I feel very frustrated that comments on WDH have on the whole tailed off. Where did they all disappear to? Or were they timewasters in the first place? I didn’t think so. I dislike the quietness. It’s like they’ve all lost their spines. I don’t know if they’re demoralised, or simply ideologically opposed all of a sudden when National Socialism didn’t turn out what they wanted it to be/didn’t turn out to be ‘hardcore’ WN with swastikas. I imagine it’s the Christian question, but more so especially the trauma model and animal rights that gets them the most—most people are cruel; I’ve gathered that, and resent being forced to high moral standards.
I had an obvious thought as to the commenters, and commenters in general. I notice the most responses are always to the ‘what was done in the war/what could have been done instead in the war’ topic set. It’s because, I think, this topic is basically abstract, and doesn’t require personal change. One can mull over nerdy history perspectives all day long, massaging tiny new snippets of information in.
But to discuss ethics is more of a quality than a slew of mere information, and brings the person in question into the debate, not just the abstract at arms length, and thus is harder to massage into their already-rigid position, as, for once in their lives, coming from the dissident right in general as they are, they are encouraged to see ‘the mentally ill’ not as hate objects, but as victims of parental cruelty, and, more than that, are encouraged to realise that by eating meat they are causing unnecessary suffering, and are so evil in some sense.
That takes too much effort to change over compared with editing in a tiny new snippet of historical insight here and there, or piping up with more. I don’t personally know a huge deal about that point in history (though like to learn), and I don’t have an endless fascination with regurgitating facts one could find in a book if they wanted.
I think that’s the root of it, qualities versus facts-by-rote. It’s a hard situation to get around.
If I wanted endless Jew-bait, as I call it (a pun on click-bait), I’d just go to The Unz Review. Don’t get me wrong, I consider it a problem, but Jews don’t really play on my mind much these days, unlike Christianized whites. The more they look at Jews, the more excuse they have, and the less they see themselves. Only when they see themselves, and tackle themselves, can they mount any sensible attack on their enemies.
I hope you have some new blood soon. At one point there were over 40 people, right? I count loads of commenters, and I get frustrated when the ones I like drop away. They should understand, as you say, that yes, the Jewish Question is a given, and we’ve all done it to death (if not, the SS Pamphlets cover it pretty well) but the Christian Question encapsulates everything. If not for the latter, these ignorant mercantile commenters really are no different to Jews in my eyes. They worship and obey the principles of the same alien god.
Editor’s 2 ¢:
I think the Christian issue has really alienated the dissident right from this forum, and the fact that I barely mentions Jews.
The position of this site, following the four words, is: Be kind to abused animals and children, and tough on the exterminable Neanderthals who abuse them. Conversely, the WN position in general is based on Christian ethics: Love one another, and exterminationism is unthinkable anathema.
To the commenters:
I wonder, if Ben and I launched a podcast talking about all of this (a WDH transformed from written word to spoken word, inviting listeners to speak to the show), would you come back?
‘If we could establish the Nordic race and, from this seedbed, produce a race of 200 million, the world would be ours.’ —Himmler
In heated debates, many commenters on racialist forums continue to discuss Hitler and National Socialism these days, including Greg Johnson (e.g., here).
One of the most recurring themes of Hitler’s critics has been the way the Germans treated the Slavs in WW2. I am enormously struck by the fact that none of them have been able to point out the obvious. It was perfectly natural and laudable that Himmler and his people, who had some Norwegian villages as an almost perfect paradigm of the Aryan, wanted to Aryanise the occupied territories of those who had suffered miscegenation due to the continuous Asian invasions.
Concerned about this issue, while walking through a beautiful little English village I once asked historian Arthur Kemp, author of a book on the history of the white race, a naive question. I asked him what percentage of Russians would be mixed. I say naive as it is obvious that they are already all more mixed than the purest Nordics—the paradigm with which Himmler and his ilk wanted to populate Europe, beautifully portrayed by the American Maxfield Parrish whose paintings now hang on the walls of my studio.
