web analytics

Category: Racial right

Categories
New Testament Racial right

MacDonald & Miller

This dialogue on paradigm shifts between Dennis MacDonald and Richard Miller, two New Testament scholars I respect, can be extrapolated to our topic.

The current paradigm in white nationalism is that Jewry is the cause of Aryan decline.

We, on the other hand, believe that Jewish influence is only possible because of the mortal sins of the Aryans (cf. for example what we have said about Constantine and Charlemagne in Deschner’s books, PDFs of which appear in the featured post).

White nationalists, mostly Christians or Christian sympathisers, ignore the new paradigm: they are stuck in the old one. For the paradigm to change requires the old generation of racialists to perish, and a new generation to be more willing to put the religion of our parents in the dock.

For the moment, the intellectual inertia that gives life to the current paradigm comes from the pundits of the most visited racialist forums, regardless of the fact that that paradigm has already been superseded, at least in the minds of those racialists who are more understanding of what is really going on (e.g., Velasco’s diagnosis of how the West’s dark hour originated: his essay on Judea and Rome).

Categories
August Kubizek Lightning and the Sun (book) Racial right

The Lightning

and the Sun, 3

There are, to my knowledge, — unfortunately, — no records of Adolf Hitler’s childhood. And, enlightening as it surely is, the little one can gather about it from a conversation with his most sympathetic old tutor, Herr Mayrhofer, (who is still living in Leonding, near Linz, and whom I met twice) and the little he mentions himself in Mein Kampf (which is not an autobiography) is not enough to buttress such a definite (and unusual) view of him as the one put forth in the present study. The one apparently authoritative picture of the future ruler’s life and character, years before he ‘decided to become a politician,’ is to be found in the very good book in which August Kubizek — the one friend he had in early youth, — has related the story of his four years’ friendship with him, namely from 1904 to 1908.[1]

In those years — i.e., when he was over fifteen, less than nineteen, — Adolf Hitler’s main traits of character were already fixed, and visible at every step of his: in all he said or did. His scale of values was already that one which was, in later years, to set him apart from every political leader of our times. And the psychological (the real) basis of his philosophy the source of his unshakable faith in it, and the key to his whole career, — was already definite. In other words, the man he was to be — the Man he could but be, under the given circumstances, — had already taken shape and was, with the sureness of instinct, with a mysterious, inner knowledge, a logic of his own that baffled all human calculations, invincibly following the path of his tremendous destiny. And the features of the rapidly awakening personality were unmistakably those, and the unfailing, baffling logic, that, of a Man of the type I have, in this book, characterised as ‘against Time’: of an inspired, ruthless and realistic — extraordinarily far sighted — fighter for a Golden Age ideal, in the depth of our Dark Age.

And, were we able to trace the history of Adolf Hitler’s evolution further into those very early years which he describes as providing (from the standpoint of events) ‘little to remember,’[2] it is not only probable but certain that we would find, in him, up to the very beginning of his life, the self-same, deeply distinctive traits of character, the self-same fundamental aspirations — the same person. Such men as he are not, as so many people seem to think, the ‘product of circumstances,’ but predestined beings who use the given circumstances to the utmost, for a purpose which far exceeds the obvious, immediate aim of their action, or, to speak the language of ancient Wisdom, — and one is, ultimately, compelled to speak that language, — great free Souls,[3] no longer bound by the law of birth and rebirth, who choose to be born in the environment (within the race, the country, the social stratum) in which, and to grow into leading men and to struggle as such under the circumstances under which they are to act the most efficiently, in the highest interest of Creation. They are children and adolescents ‘against Time’ before leaving in history the mark of their passage as Men ‘against Time.’

