web analytics

Category: Racial right

Categories
Newspeak Racial right

Cucks

The word “racialism” had neutral connotations before the 1930s, when it was replaced by the now commonly-used term “racism.” This was used to describe the racial policies of National Socialist Germany and gained very negative connotations following the Second World War. The effect that this one six-letter word has had over the past 80 years is that it has pathologized any and all ethnocentrism among people of European descent to such an extent that it is considered the gravest manifestation of evil by the modern Western intelligentsia.

Bold emphasis added! These recent words from Endeavour reminded me of another Counter-Currents article when the webzine published better material than it does now, Irmin Vinson’s ‘Some Thoughts on Hitler’: the first time I read something against the grain of the official WW2 narrative with which the Establishment brainwashes us.

Instead of being neutral, the word ‘racism’, under the post-WW2 Anglo-American narrative, has become a mind virus designed to make Aryans commit ethnic suicide. This should alter the entire racial right to question the myth about WW2, but ironically the only one who tends to do so among the most popular webzines is… a Jew! (Ron Unz).

What a scandal. Note that I am referring to the most popular white nationalist sites administered by non-Jews, the ones that get the most traffic. As one commenter said yesterday: ‘They are cucks. I dare repeat that sentence: They are cucks.’

A non-cuck Gentile goes the way of Savitri Devi, insofar as after 1945 remaining a National Socialist means changing strategy from how the Germans did it when the word ‘racism’ hadn’t become a lethal virus. But this is not done by the racial right. One of the few publishers of racialist books told me that they weren’t interested in publishing books by Savitri, whom I consider the most important philosopher after 1945.

We really must build a parallel movement to white nationalism.

Categories
Daybreak (book) Racial right

Dead end

‘The reason most white nationalists aren’t all that interested in Hitler and despise him or prefer not to invoke his name except when and where it’s convenient (at times), is because they don’t identify with the pagan spirituality of Hitler and the National Socialist movement, especially where it violates their Christian beliefs.’ —A commenter

My post last week, ‘Not so lonely!’, includes two photographs from a little leaflet I received in the mail from the New Order: on one side we see the face of the Führer and on the other the holy days of our new calendar (an explanation of each holy day can be found here).

As I have said on this site, creating a new religion requires ritual. And creating a ritual requires that some National Socialists live, at most, fifteen minutes away by car. In fact, I would venture to rectify that: fifteen minutes of walking distance as this century will see the energy devolution that will make car travel a luxury.

To the list of days to commemorate what can be seen on the back of the little leaflet I laminated, I could add a few more dates in the remaining months: May, June and July remembering the memory of the victims of the Hellstorm Holocaust.

With a minimum of three NS men it would already be possible to start honouring these dates. But as I said, we have to live in the same town for that to be possible. Without the new religion we aren’t going to get anywhere. Unlike NS, white nationalism is a dead end as I have shown in some of my Daybreak essays.

I would suggest looking up the words ‘white national’ in the PDF of that book and reading the paragraphs containing those words to see why I say WN is a dead end (one of them includes the epigraph with which I start this post).

Categories
Autobiography Racial right

Grandma’s proverb

The documents my mother left in her study have been a veritable cornucopia of information for understanding not only her but the family. For example, among them I found a list of sayings that my maternal grandmother, my dear Yoya, used to say. I quote one of them: “Ves la tempestad y no te hincas” (‘You see the storm and you don’t kneel’).

It reminds me that, on both sides of the Atlantic, members of the racial right can see the storm currently ravaging the West. But they never kneel before their true Gods, the Aryan Gods, in repentance and asking mercy and forgiveness. On the contrary: they continue to fellate the god of the Jews, or rather, the Jews who wrote the New Testament insofar they obey its precepts for gentile consumption.

What prevents these so-called defenders of their race from thinking like the lad Magnus?