As we said in my anthology ‘On Exterminationism’, a few months after its founding, Himmler’s Lebensborn project opened Heim Hochland, the first home for pregnant women. For this purpose, the National Socialists took over the construction of a Catholic orphanage in Munich. Initially, the institution could accommodate up to thirty mothers and fifty-five children, and the candidates were carefully selected. Only women who met the characteristics of the dominant race were admitted. Candidates had their skulls measured, and only those with the coveted elongated skull, typical of the Nordic type, could be admitted. They also had to meet other requirements, such as blond hair, blue or green eyes and good health. Those who passed the test received the best care.
This fact, that due to the brutal Asian invasions the Slavs’ bloodline was already more compromised than the specimens chosen by Himmler and the SS to repopulate the conquered territories, is completely overlooked by all these critics of Hitler. They overlook it because of their Christian ethics and the mandate of universal brotherhood, so they see all Caucasoids (except Jews) as brothers. It is surreal to admit, but only someone who is not an Aryan, such as myself, has been able to point this fact out over the years in my disputes with white nationalists.
The thing to do is to applaud Hitler’s plans, including his Master Plan East, and only criticise him militarily (easy to say now: he should’ve waited until he had the atomic bomb before venturing into Operation Barbarossa).
What I say in ‘The Wall’ stands, which is why it remains and will remain the featured post of The West’s Darkest Hour. An axiological wall separates National Socialists from white nationalists and very few Americans have crossed it. William Pierce was one of them but it is a wall that very few racialists are, now, willing to cross.
There is something I have perceived and have already said but it is worth reiterating.
In my experience on this site, thanks to the emails sent to me by the more radical commenters I have noticed that only those who were martyred as children or teenagers by their parents have been able to truly break with the values of today’s West. It is difficult to visualize it if you don’t read the autobiography of one of them. But for the sake of understanding I will use an analogy.
Only people like Solzhenitsyn, who suffered years in the Gulag, broke with the ideology of the Soviet state to the extent that, already a refugee in the US, he wanted that state to be destroyed. We can already imagine nationalist Russians in Brezhnev’s time! Despite Stalin’s crimes, it would be unthinkable for them to wish for such a thing because, unlike Solzhenitsyn, they didn’t suffer the horrors of the Gulag.
Only intense suffering makes one break with the paradigm in turn, although I recognise that suffering resulting from parental abuse annihilates psychically almost everyone. That is why I must translate my books into English, something I will restart now that I am beginning to settle down after a very calamitous move.
HISTORICALLY, ethnic nationalism — both the conscious type, which first flowered in Europe in the 19th century, and the unconscious, natural type which has been around among all races since time immemorial — has been tried again and again, hundreds of times, nay, thousands of times throughout history. It is no strong proof against the dangers of miscegenation, or mercantile empire which usually leads to multiculturalism and multiracialism and ultimately miscegenation. It has failed again and again to prevent Jewish infiltration and domination, which are death sentences for any people which tolerate them. In short, ethnic nationalism alone is not enough. It has been tried and it has failed. For a cumulative total of a thousand years and more, it has utterly failed to prevent the existential plight in which the White race finds itself today. Ethnic nationalism on its own is the quintessence of what does not work.
But National Socialism did not fail. That is why it is vilified by our enemies. True, it was defeated in a war — I say a battle in a war that is not yet over [emphasis by Editor]. But, barring war, its trajectory was perfect. In just twelve years: A nation, freed from Jewish usury and destructive influence. A nation, determined to preserve its Aryan racial heritage and carry it, progressively, into the infinite future. A nation, broken free from ossified and dangerous hereditary aristocracy, and broken free from even more dangerous mass “democracy.” A nation, freed from hostile alien media. A nation, freed from the twin evils of international Communism and international banking. A nation, ultimately forged in war as the vanguard and protector of the entire European race. A nation whose titanic sacrifice and immolation at the hands of Jewish power may one day — if we do right — become an element of a religion [emphasis by Editor] which will inspire our people to protect and defend forever our sacred race against all dangers.
It was tried for just twelve years. You could say National Socialism hasn’t really been tried yet, not fully. But in those twelve years, it was the most positive revolutionary force ever seen on this planet. It shows every prospect of success if it can capture the imaginations of enough of our people and become established again. And our enemies certainly know that — that is why they do everything they can, constantly, to prevent its resurgence. And today, buttressed by William Pierce’s discovery of and elaboration of Cosmotheism, it would be even more powerful, being even more imbued with the spiritual essence and Life of our people.