One of the most noticeable traits of people ‘against Time’ — no less than of those I have described as ‘above Time’ — is that they fit nowhere in the world as it is; that their moral and aesthetic — and practical — standards: their conception of happiness and unhappiness, their idea of ‘success’ and failure, and of usefulness, in one word their values, and its, have nothing in common. And, from all that his friend A. Kubizek relates about Adolf Hitler’s adolescence in Linz, that appears precisely to have been the case of the future master of Germany, at that time a no doubt remarkably gifted but, in the estimation of cool-minded grown-ups, ‘unpractical’ youth, who had recently left the middle-school without completing the course of his studies, and nourished the ambition of becoming a great artist — a painter, or perhaps an architect — with little material prospects of fulfilling it, and who lived on his widowed mother’s meagre pension, and roamed about the streets — or the countryside — and occasionally went to the theatre (taking admittedly the cheapest seats,) and made gigantic plans and spoke — already — with compelling eloquence, — of things that interested nobody but himself, while other boys earned their living and helped their families, or were learning something ‘useful.’ ‘He just fitted into no social frame whatsoever,’ concludes A. Kubizek, after having tried to, analyse the reasons why his friend, despite capacities by far above the average, failed, even in subsequent years, to ‘get on’ professionally. ‘He had not the slightest ambition of securing himself a livelihood’ and of being comfortable. He did not wish to be ‘comfortable.’ He did not — and never was to — think in terms of comfort or of personal ‘happiness.’ What others called ‘enjoying life’ was something absolutely foreign to him. Nor could he ‘take things as they came’ and live lightly, free of worry, entirely within the present. He was, at a very early age, intensely aware that things were wrong in the world round him — wrong in every walk of life, in every domain of thought and action, from A to Z, — and he felt himself duty-bound to change them; not to change this or that in them, leaving the rest untouched, but to change them ruthlessly and radically, for they were radically wrong, and to build everything anew, according to principles different from those that had prevailed up till then.

And this was not a mere wish, a more or less vague desire or day-dream. It was a purpose that he pursued with ‘deadly seriousness’ and unfailing consistency, busying himself long before hand with the most minute details of his plans in every particular case, without for all that ever losing sight of the spirit and general lines of his creation as a whole, so much so that that ‘extraordinary seriousness’ and consistency — and merciless radicality — struck all those who knew him as the main trait of his character. He pursued it — nay, already in those years in which he was not yet politically active; already while he himself still believed that art would remain, throughout life, his first and foremost concern — with that feverish impatience which finds its expression in the words: ‘Now, or never’; with the haste inherent in all earnest action ‘against Time.’ And that impatience — that tragic awareness that ‘tomorrow will be too late’ — was to stamp his whole career as a ruler and as the Founder of the last true civilisation within the Dark Age. In it, in fact, lies the source and the explanation of Adolf Hitler’s most drastic — and most criticized — steps in later life and the sign that National Socialism, that most heroic of all reactions against our Dark Age, historically still belongs to this Age, while transcending its spirit.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s two cents:

…he himself still believed that art would remain, throughout life, his first and foremost concern….

It is here that the gulf between us and American white nationalism becomes apparent. As far as I know, the only American racialist who sensed any of this was Michael O’Meara: who wrote that only a new myth could save us. His readers in a racialist webzine didn’t understand a whit of this, believing that only by smearing data to the normies about race realism or the JQ could one modify the Aryan collective unconscious.

That is not possible for those who know how the mind works!

To use Jungian language, it is all about ‘touching the Self.’ And the royal path toward that direction is through art. Remember how Hitler loved Wagner’s art, or how Parrish’s paintings produced, in me, the eureka moment: This is what Creation (the Big Bang) was for!

The Greco-Romans also knew that displaying the Aryan nude on public thoroughfares through majestic sculptures manifested the Self in the form of the majestic Gods.

The Anglo-Saxon racial right, children of Bentham and not of sculptors, painters or poets, has no idea that what we need is a new religion: a new myth accompanied by a new art! Precisely for this reason all anti-art is a curse for producing the new Aryan awakening, which is why I don’t listen to racialist podcasts that start with degenerate music (to her credit, Uncle Adolf’s other admirer, Carolyn Yeager, never used degenerate music at the beginning or end of her podcasts).