Categories
George Orwell Racial right

The schizophrenic South

In his relatively recent article ‘The Schizophrenic South’ Jared Taylor said:

Earlier this month the Southern Cultural Center (SCC) invited me to speak at its second annual conference. This is a group of Christian Southerners fighting to preserve the Southern people. It’s motto is “Our Culture, Our Heritage, Our Land, Our People,” and the SCC means it…

I did my best, however, and began with something I have before done never in public: I talked about my mother. She was perhaps the last of an extinct species: a liberal who was a devoted Southerner and Confederate. She was an early feminist, an integrationist, and even a supporter of homosexual rights. None of this stopped her from believing that Robert E. Lee came the closest to divinity of all men who ever lived. She always stood for “Dixie” and looked daggers at anyone who didn’t.

It is very interesting to note that Taylor hadn’t previously spoken about his mother, whose ideology was clearly schizophrenic (to avoid confusion between the popular use of this term and the use given to it by psychiatrists, I prefer the Orwellian term doublethink).

What some Southerners commenting on Taylor’s blog and other racialist forums ignore is that their ideology suffers from doublethink, i.e., being anti-Semitic and at the same time worshipping the god of the Jews. Or advocating the 14 words and not seeing that capitalism is poison to our sacred words in that one cannot serve two masters (Mammon and the Aryan race) because one will end up hating one and loving the other.

But I am repeating myself what I have said a thousand times on this site and I better stop…

Categories
Racial right Videos Vikings

Magnus v. Nosferatu

As I bathed in the morning, Keith Woods’ recent article in The Unz Review on Elon Musk’s reaction to ADL subversion got me thinking (Twitter, now dubbed ‘X’ by Musk, suffers from the ADL-orchestrated advertising takedown).

Nowhere on the racial right have I come across an explanation of why American society obeys the Jewish subversion group ADL. While there are countless articles on the internet exposing the ADL’s subversion of the First Amendment, there is, to my knowledge, no explanation of why American civil society and the American state blindly obey them.

That is typical of the racial right: they are anti-Semitic but not exactly Jew-wise, insofar as that would imply a clear, transparent, distinct and Apollonian explanation of why everyone seems to be obeying the whims of the biblically chosen people.

I’ve already written about Keith Woods on this site, whom I branded as an imbecilic Irish with no conscience whatsoever about the CQ, and I don’t want to link to that brief post I wrote about him years ago. I don’t want to do so because his blindness, presumably based on his Catholicism, is the same blindness that afflicts all other conservatives.

My question should be addressed until grasping the incredible phenomenon of the elites—including the companies that fund Twitter / X—obeying the demands of ‘Nosferatu.’ (Hunter Wallace has called Nosferatu the ADL director, whose face is so repulsive that unlike Wallace and The Unz Review, I dare not even post a picture of him.)

I believe that the blindness of the entire racial right in addressing something so obvious—why the American elites obey Nosferatu—is because they are unable to see themselves in the mirror. It was the historical reality that the US was founded by self-conscious Aryans who had to imagine they were Israelites to build a city upon a hill that is behind all this insane deference to the will of a powerful advocate of Israel.

Even the most famous American neo-Nazi suffered from this blindness. If one pays attention to the quote from George Lincoln Rockwell in the previous post, bearing in mind my footnote on page 90 of Savitri’s memoirs, it will become clear that Rockwell was trying to make a good impression on the Christians who funded his organisation.

But you cannot save the Aryan race and at the same time obey the commands of the god of the Jews to the Gentiles (actually, the commands of the rabbis who wrote the New Testament for Gentile consumption). Think, for example, of the countless times that, when he was on Fox News, Tucker Carlson talked about the equality of men, and that skin colour was absolutely irrelevant. Carlson even invoked the idea of ‘God’—that is: the god of the Jews—in his proclamations, and did so several times in his Fox career while talking about racial equality.

What I’m getting at is that all this discussion about Musk and the ADL misses the elephant in the room: Why do American elites obey Nosferatu? Or put in my language, if the anti-Christian Vikings had conquered the entire American continent—not the idiotic Spanish and Portuguese; not the idiotic English and French—, would they now be obeying Nosferatu?