Plain vanilla “ethnic nationalism” equals a thousand years of failure (which fails in the long term even when it “succeeds”; look at Ireland today); that’s the ethnic nationalism of Keith Woods, who wrote a recent article suggesting that nationalists should abandon National Socialism (see the critique of his approach here by Daniel Zakal) — and that failure is embodied in every other White man who refuses the hand of Providence offered by Adolf Hitler and his new creed. An entirely new race-based creed and spiritual outlook to replace the failed and outworn creeds of Christianity and democracy; with great prospects of success — that’s what National Socialism promises.
The triumph of race-based, deeply spiritual, National Socialism means the eternal existence of our race, the total reorientation of society toward racial progress, and the achievement of our cosmic destiny. The triumph of plain-vanilla “ethnic nationalism” means “business as usual” leadership from figures only faintly more race-oriented than Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, and Vladimir Zelensky — and probably significant compromises with such figures. That’s a huge difference.
I wrote of this in my program “A New Religion for Us,” highlighting the spiritual and philosophical depth of National Socialism, which sets it so much higher than the emptiness of mere “ethnic nationalism,” which nearly always merely holds on to whatever creed happens to be popular at the moment — and which today would surely cling to Abrahamic Jew-centered nonsense, as well as holding on to so-called “democracy.” The triumph of such a “nationalism” would get us almost nowhere. I wrote:
With profounder ideals and a stronger will than any other leadership structure of any other society for thousands of years at least, Germany ultimately sought to spiritually shepherd the unique expression of the Life Force and the growing consciousness that is our race through the dangers of the 20th century and beyond. Those dangers include 1) being trapped in an earth-bound Semitic creed designed to ensnare us in universalism, weakness, and worship of our enemies; 2) rejecting that Semitic creed in favor of an atheistic materialism and individualism that destroys our ability to grow and act as a natural biological and spiritual community; and 3) rejecting that Semitic creed in favor of the equally alien, spiritually empty, and equally debilitating equalitarian creed of Marxism.
National Socialism, especially when coupled with a strengthened spiritual aspect that has developed since 1945, saves us from those three dangers.
Savitri Devi wrote of National Socialism as a new life-affirming faith while she was imprisoned for her beliefs after the war:
And Hitler’s words about Christianity, reported by Rauschning in the fourth chapter of his book, would be admired — not criticised — in an Aryan world endowed with a consistently National Socialist consciousness, for they are in keeping with our spirit — and ring too true not to be authentic. [Even though parts of his book were surely forged in an effort to harm Germany and Hitler. — K.A.S.] “Leave the hair-splitting to others,” said the Führer to Hermann Rauschning before the latter turned renegade:
“Whether it is the Old Testament or the New, or simply the sayings of Jesus according to Houston Stewart Chamberlain, it is all the same Jewish swindle. It will not make us free. A German Church, a German Christianity, is a distortion. One is either a German or a Christian. You cannot be both. You can throw the epileptic Paul out of Christianity — others have done so before us. You can make Christ into a noble human being, and deny his divinity and his rôle as a saviour. People have been doing it for centuries. I believe there are such Christians today in England and America — Unitarians, they call themselves, or something like that. It is no use. You cannot get rid of the mentality behind it. We do not want people to keep one eye on life in the hereafter. We need free men, who feel and know that God is in themselves.”
Indeed, however clever he might have been, Rauschning was not the man to concoct this discourse out of pure imagination. As many other statements attributed to the Führer in his book, this one bears too strongly the stamp of sincerity, of faith — of truth — to be just an invention. Moreover, it fits in perfectly with many of the Führer’s known utterances, with his writings, with the spirit of his whole doctrine… [He] knew that we can only win, in the long run, if, wherever essentials are concerned, we maintain that intolerance of any movement sincerely “convinced that it alone is right.” And he knew that, sooner or later, our conflict with the existing order is bound to break out on the religious and philosophical plane as well as on the others. This is unavoidable. And it has only been postponed by the material defeat of Germany — perhaps (who knows?) in accordance with the mysterious will of the Gods, so as to enable the time to ripen and the Aryan people at large, and especially the Germans, to realise, at last, how little Christianity can fulfil their deeper aspirations [emphasis by Editor], and how foolish they would be to allow it to stand between them and the undying Aryan faith implied in National Socialism.