____________

[1] August Kubizek, Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfround [Adolf Hitler, Friend of my Youth] (Leopold Stocker Verlag, 1953.)

[2] Mein Kampf, p. 2.

[3] In Sanskrit, Mukta Purusha.

Categories
Racial right

Friends

Once again: during my walks, the only exercise I do, my best thoughts come to me. A few minutes ago I thought that my standard for a possible friendship is precisely the figure of Uncle Adolf. That’s why I will continue to quote Brendan Simms. Although ideologically this biographer is not our friend, his book contains much vital information about Adolf Hitler’s ideals as far as repudiating the golden calf is concerned. And the book by Richard Weikart (abridged here), another ideological enemy of ours, contains vital information about what Hitler thought about Christianity.

The German Chancellor was perfectly aware of what, in the comments section, I said on Wednesday about how harmful Christianity is to the mental health of the Aryan man; and the same can be said of corporate capital. Never mind that, during the Third Reich, New Testament exegesis would not have developed to the level it has in the 21st century (the most recent interpretive findings reveal that Jesus of Nazareth was not even a historical figure, just a character of the rabbis’ literary fiction).

If a contemporary white man is red-pilled on both issues—the toxicity of the religion of our parents and how Big Business is antithetical to Aryan preservation—we can be friends. Otherwise, we cannot and certainly not if, out of pride, one is reluctant to question religion or the economic system we live in.

If someone is already on Hitler’s level, it is much easier to convince him that the Jesus that Uncle Adolf imagined last century as a historical figure didn’t even exist. Likewise, if someone has already realised that corporate capital has no flag, so it is trying to globalise society and even mongrelise it, he has already taken the first step towards repudiating the project of the nation he was born into.

Who is willing to (1) repudiate Christianity and (2) the project of his nation (see this comment that six years ago, on 30 August 2018, to be exact, Edwin posted on this site)?

He who, in pursuit of the 14 words[1] is willing to take both steps, is my friend.

_________
[1] Equivalent to the four words in Latin: Gens alba conservanda est.

Categories
Racial right

Definition!

Today I was planning to post another installment on Brendan Simms’ biography of Hitler when, on my morning walk to buy groceries, I came up with the perfect definition of American white nationalism.

In various pro-white lectures Tomislav Sunić has said, and here I paraphrase him, that capitalism and Judaeo-Christian ethics are the double helix of the mental virus destroying the West (the JQ is merely a secondary infection of this primary infection).

So far, so good. But the Croatian intellectual has been too politically correct to confront his colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic. My position is analogous to Sunić’s, but I say things much more bluntly and brutally—like Eduardo Velasco’s tough comments, to whom I have dedicated my last few posts.

Behold my definition:

White nationalism is the art of ‘have it both ways’ or ‘have one’s cake and eat it too’.

In other words, the American racial right wants to save the white race without questioning Judaeo-Christianity or repudiating capitalism.

In Spain, there are several sayings equivalent to the aforementioned American idioms. For example, “No se puede silbar y comer pinole al mismo tiempo” (You can’t whistle and eat pinole simultaneously). The Spaniards of another time also used to say: “No se puede repicar y andar en la procesión” (You can’t ring the church’s bell and walk in the procession). And the following saying can be used even by non-Catholic Spaniards: “No se puede nadar y guardar la ropa” (You can’t swim and keep your clothes).

That is American white nationalism in a nutshell: the self-deceptive art of doublethink! People like Velasco teach us how to get out of that trap: how to transvalue our fallen values (fallen because of Judaeo-Christianity and Mammon worship) to the values of Sparta, Republican Rome and our dear Uncle Adolf’s Germany…

Categories
Film Final solution Racial right

Heydrich, 6

Today I watched the film from this moment until Otto Hoffman’s speech is interrupted by a phone call from Himmler to Heydrich. The segment made me think and even aroused my emotions.

For example, it came to my mind that Christians of the racial right evoke the figure of Friedrich Wilhelm Kritzinger, portrayed in the film by Franz Rudnick.

