web analytics

Category: Racial right

Categories
Axiology Racial right

Morgan’s

responses on The Unz Review

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.

Categories
Israel / Palestine Racial right

Bibi’s dream

fulfilled by silly Xtians

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.

Categories
Philosophy of history Racial right

Christianity:

The communism of antiquity, 2

by Alain de Benoist

Editor’s Note:

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.

Categories
Axiology Racial right

Neonormies

Or:

On Old and New Tablets

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.

Categories
Audios George Washington Racial right

Hitler’s speeches – I –

One way to demonstrate that the American racial right is monumental nonsense is simply to compare what the Founding Father of the United States said with what Hitler said in his public speeches a century ago.

With this post, I begin a new series commenting on his speeches in German, which only until this year were available in English thanks to A.I.’s translators (translations that, by the way, were all censored on YouTube but not in Rumble).

Near the beginning of this speech that we can now hear in English, originally delivered in February 1920, Uncle Adolf says that only Aryans can be German citizens, so Jews cannot be. That was an early pronouncement by Hitler before he took power.

Let’s compare it with a few words from a speech by George Washington, who in 1790 before the Newport Hebrew Congregation said: ‘May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in [the US], continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid’.

In other words, to save the Aryan on the continent where I live it is imperative to repudiate American patriotardism and replace it with Hitlerism. There is no third alternative.

Categories
Philosophy Racial right

Maesters

of the Citadel

Yesterday I alluded to American Renaissance and The Occidental Observer when I said that it was part of German decency in earlier centuries to know something about race realism and to be aware of the JQ. But there is another racialist webzine that has been publishing, rather, cultural articles since 2010. This month for example Counter-Currents finished, in a fifteen-part series, publishing a philosophical article on the problem of evil analysing the philosophies of Schelling and Heidegger.

As a teenager I was going to study philosophy. My plans were spoiled by a family tragedy that left me without an official degree, although I became a wandering philosopher. Perhaps I should say that Schelling and other German metaphysicians of his time helped me to realise that there was a new conception of God, pantheism; and in more recent times I was pleased that Heidegger had been a member of the National Socialist Party. Well: what about the recent article in Counter-Currents? The author wrote:

I have tried to argue that Schelling’s theory of evil was a major influence on Heidegger. Heidegger effectively adopts Schelling’s account of evil, but places its existence on philosophically surer footing. Whereas Schelling’s claims are metaphysical and often seem ad hoc, Heidegger’s account is phenomenological. In other words, Heidegger shows us that, if we are honest with ourselves – if we are, in other words true to the phenomena – we clearly do experience life as if we are in the grip of forces over which we have absolutely no control, regardless of whatever modern myths we may pay lip service to about how man is the author of his destiny. And, more specifically, it really does seem as if there is a force of evil loose in the world.

Following George R.R. Martin’s fiction, a wandering philosopher is someone who, unlike the Maesters—an order of scholars in the Seven Kingdoms who educate new students in the Citadel (see image above)—educates himself. Thus, unlike the academic author of Counter-Currents, I have approached the problem of evil from my peculiar point of view: exterminationism. See for example what Gaedhal and I say very briefly on the subject in ‘On solving the problem of evil’ (pp. 143-144 of On Exterminationism).[1]

But that is not what I wanted to talk about in this article. What caught my attention in the Counter-Currents article were these passages more or less sympathetic to Christianity:

One of the interesting aspects of today’s cultural scene is the plethora of conservative “influencers” who are flocking to Christianity. More and more, it seems, convert – or return – with each passing day. A frequent topic of discussion in our circles is whether such and such influencer seems to be tending towards Christianity and about to announce his conversion. “It’s going to happen any day now,” friends will say to me (Joe Rogan is the current topic of speculation). It is fascinating that what seems to have drawn them to religion is their confrontation with the political Left. The extraordinary indecency of the Left today does indeed often seem to be demonic. It is enough to drive one into the arms of the angels.

Of course, most so-called “conservatives,” especially those holding political office, are serving the same system and see nothing problematic at all about the commodification of beings and about an ideal of “freedom” that amounts to freedom to exploit and consume. Nevertheless, it is a fact that those locating themselves on the political Left present us with the most extreme examples of modern perversity – and the most extreme examples of malice. In the face of this overwhelming perversity, for many people – those aforementioned influencers, and others – Christianity has essentially morphed into “the decency party.”

For most of them, the details of Christian teaching, and the differences between denominations, seem to be largely unimportant. They see Christianity as something clean, decent, and untouched (so they imagine) by modern perversity; a refuge, in other words, from evil. It is a reaction with which we can sympathize – even if we cannot ultimately follow them. What is indisputably true, however, is that the religious and mythological traditions that personify evil may offer us invaluable insights into its nature. And it is to those that I plan to turn, if and when I decide to write about evil again.

Let there be no doubt: wandering philosophers like Gaedhal and I see things infinitely differently than the Maesters of the Citadel for the simple fact that we have suffered evil in the most direct and overwhelming way imaginable. Philosophising in an ivory tower (see an artistic representation of the Citadel tower here) isn’t the same to suffer evil in the most brutal way and in the naked world. For example, the Counter-Currents author’s paragraphs on Christianity sugar-coat the subject. Just compare those paragraphs with the series on the criminal history of Christianity that we have been translating into English, which will soon reach instalment #200!
 