That Aryan faith — that worship of health, of strength, of sunshine, and of manly virtues; that cult of race and soil — is the Nordic expression of the universal Religion of Life. It is — I hope — the future religion of Europe and of a part at least of Asia (and, naturally, of all other lands where the Aryan dominates). One day, those millions will remember the Man who, first — in the 1920s — gave Germany the divine impetus destined to bring about that unparalleled resurrection; the Man whom now the ungrateful world hates and slanders: our Hitler.
Imprisoned here for the love of him, my greatest joy lies in the glorious hope that those reborn Aryans — those perfect men and women of the future Golden Age — will, one day, render him divine honours.
Woods is so wrong when he says “we nationalists” need to reject Hitler and National Socialism in order to more quickly “gain popularity.” I say there is no solution without waking up from the brainwashing. And if you think National Socialism was evil, you have not awakened from the brainwashing. And having a “movement” of supposed “nationalist revolutionaries” who accept 80 or 90 per cent of the Jews’ false world view will quickly be fatal to any state so founded. It’s real revolution, Hitler’s and Pierce’s revolution, or nothing. That is the real choice we face as White people in this hostile world.
And I’ll add two more important points to address the claim that Hitler denigrated and fought against other Aryan nations, who still resent it: 1) Adolf Hitler evolved during the great conflict of World War 2, which he began as a German nationalist and ended as the de facto leader of all Aryans against malevolent Jewish power, with volunteers (including a gigantic Slavic army) from every part of Europe, not just the Germanic or Nordic parts, on his side; and
2) Just because you descend from a nation that, due to historical circumstance, had a conflict with National Socialist Germany, that shouldn’t make you blind to the mythopoeic power of the greatest struggle of all time, between the heroic and spiritually noble National Socialists — for whom the worth of a man was his fidelity to his cosmic and biological destiny — and the crass materialist Jew-dominated capitalists and Communists, for whom the worth of a man was purely economic and who instinctively hate the race-based order we need.
My ancestors, for example, were from Norway. Norway was occupied by German troops. I am sure that some Norwegians were imprisoned by the German National Socialists. Some who made war on Germans were probably killed, as were some Germans in that fight. So what? Should Norwegians hate Germans and everything that has come from Germany on that account, from Hitler to Beethoven? No, that’s absurd. The Norwegians and the Germans need to forget those quarrels and wars of the past. The triumph of National Socialism would mean the Norwegians — and our kindred peoples from across all of Europe — would have a chance to exist eternally, and evolve higher and higher, as Fate and Destiny beckon us. No petty nationalism comes close to that — not by 10,000 miles.
[National Socialist critic] Keith Woods advocates weakness, compromise, and intellectual dishonesty.
Keith Woods’ arguments ultimately boil down to a defense of half-measures and ideological timidity, dressed up as pragmatic strategy. His primary concern—that National Socialism carries negative stigma—is nothing more than a fearful retreat into weakness and respectability politics. Rather than standing firmly behind a rigorous, comprehensive, and proven life-affirming ideology, Woods prefers a sanitized nationalism designed to placate enemies who despise our existence regardless.
Nationalism without National Socialism is precisely the half-measure that has repeatedly failed European peoples. It offers neither structural solutions nor ideological coherence. Woods’ belief that the essence of National Socialism—its fundamental commitment to racial health, cultural vitality, economic independence, and disciplined self-overcoming—can be stripped away, leaving behind a vague ethnonationalist shell, is intellectually bankrupt. Such hollow nationalism can never provide the depth of purpose, moral clarity, or strategic vision essential for genuine rebirth and sustained revival.
Woods deliberately misconstrains the complexity of historical events, lazily parroting mainstream tropes without rigorous engagement with primary sources. He misrepresents the nature of Lebensraum, dismisses Slavic collaboration, and leans heavily on mistranslated excerpts from Hitler’s Table Talk. The reality is clear: the table talks—recorded firsthand in German by Picker and Heim—are authentic records, distorted only through English translations. To entirely dismiss them, as Woods does, is intellectually negligent and betrays a lack of scholarly integrity.