Kritzinger was a German civil servant and Secretary of State in the Reich Chancellery: one of the participants in the Wannsee Conference that established the policies of The Final Solution. After the conference, he attempted to resign from his post in the Chancellery, but his resignation was rejected because ‘it would be worse without him’.

After the war, Kritzinger was arrested, along with most of the other surviving members of the Wannsee Conference, in 1946. During the Nuremberg Trials, he publicly declared himself ashamed of the Reich. He was released in April 1946 but then arrested again in December of the same year. He was later released and shortly afterwards died of natural causes.

With Germans like Kritzinger and Americans like the good Christians of today, we are getting nowhere. On the one hand, they recognise that the Jews want to exterminate the Aryans. On the other hand, they put the interests of the Jew before those of the Aryan when it comes to final solutions, because if it comes to a war to the death between the two races, by feeling compassion for the enemy one is tacitly betraying one’s ethnicity.

I don’t think Christian racialists will see the obvious unless they repudiate the religion of their parents. We saw what happened in Germany after the war. The Anglo-Americans easily denazified the German nation by simply using Judeo-Christian ethics as the default morality, and the ideals of National Socialism were quickly forgotten by these Germans who became, like the rest of Westerners, vile bourgeoisie from the 1950s to the present day.

I think it is even treason to go around saying that the film is making things up and that the SS weren’t exterminationists. That’s why I like David Irving and Mark Weber, because despite being sympathisers of Hitler and the Third Reich they don’t fall into this neochristian temptation of wanting to ‘baptise’, with Christian morality, these SS hierarchs who appear at the round table.

If things continue to go wrong and the Aryans are going to be exterminated, I think only the last generation of whites will discover that from WW2 onwards all Westerners, racialists included, made an astronomical mistake.

Conversely, if the racialists were consistent with their premise of racial protection, they would have to have as martyrs all those at the table who were killed by the Allies when the war ended, except Kritzinger because he never abandoned Judeo-Christian morality. Moreover, if English-speaking racialists were consistent, they would try to learn German to understand National Socialism thoroughly, and even to speak in a language that sounds tougher, more manly, than other European languages.

Otto Hoffman’s little speech, portrayed by Robert Atzorn, which starts here, shows the exact tone as the (still non-existent) priests of the sacred words should be speaking, even if we have zero political power. Remember what Savitri implied: the first step to conquer the world is to have this kind of thinking.

Categories
Final solution Racial right

Heydrich, 5

Beginning at this point Heydrich says: ‘The Führer sees himself as the Robert Koch of politics: eradicating the bacteria to save the organism. It’s either them or us’.

One of the clearest signs that the racial right isn’t a serious movement is that it fails to point out the simple fact that the American zeitgeist has been the exact antithesis of this pronouncement: something that was realised decades ago by Ben Klassen[1], who blamed Christianity for the fanatical philosemitism of Americans. When we see American senators and other politicians saying these days that their support for Israel is unconditional, and will be unconditional as long as the US exists, we have a perfect portrait of today’s Jew-loving (and therefore Aryan-hating, since as Heydrich said ‘It’s either them or us’) zeitgeist.

I said I would not mention names and I will keep that promise for the rest of my blogging career but who, among the notable anti-Semites of the racial right, post images of Heydrich as the patron saint of their sites? The truth is that there is no homage to this SS hierarch or any other notable Nazi. Nor will there be, for the simple fact that those who belong to the racial right continue to worship the crucified; and it is considered disloyal to side with the crucifier even if the crucified was a subversive Jew and the crucifier an Aryan (remember that for Nietzsche the only respectable figure in the New Testament was Pontius Pilate).