_________

[1] In that 2022 article, I mentioned that I intended to call the whole of my series of autobiographical books From Jesus to Hitler. I have changed my mind, and the trilogy has three different titles (see here).

Categories
Hans F. K. Günther Racial right

Günther’s father

Hans F. K. Günther’s essay ‘The dissolution of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity’ is now available here.

As I have said countless times, German National Socialism was in every way superior to the American white nationalism we suffer from today. It is striking how this essay by a Nordicist who flourished in the Third Reich is still far more relevant than what, on this Monday before Christmas Eve, we can see in any racialist webzine today, for the Aryans of the time had not degenerated.

I have been watching and listening to some of my favourite pieces by Modest Mussorgsky and Richard Wagner on YouTube. I was impressed to find several non-white musicians in a performance of the Berlin Philharmonic playing Wagner. A Polish orchestra, on the other hand, was composed only of young white musicians. At least in both orchestras, people continue to dress as orchestral musicians of the last century did: as Günther dressed above, whose father was a musician, by the way.

What the contemporary racial right ignores is that we must transvalue all values, including musical values and dress, to how we were in the past. Racial realism awareness, and JQ awareness, are just a couple of decent facets among many other decent facets of cultural preservation. Alas, as long as, because of their ersatz Christianity, whites continue to behave like that crazy ascetic I saw in Ripley’s Believe It or Not the day I fled San Francisco—mea culpa! mea culpa! mea culpa! mea culpa!—they will be unable to save their race from the extinction still underway.

Categories
Racial right Thomas Goodrich

Tribute

Exactly a week ago Tom Goodrich passed away. I will observe one more day of silence in his memory because, unsurprisingly, the most popular websites of the racial right are not paying Tom any tribute…

Categories
Philosophy Racial right Theology

Christian nationalism

by Gaedhal

I was reading Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy (1946). According to Russel, theism died out amongst the best minds in Europe, by 1700. This is, incidentally, how we could have a secular government established in America in the 18th Century. Aron Ra put a recording of Madeline Murray O’ Hare where she claimed that all the founders of America were atheists. In my view, this is an exaggeration. However, a lot of them weren’t theists. Thomas Jefferson called himself a materialist, as did Abraham Lincoln, four score and seven years later. John Adams wondered whether God even existed at all… which qualifies him as an agnostic. If only rich land-owning white men can vote—and, remember, white aristocrats have been having outbreaks of atheism since the Ionic Enlightenment, about 500 years before the common era—then the form of government that they would chose for themselves would be a secular godless government, in no way founded upon the Christian Religion, where Religion is only referred to as a negative phenomenon that must not be imposed, by the State, upon its citizens.

The reason why I am an elitist, of sorts, is because the mob is more than 300 years behind the intellectual elite in abandoning theism. Thankfully, some countries, like the United Kingdom, are transitioning into a post-theistic age.

The Philosopher Kings who established the United States, were non-theists. There might have been some sort of Aristotelian prime mover, who got the Cosmos started, however, this God no longer tinkers with or prods his creation. Thomas Paine, although a believer in an Almighty, of some deistic sort, nevertheless categorically rules out miracles. Paine thinks it absurd that a God would fix the laws of nature… and then break these laws through performing miracles. Paine does offer some positive arguments for God, such as the argument for God through mathematics/geometry/platonic forms… however, a god who doesn’t do miracles might as well not exist.

God used to have a lot of jobs to do. Prior to Newton and Galileo, objects were said to “prefer” to be at rest. Thus God’s might was needed to push the planets about the sky. If the planets are motoring across the sky, then God must be pushing them about. However Galileo and Newton proved that objects were utterly indifferent as to their being in motion or at rest. Thus, God was no longer needed to push the planets about the sky.

The motto of the Royal Society, headed up by Newton was and is: verba in nullius, which is Latin for: “We take nobody’s word for it”. In Christianity, we believe things because a holy-man said it. This is why Saint Paul is always vaunting how holy he is… how many times he went to prison for god… how poor and hungry he is for god. How many times he got flogged by the enemies of the Christian God. The holier one was, the more trustworthy he was meant to be.

Verba in Nullius is thus an antichrist saying. Scientists don’t give a fuck how holy you are. You either demonstrate what you claim, or it is not established. The Royal Society, thus, does not really care what God says, what Jesus says, what a Pope says, what a Holy Book says… Science is only interested in demonstrable reality.

However, another job that God had was to animate living things. Living objects, thanks to a false idea inherited from Aristotle, were also said to prefer rest. The fact that living things existed at all was proof—yes proof!—that God exists. However, the Biochemistry of which living things is composed is also totally indifferent—it has no preferences—whether it be at rest or in motion. Thus, there is no need for a god to animate our bodies through a magical object called a ‘soul’—or, in Latin: ‘anima’. Thus, there is no longer any need for a Great Cartoonist in the Sky to animate Aristotelian rest-preferring biological bodies with souls.