Woods’ rejection of National Socialism reveals more than historical ignorance—it exposes his philosophical cowardice. His ideological stance resembles National Bolshevism, a confused hybrid that tries and fails to reconcile nationalism with leftist economic populism, inevitably resulting in ideological paralysis. Woods advocates a path of least resistance, endorsing a nationalism devoid of moral clarity or revolutionary intent. He proposes nothing concrete beyond vague appeals to national tradition, conveniently sidestepping the urgent structural crises—demographic collapse, cultural degeneration, economic subjugation—that demand radical solutions.
In short, Woods represents precisely what must be eradicated from nationalism: timidity, compromise, and a preoccupation with optics. He prioritizes popular acceptance over ideological integrity, fundamentally misunderstanding the reality that true nationalism requires sacrifice, struggle, and unwavering adherence to principles that sustain and elevate life.
The Life Affirming Principle dictates clear solutions: nationalism must be bold, disciplined, and uncompromising. It cannot thrive through half-hearted populism or sanitized historical revisionism. National Socialism is more than Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich; it is a timeless truth, discovered rather than invented [emphasis by Editor]: a guiding philosophy for cultural, biological, and economic health. To reject it is to reject the only fully coherent system capable of achieving lasting strength and survival for our people.
Ultimately, Woods embodies a defeatist mindset. He would rather pursue polite nationalism, begging permission to exist, instead of forging an uncompromising path toward genuine national renewal. His approach offers neither hope nor solutions, only endless retreat. To embrace Woods’ path is to embrace perpetual defeat.
I am pleased that in The Occidental Observer (TOO) an author, who considers Hitler ‘the greatest champion of our race’, defends him against a silly TOO columnist. There are even good comments in the comments section of both that webzine and its republishing in The Unz Review.
It’s no wonder that Matt Parrott sided with the silly columnist in this controversy. Devout Christians love the god of the Jews. They will never truly love the real champion of the Aryan cause.
As another commenter said, Hitler is the Spirit, the will of the universe. If one follows the tenants of National Socialism, the power of Hitler will come again onto this earth.
On an American racialist forum, I heard that Keith Woods recently wrote an article attacking National Socialism.
If my psychological profile of Woods is accurate, it’s because he’s a Christian—and National Socialism is incompatible with a religion started by Jews.
I don’t have time to locate Woods’ article. Due to my move, I’ll be canceling my internet service the day after tomorrow. I hope to have another one by next week…
Eagle Eye: “Even back then, scientific authors were required to recite these politically-correct shibboleths to be allowed to publish at all.”
I wouldn’t say so. Phillipe Rushton and Arthur Jensen were able to publish their heretical ideas on the hereditary nature of racial differences in intelligence “back then”, along with other racial characteristics. In fact, plenty of others, too, were questioning the standard line: Hans Eysenck, Chris Brand, William Shockley, James Watson, Richard Lynn, Herrnstein & Murray (in 1994’s The Bell Curve), etc.
The biggest stumbling block was that in our Christianity-derived culture, all “souls” are supposed to have been created equal, and rightly or wrongly, most people appear to think a “soul” has something to do with mental abilities. To proclaim otherwise is looked at as a kind of blasphemy, so people are reluctant to agree, and they self-censor any doubts. I think it likely that Cavalli-Sforza actually believes what he’s saying in the quote above, although I don’t myself believe it.
Spencer J. Quinn: “In the past 15 years, geneticists have been struggling with the idea of early human ‘introgression’ with archaic hominid populations. Through introgression, members of two disparate populations mate and produce hybrid individuals, which then mate with members of either parent population.”
“Disparate populations”? LOL That palaver is a kind of cleaned-up way to put it. What it really means is that two different SPECIES crossed and produced a fertile hybrid, which of course boggles the mind of every good American, who has been told for years that the proof that niggers are the same species as whites is that a nigger/white cross can produce fertile offspring. But it’s been known for a long time that animals as taxonomically separated as sheep and goats (not even in the same genus, let alone same species) can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Oxford biologist John Baker, in his book Race, says:
These and many similar experiments were performed by others, but Buffon himself supervised experiments on the crossing of sheep with he-goats. The fact that this intergeneric cross is sometimes successful, and that the hybrids are not infertile, appears to be established. It was accepted as true by Broca, who mentions that the French have a special name, chabin, for the hybrid. Several examples of the successful outcome of this cross are quoted by Alfred Russel Wallace in his famous work Darwinism. The information he quotes suggests that the hybridity is paragenesic. The cross appears to be what Broca called ‘unilateral’, since there is evidence that the ram does not produce progeny with the she-goat.