Half an hour into the film, with the cold tone and routine of a bureaucrat Heydrich says: ‘the physical annihilation of 100,000 Polish, Baltic and Russian Jews’. In all honesty: could you conceive of a racialist Christian becoming president of the US speaking in that tone? Isn’t it obvious that to speak like that it is first necessary to use the Bible of our ancestors as toilet paper, literally? What are the chances that those who are now Zionists will in the future wipe their asses with the torn pages of their Bibles? What are the chances that they will become like Heydrich and company? Nine years ago I quoted Jack Frost and it is worth reciting:

In order to accept being called a racist or a Nazi with equanimity, normal American whites would have to reconcile that with their country’s history of being violently opposed to racism of any kind, from the Civil War forward. They would have to admit to themselves and to others that all of that bloodshed in trying to stamp out racism had been shed in vain, and in fact, worse than in vain, in an evil cause. They would have to admit that their ancestors were evil, and that they themselves had also been evil before they saw the light and became racists.

It’s safe to say the chances of that happening on a mass scale are almost zero.

Around the 37th minute of the film, Heydrich mentions the sum of eleven million Jews to be exterminated, in total. Once again: Can you imagine a Christian on this side of the Atlantic thinking in such terms? You have to become anti-Christian, like Alex Linder and William Pierce, to dare to think like that!

Is it understandable why this site is a crusade against the cross? As long as American ‘racialists’ continue to worship the Jew hanging on the cross they will never think in terms of true survival. In the film, Heydrich also wanted to deport the Jews from England to the camps in Eastern Europe. But in real story they stayed there and Winston Churchill literally pissed in the Rhine River after WW2.

There is no need to remind the reader of the current situation in the UK. Of the people I dealt with personally on my last visit to the island ten years ago, since then one suffered thirteen months’ imprisonment for saying unkind things about Jews (Jez Turner), and two others are now serving years…

_____________

[1] Klassen’s family were originally Dutch Mennonites, who for a time lived in Prussia and then in 1804 moved out to the Ukraine. Klassen himself was born to Bernhard Kornelius Klassen and Susanna Penner in Rudnerwiede, part of a historical German-speaking Mennonite colony, close to the Crimea, then part of the Ukrainian People’s Republic; the area would later become part of the Zaporizhia Oblast during the 1930s.

Categories
Racial right

Heydrich, 3

In the film, the meeting that starts at this moment makes me think…

Had it not been for the Anglo-Americans, these are the kind of meetings that would exist today in the centre of a Europe completely conquered by the Third Reich instead of the meetings where the Russians now have the power over the destiny of Europe.

If the white race is to survive, sooner or later the English and Americans will have to make a truly astronomical humility cure—i.e, swallow their pride—and do a centuries-long penance for the blunder their ancestors committed in the 20th century (and 21st century by continuing to defame Hitler).

Incidentally, as far as my Tuesday post about the impostor is concerned, I learned a lesson.

I shouldn’t drop names when criticising the racial right because, sometimes, I will need their favours. For example, the moderator of Counter-Currents did me the courtesy of clarifying, in the comments thread, that the impostor who in various racialist forums has been trolling me for six years was a troll and not the real César Tort. Like it or not, from now on I won’t drop names because I have had the experience that some moderators of other racialist forums have been so susceptible to my criticisms that they continued to let the comments of that impostor pass, under my name, even after I repeatedly informed them by email that the impostor wasn’t me.

So from now on my criticisms of the racial right will omit the names of the specific persons, so as not to unnecessarily hurt their susceptibilities.

In any case, the regular visitor to this site is well aware that my ideological difference with them lies precisely in the fact that they don’t think like Heydrich and his SS gang, as we see at the round table in the film. The racial right still lives under the sky of Christian morality, and we want to practice genocides like Genghis Khan for the simple fact that we must comply with the four words (‘eliminate all unnecessary suffering’). And if humans are the devils of the animals on earth, to save them we must dispatch them. Always keep in mind that the first measures taken by the Nazis when they came to power were precisely to prohibit vivisection and many other unnecessary sufferings of our cousins!

Those who do not feel such compassion for animals will never understand National Socialism, and I would suggest that they stop visiting racialist forums and read instead Savitri Devi’s Impeachment of Man, which touches on the issue of unnecessary cruelty to animals.