Hell was also disbelieved in by 1700, according to Russell. Newton was a Unitarian, and so, by rights, he should be shrieking up his bloody lungs in fiery torment, in Yahweh’s superheated torture chamber. However, the idea that Newton was in Hell was too much to swallow.

To recap: the elitists who founded America had all of this sussed out by the founding. They were deists, agnostics, materialists etc.

However, 300 years later, amongst the American mob, the Christian Superstition, is still rife among the populace. America is in real danger of succumbing to Christian Nationalism.

The mob will eventually abandon theism in America, though, just as they have already done in the United Kingdom… however, the mob always seems to be centuries behind the intellectual elite.

To me, the chapter: ‘The Rise of Science’ really demonstrates the gulf that exists between the elite philosophers, and the superstitious mobmen.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s 2 ¢

In certain quarters of the American racial right, Christian nationalism is popular.

For someone who, like me, already admired pantheism since 1973 and 1974 when we were taught Hegel at school, and knew about the existence of the pantheist theologian Teilhard de Chardin, I am surprised by the atavisms that Americans still suffer from. If only the racialists would take Uncle Adolf’s after-dinner talks as their guidebook! But even before Hitler, philosophical-theological treatises had already been published in Germany, which distanced the readers from the theism that persists in the hemisphere where I live.

It is not surprising that Karlheinz Deschner’s work on Christian criminal history has been translated and published in Spanish but not published in English. And with such gross ignorance do the racialists pretend to lead their country forward?

Categories
Hate Judeo-reductionism Racial right

‘Hiring the enemy’

I am still missing an instalment of Revilo Oliver’s article but before I put it up I would like to say something about that essay. This passage from Oliver—:

They [the Aryans] are burdened by the horrible guilt of not having committed suicide, a guilt they can expiate only by taxing themselves to hire their enemies to destroy them. They must love their enemies, but hate their own children. Especially in once-great Britain and the United States, the crazed Whites are not only subsidising the proliferation of their vermin and legislating to inhibit the reproduction of their own kind, but are importing from all the world hordes of their biological enemies to destroy their posterity.

—made an impression on me. It made me think about my eternal criticism of the Judeo-reductionism of the American racial right, which has failed to realise that it is whites themselves who have hired their enemies to destroy them (consider, for example, the number of pro-Israel people Trump has chosen for his new cabinet). It is more than clear, as William Pierce once said, that if the Aryan doesn’t get the monkey (Christianity) off his back he will not survive.

Precisely because the monkey is carried by whites on both sides of the Atlantic, Benjamin Power observed the following in his latest email today:

Dear César,

I am reminded today of another outright example of ersatz Christians jeopardizing white racial struggle. As far as I recall, you suggest that in order to wake up and defend/attack ourselves in the UK we must pass through various stages, starting at stage 1 with the men getting angry enough at their circumstances to want to protect their own homes and families. I see something today, written by Blair Cottrell, but highlighted by Mark Collett, the head of Britain’s main nationalist group, would be a hinderance to this, shamefully encouraging head-in-the-sand cowardice and advising, in false pedagogy, to relinquish hatred. I remember making the comment before that these sinister group leaders seem to act like official counter-countersubversives. I’m sure they’re not, but their pacifist gatekeeping is infuriating. I was really hoping someone would take you up on your radio station podcasts idea. In the worst case scenario you could deliver monologues, or take questions/discussions after a short gap window, where listeners could use their own AI software to translate their (presumed) English to Spanish remarks then email the translated .wav files to you.

Anyhow, this is what Mark recommends:

If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until it gets so ugly you can hardly bear to look at it.

I do believe this is true.

It’s why it’s important to psychologically protect yourself from certain people and circumstances.

It’s completely reasonable to resent the state, the suburbs, traffic, the condition of the culture, the 12 Indians in a rental across the street yelling jibberish at all hours of the night, etc., but only up to a certain point is it healthy to hate.

You need to remove yourself on occasion and allow yourself the space and time to reset & be thankful for what’s good. Your soul will thank you for it.

Mischaracterising healthy adult hatred as ‘ugly thoughts’ was duplicitous. By taking a reasonable idea and placing it in unreasonable context, he might as well work for Prevent. I think to begin to successfully cross to the other bank of the Rubicon one must truly hate their country.

Best regards,

Ben

Collett doesn’t even strike me as a pure Englishman from the point of view of his phenotype. I guess his genotype is compromised by racial garbage. But the important thing is that as long as the English don’t hate they will never get ahead. Not a hatred like Rudyard Kipling advocated against the Germans in WW1 but, now, a hatred of the whole British culture because of what they did since WW2.

Incidentally, Oliver’s essay is so important that I will merge it, after the sixth instalment, into a single PDF to be accessed in the featured post, ‘The Wall’. But as I no longer want to edit that article, I will upload ‘The Wall’ again on 1 January 2025, including the link to Oliver’s article.

It is impressive that the viewpoint of The West’s Darkest Hour has existed for decades in the US but that very few have picked up the torch that Oliver left lying on the ground (National Alliance has published Oliver’s essay in its entirety, which I will only complete on this site until tomorrow).