Magnus: ‘I think our Faith should prevail. No doubt at all. Our Gods will ultimately triumph over the Christian god [contempt in Magnus’s voice] who is a usurper, who has no meaning; is not real. One day not so far away the name Jesus Christ will be utterly forgotten’ (emphasis in Magnus’ voice).

What if the Gods of the Anglo-Germans on the American continent were, every one of them, Aryans like those of the Greco-Roman Mount Olympus or the Germanic Valhalla? What if Vikings like Magnus, not the Judeo-Christian Charlemagne, had been victorious in the medieval wars in which Christianity was forcibly imposed?

So fundamental is what I am saying that what emerges is not only the great limitations of Rockwell—but of Hitler himself!

The subject is deep and complex and would involve reading what I say about Charlemagne in our translation of Deschner’s book. Fortunately, my post ‘Old Town’, which I uploaded the week before my mother’s passing, sums up what I mean.

Categories
James Mason Racial right

A new story

Or:

On putting the chariot before the horse

There is something important I would like to add to my Thursday post, in which I used a 1993 interview between Tom Metzger and James Mason to say something about Richard Spencer.

On this site I have been very critical of James Mason and his epigones for admiring Charles Manson: the mastermind behind the stabbing to death of the beautiful English rose Sharon Tate (and other Hollywood showbiz personalities).

In Siege Mason compiles his articles from the journal he wrote in the early 1980s. In vain, when I was reading Siege, did I find the reasons why Mason admired Manson, insofar as the latter’s intentions in devising his crimes weren’t racial. But now that I re-watched his interview with Metzger I detected something I had missed the first time I saw it. But before this revelation about the mind of James Mason I would like to digress a little.

Unlike Metzger’s audio-visual interviews, the podcasts of Greg Johnson, one of the leading promoters of American white nationalism, are audio-only. Metzger, let alone Mason, not properly ‘white nationalists’, were infinitely closer in character to the Germans of the Third Reich than Johnson and Spencer. But in one of his podcasts Johnson said something that piqued my interest. He mentioned the decades immediately before the internet as the darkest era, in that the Establishment had virtually absolute control over the narrative. This is very true: and the new generations have no idea how impossible it was for us to find even dissident authors, to the extent that in the past we could never rebel. (Since I grew up in the 1960s and 70s I couldn’t rebel intellectually because of this absolute control of information, as I recount in the third volume of my autobiography.)

Now let’s get back to Mason’s infatuation with Manson. What I detected in the interview with Metzger, which I had missed the first time I saw it, was that the desperation of national socialists like Mason in the face of the System’s absolute control of the media meant that he began to fix his attention on the news of those who broke the law with crimes to shock public morals. It was, it seemed, the only escape valve from an Establishment that was entirely successful in suppressing dissenting opinion.

This revelation came to me in understanding Mason when Metzger asked him why he admired Charles Manson. From Mason’s response, Metzger commented that, given the impasse on all sides due to the absolute grip of the System, the whole thing had to be blown up. (Recall that Charles Manson is not the only criminal to whom James Mason devotes articles in Siege: he also discusses other criminals who, at the time, shocked public morals even though, like Manson, weren’t acting out of racial ideals either.)

That doesn’t mean that, having understood the point James Mason wanted to get across, I now approve of the behaviour of Charles Manson and company. But it does mean that what I didn’t understand years ago when I read Siege directly, I understand now having watched the splendid interview with Metzger again. As I said, for new generations it is almost impossible to imagine the prolonged despair, a suffocation of ideas I dare say, that it meant for noble-minded boomers that there was no relevant information anywhere!

But back to James Mason. While I don’t join his enthusiasm for criminals who acted without racial ideology, what about those who break the law with racial ideology: say, someone like Breivik or Tarrant? In the 2020 discussion thread on the Metzger/Mason interview, one of the commenters chided me because I said that any revolutionary action is premature:

You sound like an old and grumbling geezer.

It’s futile and unfair to accuse the youth of ardour and impatience and narrow tunnel vision. Many of them are sincerely actuated by a heroic impulse to over with this shameful state of things, this disgraceful status quo. Their hearts volcanically explodes with lava of despair and hatred for the world of their worthless parents and cowardly ancestors. Yes, the lives of foolhardy men usually end not well. And tragic triumph is a fate of exceptional ones.

