in imposing their own gods and customs on the vanquished, under pain of extermination.
Even the Jews did not do this. They so despised all those who sacrificed to gods other than Yahweh, that they were content—on the order of this god, says the Bible—to exterminate them without seeking to convert them. They imposed on them the terror of war—not that ‘spiritual terror’ which, as Adolf Hitler so aptly writes, ‘entered for the first time into the Ancient World, until then much freer than ours, with the appearance of Christianity’.[1] The Spaniards, the Portuguese, were Christians. They imposed terror of war and spiritual terror on the Americas.
What would the Greeks of ancient Greece have done in their place, or the Romans or other Aryan people who would have had, in the sixteenth century, the spirit of our racists of the twentieth? They would undoubtedly have conquered the countries; they would have exploited them economically. But they would have left to the Aztecs, Tlaxcaltecs, Mayans, etc., as well as the peoples of Peru, their gods and their customs. Furthermore, they would have fully exploited the belief of these peoples in a ‘white and bearded’ god, civiliser of their country, who, after having left their ancestors many centuries before, was to return from the East, to reign over them—their descendants—with his companions: men of fair complexion. Their leaders would have acted, and ordered their soldiers to act, so that the natives effectively take them for the god Quetzalcoatl and his army.[2] They would have respected the temples—instead of destroying them and building on their ruins monuments of a foreign cult. They would have been tough, sure—as all conquerors are but they would not have been sacrilegious. They would not have been the destroyers of civilisations that, even with their weaknesses, were worth their own.
The Romans, so tolerant of religion, have on occasion persecuted adherents of certain cults. The religion of the Druids was, for example, banned in Gaul by Emperor Claudius. And there were those persecutions of the early Christians, which we talked about too much, without always knowing what we were saying. But all of these repressive measures were purely political, not doctrinal—not ethical. It was as leaders of the clandestine resistance of the Celts against Roman domination, and not as priests of a cult which might have appeared unusual to the conquerors, that the Druids were stripped of their privileges (in particular, of their monopoly of teaching young people) and prosecuted. It was as bad citizens, who refused to pay homage to the Emperor-god, the embodiment of the State, and not as devotees of a particular god, that Christians were persecuted.
If in the sixteenth century Indo-European conquerors, faithful to the spirit of tolerance which has always characterised their race, had made themselves masters of the Americas by exploiting the indigenous belief in the return of the white god, Quetzalcoatl,[3] there would have been no resistance to their domination, therefore no occasion for the persecution of the kind I have just recalled. Not only would the peoples of the New World never have known the atrocities of the Holy Inquisition, but their writings (as for those who, like the Mayans and Aztecs, had them) and their monuments would have survived.
And in Tenochtitlan, which over the centuries had become one of the great capitals of the world, the imposing multi-storey pyramids—intact—would now dominate modern streets. And the palaces and fortresses of Cuzco would still be admired by visitors. And the solar and warlike religions of the peoples of Mexico and Peru, while evolving, probably, in contact with that of the victors, at least in their external forms, would have kept their basic principles, and continued to transmit, from generation to generation, the eternal esoteric truths under their particular symbolism. In other words, they would have settled in Central America and in the former Empire of the Incas Aryan dynasties, whose relations with the conquered countries would have been more or less similar to those which they formerly had maintained, with the aristocracy and the peoples of India, the Greek dynasties who, from the third century BC to the first after the Christian era, ruled over what is now Afghanistan, Sindh and Punjab.
______ 卐 ______
Note of the Editor: William Pierce’s Who We Are was published after Savitri Devi’s book. She didn’t grasp the full meaning that the Aryans of India would, over many centuries, succumb to what happened to the Iberian Europeans in a few centuries: interbreeding with the Indians. Since Savitri was female, because of her yin nature she couldn’t see tremendously yang issues, like what Pierce tells us about extermination or expulsion.
The yin wisdom of the priestess (her loyal Hitlerism, something that Pierce lacked) must be balanced with the yang input of the priest (an exterminationist drive, something that priestess usually lack).
______ 卐 ______
Unfortunately, Europe itself in the sixteenth century had long since succumbed to that spirit of intolerance which it had, along with Christianity, received from the Jews. The history of the wars of religion bears witness to this, in Germany as well as in France. And as for the old Hellenic-Aegean blood—the very blood of the ‘ancient world’, once so tolerant—it was won in the service of the Roman Church: represented, among the conquerors of Peru, in the person of Pedro de Candia, Cretan adventurer, one of Francisco Pizarro’s most ruthless companions.
