web analytics
New Testament Racial right Richard Carrier Richard Miller

Medieval racists

This interview uploaded yesterday is fascinating, and the very fact that none of the mainstream forums of the racial right touch on the subject of textual criticism of the New Testament is symptomatic of a wilful ignorance that is deeply rooted in the movement.

Richard Miller makes a point that is obvious to me. Serious New Testament scholarship is divided into two camps: (1) those who believe that most of the NT narrative is fictional but that there is a residue that could be historical, and (2) those who maintain that it was all literary fiction from the beginning. Miller belongs to the first group and another Richard, Richard Carrier, to the second group. But the dialogue between these two camps is quite cordial, academic and respectful.

On the other hand, there are the pseudo-scholars, the fundamentalist Christians who study the NT but begin their ‘research’ with pre-established conclusions (Jesus was resurrected from the dead, etc.). Their scholarship reminds me of the medieval university in Paris where philosophy was allowed to exist but only as a handmaiden of theology. Miller has said that serious NT scholars no longer pay attention to this apologetic posturing.

The racial right, I said, as well as fundamentalists ignore serious NT scholarship: scholarship that doesn’t start from the catechism we were taught as children but uses the methodologies of contemporary historiography to evaluate New Testament texts. This became clear the last time Kevin MacDonald published an article by a fundamentalist Christian in The Occidental Observer, as I told the author himself.

Taking into account that, concerning the NT, white nationalism is still medieval and that we must ignore not only the scholarly authors (such as the apologist in MacDonald’s webzine) but the Christian commentariat of that webzine and other racialist webzines, it is more interesting to ponder who, of the two Richards, is right: the mythicist or the historicist.

It seems to me that Miller, although I have infinite respect for his work, still suffers from what in a 2012 post on this site we called the ‘Platonic fallacy’.

And incidentally, I see these two camps, represented by the two Richards, from a very different angle to their point of view: the Delphic Oracle maxim. Given that deep autobiography is my forte, and that in my life I have gone through all three stages—from traditional Christian (1960s-1980s) to secular historicist (1990s-2018), and from secular historicist to mythicist (2018 to date)—I venture to conjecture that Miller’s stance, as well as the stance of his interviewer, represent a residue of parental introjects (see my post ‘Slaves of parental introjects’).

It is so disturbing to our egos to conceive of the whole Jesus story as mere literary fiction from the pen of Jews for Aryan consumption that even accomplished rationalists like Miller, and his young interviewer, are unable to take the final step.

But as I said, the issue of which of the two Richards is right isn’t so important. What is important is that Christians on the racial right are, as far as textual criticism of the NT is concerned, in the Middle Ages. And there is little point in trying to rescue them. That’s as fool errand as wanting American evangelicals, the source of the power of the American Jewish lobby, to read Kevin MacDonald’s webzine and stop supporting Israel in the current Palestinian conflict!

The West’s Darkest Hour is not for white nationalists. It is for people honest enough to assimilate the splendid work of Miller, or Carrier. As I said, the distinction between secular historicists and mythicists is not as serious as it is when we encounter the fundamentalists, who abound on the so-called racial right, and still believe that a Jew isn’t only risen but is our Saviour.

New Testament Psychology Richard Miller

Fundamentalist scholars

Regarding my recent exchange with RockaBoatus in The Occidental Observer, I would like to add to what I already said this moment—just two minutes from a long interview with Richard Miller about fundamentalist scholars.

Homer Literature New Testament Richard Miller

Resistance to NT criticism

See the video uploaded today interviewing Richard C. Miller here.

Mimesis criticism is a method of interpreting texts in relation to their literary or cultural models. Mimesis, or imitation (imitatio), was a widely used rhetorical tool in antiquity. Mimesis criticism looks to identify intertextual relationships between two texts that go beyond simple echoes, allusions, citations or redactions. The effects of imitation are usually manifested in the later text by means of distinct characterisation, motifs, and/or plot structure.

As a critical method, mimesis criticism has been pioneered by Dennis MacDonald, especially in relation to the New Testament and other early Christian narratives imitating the ‘canonical’ works of Classical Greek literature.

New Testament Richard Miller

Parallel universe

I hate living in a parallel universe next to the white nationalist universe. If I am wrong about the central premise of this site, that Judeo-Christian morality is responsible for our misfortunes (white nationalists would simply say ‘Judeo’, omitting the ‘Christian’ part), they should refute me. But they don’t: they simply ignore me.