But the young soul has no time to wait, be it in love or war. So, be lenient towards suicidal behaviour of the youth and do not impute to passionate youngsters the carelessness concerning those fucking Austrian economists! All this cultural and historic noise–million words in billion posts–is not a groundwork or an earnest or a linchpin or a promise of coming transvaluation of values.

They dread reaching your age, Caesar, and face their death, especially after a very long life, and realize that all their efforts failed to produce results, moreover the situation has got worse. They know some examples of lustrous persons, whose deeds were vain in spite of their “strategic thinking”. By the way, traitors often justify their betrayal with strategical manoeuvring for the sake of a lofty goal in long-term planning.

The destiny occurs HERE AND NOW, and if this “here and now” is stolen, I will not judge the glowing souls with the destructive power of dynamite inside their cores.

I confess that, now that I re-read my comment years later, I see that I responded to this commenter in a very, very poor way! I would like to reply to him now, even though so much time has passed.

It is not for the youth to make the most important decisions of a state. In a healthy world for the Aryans, as was Sparta, and Republican Rome, it was up to very mature adults. Recall that, for Plato, the philosopher-king had to be a man in his sixties.

To be impetuous, fiery, determined or bold against the System is precisely what President Joe Biden wants to tighten the screws even further (remember his inaugural speech in which he declared war on us). We shouldn’t indulge him because his administration is doing everything it can to commit suicide. The situation in 2023 has changed a lot from the days when, in 2020, the commenter mocked what I said about Austrian economists. Now, after Biden’s blunder with the confiscation of Russian funds abroad due to Putin’s military action in Ukraine, several nations have realised that their funds aren’t safe in dollars and many, even in the MSM, are already openly talking about the last days of the dollar. In other words, my restraint not to rush into revolutionary actions as impetuous youths love, but to wait for the System to collapse on its own, is being vindicated by recent historical events.

But there are even more profound reasons why I think James Mason’s ideology—something like having the System in siege with a multiplication of actions à la Charles Manson—is flawed. And here we come back to what Spencer said in his recent interview: that we need a new story or, as I would say using Jungian language, a story that manages to activate the collective Self that will produce, in the white man, the new galvanising myth. Ironically, in this respect James Mason did hit the nail on the head: ‘Someone did say that prior to 1945 we were a party, since 1945 we have been a religion.’

Indeed. The Jews have their religion, their story: what Christians call the Old Testament: ‘Ethnocentrism for me’ as Kevin MacDonald reads it in the first book of his trilogy on Jewry. That’s why they always win. It doesn’t matter that their story, what we read in the OT, is literary fiction. It is a myth they believe in and that’s why they will continue to win.

Conversely, whites didn’t write their story, the New Testament. The Jews wrote it for them: ‘Universalism for thee.’ And liberalism, which has mutated into Wokism, the secular neo-Christianity of our day, is an epiphenomenon of that NT story.

The moral is simple: it’s whites themselves who must rewrite their own history. They mustn’t allow another race to write it for them. If one reads the first anthology published by us, The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, one will discover seminal texts by William Pierce, and Eduardo Velasco in his now-defunct webzine Evropa Soberana, which depict this story written by whites for whites.

And now I can answer properly to the commenter who criticised me. ‘All this cultural and historic noise–million words in billion posts–is not a groundwork or an earnest or a linchpin or a promise of coming transvaluation of values’ he said.

Actually, it is. Any revolutionary action that is not backed by a new story, a new way of understanding the Self, is doomed to failure. James Mason’s own life demonstrates this. After the Metzger interview, Mason went astray with so-called Christian Identity. A dozen years after the interview Metzger himself commented, on 17 May 2005: ‘Unfortunately he turned away from his best thoughts back toward some Christian thing. I don’t know where he is now, but I promote and sell his great book.’

The eclipse of James Mason is symptomatic not only of would-be revolutionaries, but of non-revolutionaries who subscribe to white nationalism. They lack a story to serve as cement and a platform for further action. The fact that very few have read the history of the white race from Pierce’s pen, and that even that book isn’t published (even privately) so that you can read it comfortably in your living room, speaks for itself.