In the next post of this series, I will see if it is worth quoting some specific words of these SS officers at the round table…

Categories
Axiology Might is right (book) Racial right

Might is right, 1

by Ragnar Redbeard

Editor’s Note:

I don’t presume to have read all of Ragnar Redbeard’s book, but I might be adding some excerpts in a new series, such as the following passage from the preface.

It is interesting to compare this book published in 1896 with the lectures of those on the American racial right 128 years later (e.g., this recent one), who are still stuck in unwarlike Christian ethics.

The mysterious Redbeard (a pen name) wrote:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Virtue is rewarded in this world, remember. Natural law makes no false judgments. Its decisions are true and just, even when dreadful. The victor gets the gold and the land every time. He also gets the fairest maidens, the glory tributes. And—why should it be otherwise? Why should the delights of life go to failures and cowards? Why should the spoils of battle belong to the unwarlike? That would be insanity, utterly unnatural and immoral.

Behold the crucifix, what does it symbolize?
Pallid incompetence hanging on a tree.

In the wars of the Great Cæsar, and Grim Hannibal, in the times of Belzchazzar, the Pharaohs and all; the days of Rienzi and Roland the Bold; all banners are waving for women and gold.
It is might against might, remember, by land and sea, man against man, money against money, brains against brains, and—everything to the winner.

Categories
Racial right

Cancer patients

The brief exchange between Will Williams, an anti-Christian racialist like us, and a Christian commenting on Counter-Currents, reminds me of my dilemma: I want to save Anglo-Germans from the ongoing extinction but most are like a cancerous patient who refuses to see that his cancer is due to smoking.

In other words: the rampant self-loathing from which today’s Aryan suffers is ultimately due to Christian ethics and guilt that grows every day like cancer. For example, the alluded Christian stated: ‘despite [William] Pierce’s brilliance, his agenda is seen as morally repugnant’ by racial right groups—not realising that to wipe out orcs is the only way to survive (remember: millions of them have already invaded the Aryan lands)!

Fortunately, Jared Taylor, the granddaddy of American race realism, is already realising that his country is a goner, as we can see in his latest video.

How long will it take my northern neighbours to appreciate what I say on page 73 of my recent psychobiography on Nietzsche?

Categories
Racial right

On eunuchs

A Eunuch’s Dream (1874, Cleveland Museum of Art) depicts a eunuch who wanted to marry a harem slave. He experienced a vision of her while smoking his opium pipe, but her little companion holding a knife dripping with blood reminds us that the eunuch’s anatomy precludes the fulfillment of his dream.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

I started the Crusade Against the Cross series, now a book, a month ago. Before I return to what I used to do, quoting Simms’ book on Hitler, I would like to say a few things about the racial right. I never tire of analysing the subject precisely because of what I was saying yesterday about how Europeans lost their manhood.

On this side of the Atlantic, whites also lost their manhood, although at least some of them still defend some of it with the Second Amendment. But that’s not remotely enough. What racialists need now is to shift their paradigm: from believing that the Jewish problem is the primary cause of white decline, to realising that the Christian problem is that primary cause. And to do so requires balls: intellectual manhood that racialists on this side of the Atlantic still lack.

Recently, for example, Counter-Currents (CC), one of the most representative sites of American white nationalism, surveyed its visitors. I was enthusiastic about this initiative and answered the survey questions myself.

In doing so, I noticed that the survey taker asked many questions from the System’s POV. For example, he asked the respondents whether they considered themselves to be male, female or a third sex (we can imagine a survey of imperial Germans if the Third Reich had won the war!). Likewise, the CC survey asked whether the respondent suffered from autism or ADHD.

For years I have complained that racialists haven’t realised that psychiatric labels like ADHD are relatively recent, and have been used to tame brave male children with drugs. I brought this to Greg Johnson’s attention himself, as he read my article ‘Why psychiatry is a false science’ in an expanded version in which I included some passages about ADHD and white children.