– John Baker, Race, p. 94
America’s (and the West’s) culture of equality demands, however, that niggers be ranked as the same species as whites, even at the cost of the falsification of reality and the betrayal of scientific truth. This new information about nigger genetics, which underscores how different they really are from whites, may someday help reality break through the complex network of lies that has been constructed to obscure it, but in all frankness, I wouldn’t expect that to happen for many years, if ever. America and the entire West have bet so heavily on racial equality that both would rather immolate themselves on its pyre than admit that the whole thing has always been a lie — a lie inspired and kept in force by the most grievous Christian ignorance and misconceptions about the nature of the world.
Gregory Hood: “American Empire must serve white interests, because the core American identity is white identity. … White identity remains forbidden in public life while non-white identity is celebrated. ”
Huh?
White identity is the “core” American identity, but it’s somehow “forbidden” in public life? LOL What kind of “core” identity is that?! And how can American Empire serve it, if it’s forbidden?
The truth is, the average white American doesn’t identify as white at all, and that’s why white nationalism never gets anywhere. If forced to, a white American might reluctantly check that box on a form, but he’s not proud of it. His culture has taught him that thinking of his race as being important would be racist! Unpatriotic! Hitlerian! Anti-Christian! Almost blasphemy!
Until that changes, the downward spiral will only continue.
Rich: “The Whites I know are proud of their heritage and are angered by the anti-White, anti-Christian actions and rhetoric of leftist Americans. They vote White, they seek out White neighbors and associates. They are the largest segment of American society by numbers. It’s why republicans win elections.”
If the average white man were proud of his race, then “racist” wouldn’t be the toxic label it is. By their reaction, you can tell that whites think that that is about the worst thing you can call them. LOL Even Jeffrey Dahmer took pains to let folks know he wasn’t a racist. A serial killer, a cannibal, and a homosexual, sure, but NOT a racist!
Christianity, with its emphasis on the idea that it’s the “soul” and not the body that’s the thing that’s really important about a man, is responsible for a lot of this. Race is a property of the body, not the “soul”. A typical white Christian would rather his daughter marry a nigger who’s a Christian than a white man who’s not. It’s hard to see how that’s a sign of racial pride.
As for voting Republican, Trump explicitly condemns racism, and especially white racism, as he carefully said after the Charlottesville fiasco. He’s not a racist who values the white race above all others. He favors a race-blind meritocracy. Anyone who voted for Trump expecting him to make America white again is going to be sorely disappointed.
John Johnson: “I don’t think that is an accurate term as liberal religious beliefs are not derived from Christianity nor do they require belief in Christ or God.”
Not derived from Christianity? That’s just historically inaccurate. John Locke, often called the father of liberalism, was a Christian theologian who based his arguments about human rights on his reading of the Bible. The case for these so-called human rights is a cultural legacy of Christianity, and only Christianity. Liberals didn’t invent human rights ex nihilo.
John Johnson: “The most closely held liberal religious belief is related to evolution and not Abrahamic religion.”
This is just another way of saying that human equality is one thing there are fanatics about, and I agree. But a faith in human equality, human rights, and a supposed “brotherhood of man” reeks of Christianity, and is obviously derived from it. The genius of Christianity as a belief system is that this ethical perspective can persist without any “belief in Christ or God”, as you put it. Thus, there are even atheistic versions of Christianity, such as Marxism.
Above in #230, I made a racist revision of John Lennon’s song “Imagine”. But as historian Tom Holland observed in his book Dominion, the original version is Christian through and through.
As to why I said yesterday that the Christian Question is more relevant than the JQ—something the American racial right doesn’t want to see—see a minute of Judge Napolitano’s interview with Matt Hoh today, starting here.
The epigraph to this February 1977 essay, originally published in French, appears here.
As can be seen in the hatnote that provisionally appears in the latest version of ‘The Wall’, unlike others, this racialist site has as its primary focus Christianity because to save the Aryan from the miscegenation that is destroying him, we must first identify the Enemy.