This is the response of a sixty-four-year-old man to the young commenter:

You are putting the chariot before the horse. First goes the horse—the new story that will galvanise the white man’s collective unconscious—and then goes the chariot (the holy racial wars). Reversing the sequence yields results such as what happened to James Mason and his unfortunate epigones, inasmuch as Mason was completely ignorant of the real history of Christianity (which we are telling on this site thanks to the work of Karlheinz Deschner).

The central mission of The West’s Darkest Hour is that, when the System panics and cancels the internet, there remain on my visitors’ hard drives the PDF books from my humble Daybreak Press, which provide the new story the white man must tell himself.

Anyone who hasn’t read The Fair Race should read it now. The rest follows from it.

Categories
Racial right Videos

Metzger & Mason

vs. Spencer

I had promised myself I would never see anything of Richard Spencer again after he sided with NATO when it started the war in Ukraine. But today I decided to watch a long interview with the new Richard Spencer after his apparent ideological transformation.

In the interview you can guess the causes of his apparent transformation, although you have to listen between the lines: he simply realised that he has to speak from more liberal platforms to be heard (otherwise he will be cancelled).

Spencer says things that resonate with The West’s Darkest Hour. For example, he says that the figure of Jesus on the cross carries a potent message to the West’s collective unconscious, which cannot be contrasted more with the figure of Apollo: a healthy archetype for the Aryan psyche. On this we seem to be in complete agreement, with the difference that the anti-Christianity of this site is far more vehement than Spencer’s anti-Christianity. (This is elemental: Christianity destroyed my life, not Spencer’s, as any reader who dares to read my tortuous autobiography will know.)

Something else Spencer says we have said in entries so important that two of them can be accessed at the top of this page, in red letters. For example, what Spencer calls ‘the empty doughnut’: a negative way for today’s West to define itself as anti-Hitlerian par excellence. That is just what the author of ‘Foundation myth’ says in other words. And what Spencer calls narrative, story or platonic lie that should replace the old story (Christianity’s god is dead) is exactly what I wrote in ‘The iron throne’.

So ideologically Spencer and I are not that far apart. In fact, I would love to put together a show similar to the one above in which I could talk not only to Spencer but to the most well-known people on the American racial right. I would have to do it with a simultaneous translator because I refuse to talk about deep issues in English. On very deep issues, I need my mother tongue.

The funny thing is that except for what Spencer said about Biden near the beginning of the interview, we don’t disagree on basic principles. It’s just the order of magnitude of my fanaticism on which we differ. In short, Spencer says he’s very radical but only the exterminationist is really radical—say, the William Pierce who wrote The Turner Diaries or the Pierce who, in Who We Are, posited how whites should have acted to circumvent today’s sorry state of affairs.

Update of June 2

At any event, I fell infinitely more at home with Tom Metzger and James Mason in this old interview.

‘If you want to use the System to change the System’ (Metzger) ‘you are fooling yourself’ (Mason): something that the apparently transformed Spencer won’t understand.

Shortly afterwards in the interview Mason singles out the US government as the enemy. Compare this with Spencer’s words that Biden is the best president in recent years! And by the end Mason quotes Solzhenytsin: ‘Don’t be part of the lie’ as the number one commandment. This is a commandment that the so-called new Spencer can’t keep.

Categories
Racial right William Pierce

Pierce on Christianity

Editor’s note: Ten years ago, I quoted a few paragraphs from William Pierce’s article ‘Christianity’. Today I reread it in its entirety in a National Alliance article. Although I am more radical than Pierce when it comes to the religion of our parents, I reproduce it below because it stands in stark contrast to the secular sympathisers of Christianity on today’s racialist forums.

Pierce wrote:


THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE IS not a religious organization, in the ordinary sense of the term. It does, however, have to concern itself with religious matters, because religions influence the behavior of people, society, and governments. The doctrines of various religious groups—Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al.—deal with temporal as well as spiritual matters and therefore often conflict with National Alliance doctrine.