Among the racial right folk I know online, Irishman Gaedhal has been the most erudite on the subject of Christian theology. He once said that white nationalists were more primitive than liberal Christians when it came to New Testament knowledge. Gaedhal’s words came as a surprise to me. It was so obvious, but it was only when he wrote it that I realised it.

Even a famous writer who believes in the resurrection of Jesus, the Englishman Ian Wilson, is familiar with the criticism of the New Testament since the rise of biblical criticism in the Enlightenment. The white nationalists whose comments I have seen on the racial right discussion forums seem to ignore this textual criticism of the NT that began in the late 18th century (see these excerpts from Catholic Ian Wilson’s book for example).

But of course: Wilson’s book is only the first step in continuing to cross what I call the psychological Rubicon. If the white nationalist who holds to the faith of his parents is an honest fellow, he would not only read Wilson’s introductory book, an author who remains a Christian, but those who have devoted their lives to studying the New Testament and have taken steps beyond mere Christian apologetics.

To the honest Christian who wants to save his race from extinction I would suggest, in addition to Wilson’s book, to begin to familiarise himself with the videos interviewing Richard Miller (e.g., this one uploaded a couple of weeks ago), and pay attention to how the story of the Ascension to Heaven didn’t originate with the pen of an evangelist, but particularly in the story of the founding God of Rome: Romulus.

For the honest Christian, these would be the first steps across the river.

The way I see the world, it is impossible to save the white race if a considerable number of whites fail to cross this Rubicon.

Richard Miller


Christian apologetics is a dishonest game of ignorance, according to New Testament scholar Dr. Richard Miller (five-minute YouTube clip here). They start with their conclusions and then they do the ‘research’.

New Testament Richard Miller

Imitatio Romuli

I would like to add something to what I said a week ago about Richard Miller’s Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity. Just before the section on the author’s conclusions, we read this paragraph:

Those properly comprehending, yet prone to resist the present thesis then must answer: How might a Judaized, Christianized adaptation of the “translation fable,” particularly one mimetically following that of Romulus, have appeared, if not more or less precisely as one finds crafted in the postmortem narratives of the New Testament Gospels? [page 177]

Miller is talking about how the Four Evangelists plagiarised the stories about the old God of the Romans when it came to the missing body, prodigies, darkness over the land, meeting on the road, eyewitness testimony, mountaintop speech and great commission, son of a god, ascension, taken away in a cloud and deification (classical sources about the Romulus story: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch, Ovid, Livy and Cicero).

New Testament Richard Miller Videos

For Christians


The literary rosetta stone
that explains the gospels

‘Christianity is just one participant in a broader set of phenomenology that needed to be understood across the board, and not just studied in some kind of isolationism.’

—Richard Miller

Derek Lambert and Dr Richard C. Miller

This site is dedicated to those who want to know the basic aetiology of white ethnosuicide (and who want to do something to counteract this mental illness). It is not a site for Christians. But this post is for them.

Last month I posted a couple of entries about New Testament scholar Richard Miller (here and here). But his book, Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity only reached me on Tuesday and I’ve started reading it.

It is a book for seasoned scholars: it contains quotations in Greek, Latin, French and German; and the English translations of quoted paragraphs are by the author. By ‘translation fables’ Miller means innumerable fables of Greco-Roman gods, demigods and mortals who, for their deeds, were translated to, let us say, a cloud in the heavens after their deaths and, in the case of Romulus, the legend even speaks of apparitions and a Great Commission (see the second chapter of Resurrection and Reception).

It is a perfect book for Christians because, unlike Richard Carrier who was never a Christian, despite his very gradual and agonic apostasy Miller maintains a positive image of the religion of his parents. He shows us a gallery of the Greco-Roman myths of the resurrection or translation of so many heroes, and then does a rigorous exegesis of what it all means. The connections between Greco-Roman apotheosis narratives and the gospels, originally written in Greek, make Miller’s work an important contribution to contextualising Jesus’ resurrection narratives.

The honest Christian who approaches Miller’s work will be confronted with the same dilemmas that this scholar confronted as he devoted his whole life to New Testament studies. If you don’t want to read his book, just watch this interview.