One of the reasons why the helicopter visitors never come down but leave me preaching in the desert is because I am like the child who says the king is naked.
‘Tell me what your holidays are and I’ll tell you who you really worship: the Aryan or the Jew’. When even white nationalists celebrate the birth of a Jew on December 25th, and also celebrate the year 2025 from the supposed birth of that kike instead of honouring the birth of our Aryan saviour on April 20th, it becomes clear that they are, ultimately, traitorous neonormies…[1]
What the racial right doesn’t yet understand is that it is impossible to avoid getting into trouble as long as we remain in trance with the religion of our parents. Those who believe that by celebrating the birth of the unhistorical Yeshu it is possible to save the Aryan, should ponder the words of their countryman Mark Twain: ‘It ain´t what you know that gets you into trouble. It´s what you know for sure that just ain´t so’.
______ 卐 ______
In his account of the wars against the Persians, Herodotus attributes the success of the small Greek cities against the mighty Iranian Empire to the ‘intellectual superiority’ of their compatriots. Would he also have explained their decline by their ‘inferiority’? The question of why cultures disappear and empires collapse has always preoccupied historians and philosophers. In 1441, Leonardo Bruni spoke of the vacillatio of the Roman Empire; his contradictor, Flavio Biondo, preferred the term inclinatio (which summed up, for Renaissance man, the abandonment of ancient customs). The debate was already set: was the Empire destroyed or collapsed on its own? For Spengler, the alternations that have occurred throughout history are the result of inevitability. The identifiable causes of a decline are only secondary causes. They accentuate, and accelerate a process, but they can only intervene when that process has begun. But it is also possible to think that no internal necessity fixes an end to cultures: when they die, it is because someone kills them. André Piganiol’s opinion is well known: ‘Roman civilisation did not die a natural death. It was assassinated’ (L’Empire chrétien,1947). In this case, the responsibility of the ‘assassins’ is complete. However, we can admit that only structures already very weakened, devoid of energy, abandon themselves to the blow that wounds them, to the enemy on the prowl. Voltaire, who was, after Machiavelli, one of the first to speak of historical cycles, said that the Roman Empire had fallen simply because it existed, ‘since everything must have an end’ (Philosophical Dictionary, 1764).
We will not attempt here to find out whether or not the fall of Rome was irremediable, or even to identify all the factors that contributed to its fall, but to examine what responsibility the nascent Christianity bears for its fall.
It is well known that it was the Briton Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) who first established that responsibility, in chapters XV and XVI of his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, six thick volumes of which appeared between 1776 and 1778. Before him, in 1576, Löwenklav had defended Emperor Julian, whose talent, temperance and generosity he praised, thus opening a breach in the doctrine which claimed that Christian emperors had been, by the privilege of their faith alone, superior to pagans. Shortly afterwards, the jurisconsult and diplomat Grotius (1583-1645) endorsed Erasmus’ thesis on the Germanic origin of the Neo-Latin aristocracies. Finally, in 1743, Montesquieu attributed the decline and fall of Rome to various factors, such as the extinction of the old families, the loss of civic spirit, the degeneration of institutions, the collusion between administrative power and business fortunes, the high birth rate of the foreign population, the wavering loyalty of the legions, and so on. Better documented than his predecessors, Gibbon took up all these elements anew, ready to write an ‘unbiased history’. His conclusions, tinged with an irony inherited from Pascal, remain essentially valid.
Portrait of Edward Gibbon (1737-1794).
In the 19th century, Otto Seeck (History of the Decline of the Ancient World, 1894), drawing on an idea of Montesquieu, as well as certain considerations of Burckhardt (in his Epoch of Constantine, 1852-1853) and Taine, insisted on a biological and demographic factor: the disappearance of the elites (Ausrottung der Besten), accompanied by the senescence of institutions and the importance gained by the plebs and the crowd of slaves, who constituted the first clientele of Christian preachers. This thesis was adopted by M.P. Nilsson (Imperial Rome, 1926), after having been confirmed by Tenney Frank, who, after examining some 13,900 funerary inscriptions, concluded that, from the 2nd century onwards, 90% of the population of Rome was of foreign origin (American Historical Review, XXI, 1916, p. 705).