Christian doctrines are of much greater concern to the National Alliance than the doctrines of other large religious groups, because Christianity is the most influential religion in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the White world. Most members of the National Alliance come from families which are, or a generation ago were, at least nominally Christian, and very few come from families which practice, or practiced, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions. Furthermore, the history of our race for the last thousand years has been inextricably bound up with Christianity. The National Alliance really cannot avoid taking positions regarding Christian beliefs and practices, despite the complications this causes in our work.

The immediate and inevitable fact which forces us to come to grips with Christianity is that the mainstream Christian churches are all, without exception, preaching a doctrine of White racial extinction. They preach racial egalitarianism and racial mixing. They preach non-resistance to the takeover of our society by non-Whites. It was the Christian churches, more than any other institution, which paralyzed the will of White South Africans to survive. It is the Christian establishment in the United States which is preeminent in sapping the will of White Americans to resist being submerged in the non-White tide sweeping across the land. Most Christian authorities collaborate openly with the Jews, despite the contempt and abuse they receive in return, and the rest at least follow Jewish policies on the all-important matter of race. The occasional anomaly—a Catholic bishop in Poland speaking out angrily against Jewish arrogance, a few Protestant groups in the United States expressing sympathy for oppressed Palestinians—does not invalidate the rule.

We are obliged, therefore, to oppose the Christian churches and to speak out against their doctrines. But we do not, as some groups have done, accuse the Christian leaders of being false Christians. We do not say, “We are the real Christians, because we stand for the values which the mainstream churches stood for a century ago, before they were subverted.” We do not reach for our Bibles and point to verses which seem to be in accord with the policies of the National Alliance and contrary to the present policies of the Christian churches. A diligent Bible scholar can find in the Judeo-Christian scriptures support for—or ammunition against—virtually any policy whatsoever.

Beyond the immediate conflict between us and the Christian churches on racial matters, there is a long-standing and quite fundamental ideological problem with Christianity. It is not an Aryan religion; like Judaism and Islam it is Semitic in origin, and all its centuries of partial adaptation to Aryan ways have not changed its basic flavor. It was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul), from the Levant to the Greco-Roman world. Its doctrines that the meek shall inherit the earth and that the last shall be first found fertile soil among the populous slave class in Rome. Centuries later, as Rome was succumbing to an internal rot in which Christianity played no small part, legions of Roman conscripts imposed the imported religion on the Celtic and Germanic tribes to the north.

Eventually Christianity became a unifying factor for Europe, and in the name of Jesus Europeans resisted the onslaught of Islamic Moors and Turks and expelled the “Christ-killing” Jews from one country after another. But the religion retained its alien mind-set, no matter how much some aspects of it were Europeanized. Its otherworldliness is fundamentally out of tune with the Aryan quest for knowledge and for progress; its universalism conflicts directly with Aryan striving for beauty and strength; its delineation of the roles of man and god offend the Aryan sense of honor and self-sufficiency.

Finally Christianity, like the other Semitic religions, is irredeemably primitive. Its deity is thoroughly anthropomorphic, and its “miracles”—raising the dead, walking on water, curing the lame and the blind with a word and a touch—are the crassest superstition.

We may have fond memories of the time before the Second World War when pretty, little girls in white dresses attended all-White Sunday schools, and Christianity seemed a bulwark of family values and a foe to degeneracy and indiscipline. We may cherish the tales of medieval valor, when Christian knights fought for god and king—if we can overlook the Christian church’s bloodthirsty intolerance, which stifled science and philosophy for centuries and sent tens of thousands of Europeans to the stake for heresy or witchcraft.

We may even find Christian ethics congenial, if we follow the standard Christian practice of interpreting many of its precepts—such as the one about turning the other cheek—in such a way that they do not interfere with our task. But we should remember that nothing essential in Christian ethics is specifically Christian. Any successful society must have rules of social conduct. Lying and stealing were shunned in every Aryan society long before Christianity appeared. Our pagan ancestors did not need Christian missionaries to tell them how to behave or to explain honor and decency to them—quite to the contrary!