Psychology Richard Miller


The interview between Derek, whom I have already mentioned this month, and biblical scholar Dr Robert Cargill is interesting. In the beginning, Cargill claimed that his life in a fanatically Christian family and town had been idyllic, without any trauma. But after some time, it became clear that Cargill was simply repressing his traumatic past. He told a horrifying anecdote when he was just a child about his endless fears of the doctrine of damnation (I can well understand this as it was exactly what was done to me too as a teen).

Both interviewer and interviewee are people who think they are apostates but who, in reality, are clinical cases of what we have been saying: that the apostasy of Christianity leads to an axiological neo-Christianity. For example, I interrupted the interview after the hour because I was extremely annoyed that Derek, as neo-Christian as Cargill though unbeknownst to him, commented that poor LGBT people commit suicide because of social ostracism. Cargill had said that, although he is one hundred per cent straight, he helped homos overcome their moralistic traumas, and even supported the misnamed gay marriage.

Watching the interview for at least more than the hour I saw gives a sense of how the (pseudo) apostasy from Christianity is transfigured into neo-Christianity.

Richard Miller Videos

The whole interview

Kevin MacDonald published an article by Tom Sunic the day before yesterday which contains this paragraph:

But even authors complaining about legal duplicity regarding the narrative of Jewish victimhood are seldom consistent. Many of them believe in good faith in the immaculate conception of Virgin Mary and various surreal miracles performed by Jesus and his early Jewish disciples. They would never consider their faith in Jesus a myth, let alone, a hoax, a fraud, or a conspiracy theory. They reject the claims by anti-Christian authors “that Jesus was a deliberately constructed myth, by a specific group of people with a specific end in mind,” as David Skrbina wrote recently.

I’m glad that at least one of the leading white nationalist forums is passing the microphone to someone who says things similar to what we say here.

My previous post contains a link to the confession when an honest student of the New Testament, Richard Miller, saw the light. I would now like to suggest that honest Christians watch the whole interview.

Of course, it is only an invitation to begin to cross the psychological Rubicon, but a baby step in the right direction is satisfying for the moment (the big jump, from 5 to 6, as we saw in ‘The Mauritian steps’ is to leave Christian morality behind).

For Christians, long before breaking with Christian morality one has to break with Christian dogma, and the honest New Testament studies that have been published recently (Richard Miller’s book is just the latest) give me some hope.

New Testament Richard Miller Romulus

Richard Miller

Yesterday I discovered the biblical scholar Dr Richard C. Miller, author of Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity. I am in the middle of the revision of the forthcoming PDF book and I wonder if I should add a sentence in ‘The Appian Way’ explaining that there are noble Christians, who can apostatise from the religion of our parents out of sheer evidence.

Miller, raised (as I was) in a very Christian family, has three master’s degrees and a doctorate in New Testament studies. He has studied in elite universities the texts that marked the destiny of the West. Do you remember how on this site I have dedicated several posts to the discovery I made thanks to the book of another exegete? I am referring to Romulus: the Roman god par excellence whom some rabbis took as a blueprint to write the Gospels (Romulus’ resurrection, Romulus’ post-mortem appearances and Romulus’ ascension to heaven, etc.). Given Miller’s nobility, when he made this discovery he lost his Christian faith, as we can see in this videotaped confession.

Forbidden history: Romulus, ascended
to heaven by a light and turned into God.

Incidentally, Derek Lambert, the young man who interviews Miller, is anti-racist as can be seen in other of his videos. Yesterday I left Lambert a message in the comments thread on another of his videos: that, if he is anti-racist, he is still a Christian even if he doesn’t know it and I recommended Tom Holland’s book to him.

As long-time visitors to The West’s Darkest Hour (WDH) know, I would like my books to be printed on paper again, without being taken off the platform again as happened to us early last year. One of the reasons I chose a single word, Neo-Christianity, for our next book (which for the moment will only be available in PDF) is that I would like the word neochristian to start being used as an epithet in our discussions with today’s typical atheists, so ready to replace the faith of the crucified rabbi with the anti-racist faith that is killing the Aryan.

We can already imagine a bunch of teenagers, WDH fans, trolling the countless Lamberts who mistakenly see themselves as apostates from Christianity, calling them neochristians. Once Dominion’s message is understood—quoted at length in the forthcoming PDF—, the pejorative epithet ‘neochristian’ could become analogous to the pejorative epithet ‘pagan’ that Christians coined in the 4th century. It is a kind of semantic revenge for what was done to our culture so many centuries ago…