I will be told that the cruelties committed in the name of the salvation of souls, by the Spaniards in their colonies—and by the Portuguese in theirs (the Inquisition was, in Goa, perhaps even worse than in Mexico, which is not little to say!)—are no more attributable to true Christianity than to Aryan racism as understood by the Führer, unnecessary acts of violence, carried out without orders, during the Second World War, by some men in German uniforms. I am told that neither Cortés nor Pizarro nor their companions, nor the Inquisitors of Goa or Europe, nor those who approved their actions, loved man as Christ would have wanted his disciples to love him.
That is true. These people were not humanitarians. And I never claimed they were. But they were humanists, not in the narrow sense of ‘scholars’, but in the broad sense: men for whom man was, in the visible world at least, the supreme value. They were, anyway, people who bathed in the atmosphere of a civilisation centred on the cult of ‘man’, whom they neither denounced nor fought—quite the contrary! They were not necessarily—they were even very rarely—kind to humans of other races (even theirs!) as Jesus wanted everyone to be. But even in their worst excesses, they venerated in him, even without loving him, Man, the only living being created, according to their faith, ‘in the image of God’, and provided with an immortal soul, or at least—in the eyes of those who in their hearts had already detached themselves from the Church, as, later, to those of so many list colonialists of the eighteenth or nineteenth century—the only living being endowed with reason.
Note of the Editor: Left, a monk pitying and loving a conquered Amerindian (mural by Orozco in Mexico).
They worshipped him, despite the atrocities they committed against him, individually or collectively. And, even if some of them, in the secrecy of their thoughts, did not revere him more than they did love him, not granting him, if he was only a ‘savage’, neither soul nor right soul—after all, there were Christians who refused to attribute to women a soul similar to their own—this does not change the fact that the ‘civilisation’ of which they claimed, and of which they were the agents, proclaimed the love and respect for every man, and the duty to help him access ‘happiness’, if not in this earthly life, at least in the Hereafter.
It has sometimes been maintained that any action undertaken in the colonies, including missionary action, was, even without the knowledge of those who carried it out, remotely guided by businessmen who did not have them in sight, only material profit and nothing else. It has been suggested that the Church itself was only following the plans and carrying out the orders of such men—which would partly explain why it seems to have been far more interested in the souls of the natives than in those of the conquering chiefs and soldiers—who, however, sinned so scandalously against the great commandment of Christ: the law of love. Even if all these allegations were based on historical facts that could be proven, one would still be forced to admit that colonial wars would have been impossible, from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century (and especially perhaps in the nineteenth), without the belief, then generally widespread in Europe, that they provided the opportunity to ‘save’ souls, and to ‘civilise savages’.
This belief that Christianity was the ‘true’ faith for ‘all’ men, and that the standards of conduct of Europe marked by Christianity were also for ‘all’ men—the criterion of ‘civilisation’—was questioned by no one. The leaders who led the colonial wars, the adventurers, soldiers and brigands who waged them, the settlers who benefited from them, shared it—even if, in the eyes of most of them, the hope of material profit was in the foreground less as important, if not more, than the eternal salvation of the natives. And whether they had shared it or not, they were nonetheless supported, in their action, by this collective belief of their distant continent, of the whole Christendom.
______ 卐 ______
Note of the Editor: That is very true. For example, in the last decades of his life my very Catholic father became obsessed with the biography of a 16th-century Spanish monk who made several trips from the Old to the New World to protect the rights of the Amerindians; so much so that my father dedicated his magnum opus, La Santa Furia (Holy Wrath), to him. This is a composition with three series of woods, six horns, three trumpets, four trombones and tuba, two harps, piano and timpani, percussion instruments among which were some pre-Hispanic, as well as a solo vocal quartet, a sextet of men and a choir mixed with four voices: 115 choristers in total and 90 orchestral musicians: a one-hour symphonic work that can be watched on YouTube:
It was precisely my father’s behaviour—cf. my eleven books in Spanish—that prompted me to repudiate not only Catholicism but Christian axiology, becoming a true apostate of Christianity. Savitri concludes:
______ 卐 ______
It is this belief which—officially—justified their wars which, if they had been waged in the conditions in which they were waged, but solely in the name of profit, or even security (as had been the wars of the Mongolian conquerors in the thirteenth century), would have seemed ‘inhuman’. It was such conquest that, still officially, defined the spirit of their conduct towards the natives. From there this haste to convert him—willingly, by force or using ‘bribes’—to their Christian faith, or to make him share the ‘treasures’ of their culture, in particular to initiate him to their sciences, while making him lose all contact with his own.
_______________
[1] Mein Kampf, German edition of 1935, p. 507.
[2] Or, in Peru, for the god Viracocha. The Peruvians had initially called the Spaniards Viracochas.