Historians may argue the pros and cons of Christianity’s role in our race’s past: whether or not the unity it provided during a period of European consolidation outweighed the loss of good genes it caused in the Crusades and the bloody religious wars of the Middle Ages (and through the Church’s policy of priestly celibacy); whether the splendid Gothic cathedrals which rose in Europe during four centuries and the magnificent religious music of the 18th century were essentially Christian or essentially Aryan in inspiration; whether Christianity’s stand against the evils of self-indulgence—against gluttony and drunkenness and greed—was worth its shackling of the human mind in superstition or not. One thing already is clear, however: Christianity is not a religion that we can wish on future generations of our race.

We need ethics; we need values and standards; we need a world view. And if one wants to call all of these things together a religion, then we need a religion. One might choose instead, however, to call them a philosophy of life. Whatever we call it, it must come from our own race soul: it must be an expression of the innate Aryan nature. And it must be conducive to our mission of racial progress. Christianity, as the word is commonly understood, meets neither of these criteria.

The fact is that, completely aside from the racial question, no person who wholeheartedly believes Christian doctrine can share our values and goals, because Christian doctrine holds that this world is of little importance, being only a proving ground for the spiritual world which one enters after death. Christian doctrine also holds that the condition of this world is not man’s responsibility, because an omnipotent and omniscient deity alone has that responsibility.

Although some Christians do believe Christian doctrine wholeheartedly, however, most do not. Most instinctively feel what we explicitly believe, even if they have repressed those feelings in an effort to be “good” Christians. Because of this many nominal Christians, even those affiliated with mainstream churches, can, under the right circumstances, be persuaded to work for the interests of their race. Other nominal Christians—especially those who stand apart from any of the mainstream churches—have interpreted Christian doctrine in such an idiosyncratic way that the contradictions between their beliefs and ours have been minimized.

For these reasons we want to avoid conflict with Christians to the extent that we can. We don’t want to give unnecessary offense, even when we speak out against the doctrines of their churches. We don’t want to ridicule their beliefs, which in some cases are sincerely held. Some of these people later will reject Christianity’s racial doctrines. Some will reject Christianity altogether. We want to help them in their quest for truth when we can, and we want to keep the door open to them.

Members who want to study the subject of Christianity and its relationship to our task in depth should read Which Way Western Man?, by our late member William Simpson. The book’s initial chapters describe the spiritual odyssey of a man of exceptional spiritual sensitivity, who was far more intensely a Christian than nearly any Christian living today and who eventually understood the racially destructive nature of Christianity and rejected it.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
[Kevin Alfred Strom comments:] One of the most important statements William Pierce made on the subject was 1982’s “On Christianity,” published in the National Alliance BULLETIN and now available on nationalvanguard.org, in which he says
 

______ 卐 ______

 
No honest, conscientious Alliance member can maintain his membership in the Alliance and also in an organization which is fundamentally opposed to the goals and principles of the Alliance. [A] former member who belongs to the Moral Majority acted correctly in resigning from the Alliance, and the same applies to others: Any Alliance member who is also a member of a church or other Christian organization which supports racial mixing or Zionism should decide now where he stands, and he should then resign either from his church or from the Alliance.

In fact, the great majority of Alliance members who originally had some Christian church affiliation have already made their decisions and left the churches….

If, despite everything above, there are Alliance members or prospective Alliance members who still consider themselves Christians, then it must be in the sense that they value the specifically White elements of Christianity which have been added since its origins—the great art, the great music, and the great architecture produced by White men during the centuries in which the Christian churches ruled Europe—and that they also share the White spiritual feelings which have been eloquently expressed by many men and women who were Christians and who applied the adjective “Christian” to feelings which, in fact, came from deep within the White race-soul and existed long before the advent of the Christian church. Such Christians we can call our comrades and be proud to have in our ranks.

Categories
Racial right

On Neo-normies

‘A WN platform which is anti-Christian is dead before it begins.’ —A Counter-Currents commenter.