The problem with the kind of questions like the one in the CC survey is that they don’t adequately rebel against crazy or pseudo-scientific fads (that there are more than two sexes or that there is such a thing as ADHD). But that wasn’t the worst of the survey. It would have been fascinating to see how many of the respondents were Christian, or sympathetic to Christianity for example. But on Saturday, Johnson published an article saying that he will keep some of the poll results to himself! What a disappointment. And we cannot know if any CC readers were upset, because Johnson is known to sometimes not let some comments through (I gave up trying to comment there when he wouldn’t let me discuss Nordicism).

Now let’s turn to another of the most respected sites on the American racial right: the one chaired by Kevin MacDonald. Tobias Langdon is a featured author at The Occidental Observer. On Sunday, Langdon published an optimistic article that opens with these words:

“The West is doomed!” “France is finished!” “Britain is over!” I’ve never understood expressions of despair and defeat like those. They’re obviously self-indulgent and harmful things to say, so how could people with any common sense and self-control utter them? Unless those people aren’t what they pretend to be, of course. No genuine friend of the West should announce that “The West is doomed!” Or announce the same of any part of the West, whether they happen to live there or not.

Langdon goes on to say that fortune favours the brave and that defeatism has been a capital crime in wartime. But he omits one small detail! No one in the mainstream articles of today’s racial right is saying what, a dozen years ago, Michael O’Meara was still saying about an eventual armed revolution. And it is precisely because of this lack of revolutionaries, albeit at the moment only at a theoretical level, that it makes perfect sense to say that France or Britain are finished (David Lane had said so in ‘Open Letter to a Dead Race’). But of course: like CC, Langdon writes for an audience of eunuchs.

There was one commenter who took issue with Langdon and posted this. Remarkably, another commenter defended Langdon Christianly, even talking about the god of the Jews as if (1) that god exists, and (2) capitalising the word ‘God’ as implying that we Gentiles must worship it. That’s fairly common on that supposedly Jew-wise webzine!

Before this site gets back on track, I must quote from the last page of Crusade against the Cross, actually a quote from the last page of Nietzsche’s Der Antichrist:

Law against Christianity [1]

Given on the Day of Salvation, on the first day of the year one (30 September 1888, according to the false calculation of time).

War to the death against vice: the vice is Christianity

First article.—Every type of anti-nature is a vice. The priest is the most vicious type of person: he teaches anti-nature. Priests are not to be reasoned with, they are to be locked up.

Second article.—Any participation in church services is an attack on public morality. One should be harsher with Protestants than with Catholics, harsher with liberal Protestants than with orthodox ones. The criminality of being Christian increases with your proximity to science. The criminal of criminals is consequently the philosopher.

Third article.—The execrable location where Christianity brooded over its basilisk eggs should be razed to the ground and, being the depraved spot on earth, it should be the horror of all posterity. Poisonous snakes should be bred on top of it.

Fourth article.—The preacher of chastity is a public incitement to anti-nature. Contempt for sexuality, making it unclean with the concept of ‘uncleanliness’, these are the real sins against the holy spirit of life.

Fifth article.—Eating at the same table as a priest ostracizes: you are excommunicated from honest society. The priest is our Chandala, —he should be ostracized, starved, driven into every type of desert.

Sixth article.—The ‘holy’ history should be called by the name it deserves, the cursed history; the words ‘God’, ‘saviour’, ‘redeemer’, ‘saint’ should be used as terms of abuse, to signify criminals.

Seventh article.—The rest follows from this.

Friedrich Nietzsche – The Antichrist

I quote this just to show the gulf that separates me from the typical American racialist. Unlike Langdon’s goofy optimism, I am convinced that to save the Aryan man it will be necessary to implement the ‘Law against Christianity’ when we revolutionaries come to power. There is no other way to save him since it’s precisely Christian ethics that has been screwing the Aryan mind.

______________

[1] Nietzsche’s ‘Law Against Christianity’ has been eliminated from numerous editions of The Anti-Christ: A Curse on Christianity because the editors simply cucked before the Judeo-Christian ethos of the masses.