In Marcus Aurelius (1895), Renan made his own one of Nietzsche’s formulas: ‘During the third century, Christianity sucks in ancient society like a vampire’. And he added this sentence, which echoes so many times today: ‘In the third century, the Church, by monopolising life, exhausted civil society, bled it, made it empty. Small societies killed big society’ (pp. 589 and 590). In 1901, Georges Sorel (1847-1922) published an essay on The Ruin of the Ancient World. ‘The action of Christian ideology,’ he argued, ‘broke down the structure of the ancient world like a mechanical force working from within. Far from being able to say that the new religion infused new lifeblood into an ageing organism, we might say that it left it exhausted. It severed the ties between the spirit and social life, and sowed everywhere the seeds of quietism, despair and death’.
For his part, Michael Rostovtzeff (Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 1926), opposing Seeck on certain points, and also Max Weber (Social Origins of the Decline of Ancient Civilisation, 1896), posed an essential question: ‘Is it possible to extend a high civilisation to the lower classes without lowering its level, without diluting its value to the point of making it disappear? Is not all civilisation, from the moment it begins to penetrate the masses, doomed to decadence?’ Ortega y Gasset was to answer him, in The Revolt of the Masses: ‘The history of the Roman Empire is also the history of subversion, of the empire of the masses, who absorb and annul the ruling minorities and take their place’.
This overview would be incomplete if we omitted to mention three works which appeared at the beginning of the century and which seem to us to herald the rise of modern criticism: L’intoleránce religieuse et la politique (Flammarion, 1911), by Bouché-Leclercq; La propagande chréthienne et les persecutions (Payot, 1915), by Henri-F. Secrétan, and Le christianisme antique (Flammarion, 1921) by Charles Guignebert.
_________
[1]Check out the April 20th posts on the major American racialist forums and webzines, and you’ll see that they don’t celebrate the birth of Uncle Adolf.
A passage in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ‘On Old and New Tablets’, inspires me for this post. But before I continue with the routine of this site (perhaps my next post will be one more passage from Irving’s book on Himmler), I would like to clarify something about today’s previous post.
The pair of four words, Gens alba conservanda est (White people must be preserved) and ¡Eliminad todo sufrimiento innecesario! (Let us eliminate all unnecessary suffering!), define the two commandments, or new conception of right and wrong, in our new Tablets of the Law.
The second commandment is given because of the colossal hells that some abusive humans inflict on their children, or the defenceless animals at their mercy.
That doesn’t mean that only those who already have these two commandments as their religion can be my comrades. Although Hitler was surprised when Himmler confessed to him that he still practised hunting with other Nazis, Uncle Adolf couldn’t have formed a political movement if he repudiated them. But it is obvious that a priest of the holy words has already taken his vows to fulfil both commandments (vows that non-priests aren’t yet capable of fulfilling because they lack the compassion we have developed).
Another thing I would like to say today is something else about my eternal quarrel with the American racial right. Yesterday I saw a video by Jared Taylor about the recent attacks in Germany perpetrated by a sandnigger. Taylor mocks the fact that the Eurocrats have been ‘speechless’ and ‘stunned’ after the massacre of civilian Germans. However, as a good Christian or secular neochristian (Taylor has never confessed whether he still believes in the religion of his parents) he fails to realise that these Eurocrats have taken Christian morality to its ultimate consequences (forgive your enemies, never allow yourself to hate them, turn the other cheek if they attack you, etc.).
While I watched the entire Taylor video, I didn’t read the recent Counter-Currents article on the massacre. I merely read the first two comments in that thread, where the first thing a couple of commenters did was say ‘Merry Christmas’.
Apparently, neither the commenters nor the author of that article are aware that it was precisely that Christianity that they still celebrate at Christmas that caused not only the massacre, but the previous massacres perpetrated by the jihadis that Taylor mentions in his video, and the massacres that other sandniggers will perpetrate in the future! Just as George Washington and the other Founding Cucks enabled Jewish infection in their brand new country, so the religion that conquered the Aryan soul has imposed on whites Semitic commandments diametrically opposed to the two commandments of our Tablets of the Law.
No, there was no point in reading either C-C’s article or the rest of the comments. The only thing to reiterate is that those on the racial right are neo-normies, not 21st-century National Socialists who have woken up to the real world.