I already had half a year of not stopping by Counter-Currents. Now that I visited one of its discussion threads, it confirms my hypothesis that The West’s Darkest Hour (WDH) receives very few visits and comments, compared to the other racialist forums, because almost all of them are either Christians or sympathetic to Christianity whereas I believe that Christian ethics is the main cause of our misfortune.

A few years ago, at least some very young visitors of WDH trolled those sites sympathetic to Christianity but now no one, that I know of, links us to them. It seems to me that these people—Christians and secular sympathisers—completely ignore our arguments, recently expounded in our commentary to Dominion.

I would think that Europeans, far removed from the religion of our parents, would be more interested in WDH than Americans, but they aren’t. Not many of them are fans of this site.

At any event, I will continue doing my job even though the flow of traffic is carried away by those guys that I call ‘semi-normies.’

8:13 a.m. update:

Before falling asleep I had titled the post ‘On semi-normies’ but I woke up thinking it was better titled ‘On Neo-normies’ because, as time goes by, the racial right seems to me more and more normie compared to our POV. Anyway, not long ago Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent defined himself as a ‘neo-normie’: a perfect expression!

Categories
Racial right

Two comments

Recently, two comments caught my attention: one by the anti-Christian Robert Morgan and the other by the Christian Andrew Anglin. Let’s start with what the anti-Christian said:

MacDonald quotes Carlson: “Our current orthodoxies won’t last. … This moment is too inherently ridiculous to continue, and so it won’t.”

Baseless optimism. A remark like this could have been made at any point since negroes were granted citizenship and the vote back in 1870.

The “current orthodoxy” is racial and sexual egalitarianism, too deeply rooted in America’s worldview to be easily abandoned. Too much blood and treasure has been squandered trying to make this madness into a reality to permit a reversal. It’s obvious the people would quite literally rather die than admit their mistake. Every time the premise of equality has been challenged, they have proved their commitment to it by doubling down instead of retreating.

Only a collapse and utter ruin can redeem the situation. The state must be burned down to the ground, its functionaries eliminated along with the vast majority of the populace. Only then—perhaps—will something worthwhile arise from the ashes. [source: here]

Now let’s read what Andrew Anglin wrote in the concluding paragraphs of a long article that Ron Unz re-published. I must confess I find it highly embarrassing to quote, on this site, what Anglin says:

On my own journey to the truth, I’ve realized that the ultimate truth is that Jesus Christ died that we may live, and that the only peace we are going to have in this world is following His commandments that He will send the Holy Spirit to comfort us.

Jesus!

If you haven’t made it to that point yet, if you still have doubt in your heart as to the truth of Christianity, this is my advice to you: seek truth everywhere, always. All kinds of truth about everything.

What about the true history of Christianity, or the fact that there is no source outside the Gospels that attests to the existence of Jesus?

Don’t ever lie to yourself, don’t believe things that are comfortable to you. Always go for the truth. If you do that, you will come to Jesus. Nothing else can happen. There is no final truth beyond the infinite love that God has for mankind…

The god of the Jews loves us so much that he wants to torture us for eternity in hell.

Read the Bible too, and compare and contrast with the truth you’ve found. Read the book of John, as it is the most important.

This reminds me that John’s gospel was Luther’s favourite.

As I said recently, if you don’t believe in God, becoming a fentanyl addict on the streets of California is a perfectly valid life choice. The fact that most people don’t do that proves that we all know, somewhere inside of us, that God is real.

Either you believe in the god of the Jews or you become a junkie, says the most popular anti-Semite on racialist forums.

The purpose of our lives is to struggle, to strive, to seek joy, and love—all in the name of coming closer to Jesus Christ that when we die, we will live forever… And please, my brothers, always remember: no matter how bad things get, Jesus is there for you. [Source: here]

The ‘Jesus’ name derives from ‘Yehoshua’, i.e., Joshua, who functioned as Moses’ assistant in the books of Exodus and Numbers, and later succeeded Moses as leader of the Israelite tribes. Given everything we’ve been quoting from Dominion, let there be no doubt: The American racial right is part of the problem, not the solution.