web analytics
Mainstream media Sexual "liberation"


The purge of hundreds of YouTube accounts from its origins to the present day is incredible. Recall, from a racialist point of view, the purge of Stefan Molyneux, Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer on the same day. But over the years even conservatives who are not even alt-lite or alt-right have been purged, to the extent that the alt-lite debates with liberals are now missing.

In recent posts I’ve linked to several YouTube videos to illustrate some of the issues, but the psyop I see in what’s left is that very liberal people are tolerated as if they are the ultra-right, so that authentic traditionalists no longer have a voice on that platform.

For example, my post a week ago has Douglas Murray’s face and a YouTube link. A couple of days ago I watched another of his videos, I think interviewed by Peter Boghossian, in which Murray declared that not so long ago the West had achieved an unprecedented degree of equality, but then something ‘very strange’ happened according to him: out of nowhere came the Woke Monster.

I immediately stopped the video. I found it incredible that Murray, an out homo who approves of the misnamed ‘gay’ marriage (we should never use the Newspeak of our day unless we put inverted commas around it), was so blind that the spiral of amplifying egalitarianism, of which he himself is a part, simply widened its circle a little further to cover the next ‘marginalised’ group with neo-Christian love: trans people.

Yesterday The Occidental Observer published an article on transgenderism. Unlike the people who publish there, I trace the origin of that mental virus to Christian morality, as I say when discussing neo-Franciscanism in ‘On empowering carcass-eating birds’ (pages 132-136 of my book Daybreak—click in the sticky post).

What strikes me about Murray is his utter lack of insight that the spiral of amplifying egalitarianism that ultimately spawned the Woke Reformation has been a centuries-long process, accelerating in the 1960s and only entering an overtly psychotic phase in more recent times.

Murray’s blindness is indeed notorious, but the same can be said of a fellow countrywoman of his, Helen Joyce. I saw an interview with her yesterday in which she said that women could, intellectually, compete with men without any inferiority complexes. My first essay in On Beth’s Cute Tits (again, accessible via the sticky post) shows that in the case of chess this is not true: women cannot compete with men because they lose as if it were a physical sport. Although Helen Joyce hates the new trans religion being imposed on the West, she said it was wrong that in the past women could not vote or inherit property. It doesn’t occur to this pseudo-conservative Englishwoman that this is the only way England was great in the past, as is clear from my favourite films: Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility that reflect a world so healthy that I take it as a template for, once Christianity and neo-Christianity are eliminated, building the ethno-state.

A few years ago on YouTube you could see discussions in which the American racial right always won (e.g., the discussion between Sargon of Akkad and Richard Spencer). Now youtubers can’t see anything remotely similar. The voices that that platform still tolerates are those that, when I was much younger, would be considered so ultra-left as to border on delusional—like homo marriage which many of the ‘conservative’ voices now so naturally accept that men even ‘marry’ men (e.g., so-called conservative youtubber David Rubin)!

That whole platform is a joke, and all the people in power, and I mean not just media power, are evil. Now that I am going through the second volume of Christianity’s Criminal History I was surprised to re-read that, in medieval times, the first to convert to Christianity without external coercion were the Frankish nobility. The Aryan peasants were always much more reluctant to convert to the Semitic cult of their own free will. How was it that the big corporations, today’s nobility, were the first to jump aboard the ship of the Woke madmen, many critics of the trans religion ask? Because plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose, the more it changes, the more it’s the same thing.

Homosexuality Jared Taylor Sexual "liberation"


See the recent video of Jared Taylor criticising the sexual psychosis affecting the West. Taylor’s point of view is infinitely more sane than Andrew Doyle’s and Peter Boghossian’s POV mentioned in a previous post today. Unlike those liberals, Taylor calls a spade a spade: homosexualism, in the sense of indulge in homo behaviour all your life, is plain and simple psychopathological.

Sadly, this sort of thing can no longer be said on YouTube, which has been taken over by the radical left. But at least today Taylor’s video can be watched, in addition to Rumble, on BitChute, and Odysee.

Dominion (book) Feminism Sexual "liberation" Tom Holland

Dominion, 39


How the Woke monster originated

On 5 October 2017, allegations about what Harvey Weinstein had been getting up to in his fourth-floor suite at the Peninsula broke in the New York Times. An actress meeting him there for what she had thought was a business breakfast had found the producer wearing nothing but his bespoke bathrobe. Perhaps, he had suggested, she could give him a massage? Or how about watching him shower? Two assistants who had met with Weinstein in his suite reported similar encounters. Over the weeks and months that followed, further allegations were levelled against him: harassment, assault, rape. Among the more than eighty women going public with accusations was Uma Thurman, the actor who had played Mia Wallace in Pulp Fiction and become the movie’s pin-up. Meanwhile, where celebrity forged a path, many other women followed. A campaign that urged women to report incidents of harassment or assault under the hashtag #MeToo actively sought to give a voice to the most marginalised and vulnerable of all: janitors, fruit-pickers, hotel housekeepers. Already that year, the summons to a great moral awakening, a call for men everywhere to reflect on their sins, and repent them, had been much in the air. On 21 January, a million women had marched through Washington, DC. Other, similar demonstrations had been held around the world. The previous day, a new president, Donald J. Trump, had been inaugurated in the American capital. He was, to the organisers of the women’s marches, the very embodiment of toxic masculinity: a swaggering tycoon who had repeatedly been accused of sexual assault, who had bragged of grabbing ‘pussy’, and who, during the recently concluded presidential campaign, had paid hush money to a porn star. Rather than make the marches about Trump, however, the organisers had sought a loftier message: to sound a clarion call against injustice, and discrimination, and oppression wherever it might be found. ‘Yes, it’s about feminism. But it’s about more than that. It’s about basic equality for all people.’

The echo, of course, was of Martin Luther King. Repeatedly, in the protests against misogyny that swept America during the first year of Trump’s presidency, the name and example of the great Baptist preacher were invoked. Yet Christianity, which for King had been the fount of everything he ever campaigned for, appeared to many who marched in 2017 part of the problem. Evangelicals had voted in large numbers for Trump. Roiled by issues that seemed to them not just unbiblical, but directly antithetical to God’s purposes—abortion, gay marriage, transgender rights—they had held their noses and backed a man who, pussy-grabbing and porn stars notwithstanding, had unblushingly cast himself as the standard-bearer for Christian values. Unsurprisingly, then, hypocrisy had been added to bigotry on the charge sheet levelled against them by progressives. America, it seemed to many feminists, risked becoming a misogynist theocracy. Three months after the Women’s March, a television series made gripping drama out of this dread. The Handmaid’s Tale was set in a country returned to a particularly nightmarish vision of seventeenth century New England. Adapted from a dystopian novel by the Canadian writer Margaret Atwood, it provided female protestors against Trump with a striking new visual language of protest. White bonnets and red cloaks were the uniform worn by ‘handmaids’: women whose ability to reproduce had rendered them, in a world crippled by widespread infertility, the objects of legalised rape. Licence for the practice was provided by an episode in the Bible. The parody of evangelicals was as dark as it was savage. The Handmaid’s Tale—as all great dystopian fiction tends to be—was less prophecy than satire. The TV series cast Trump’s America as a society rent in two: between conservatives and liberals; between reactionaries and progressives; between dark-souled televangelists and noble-hearted foes of patriarchy.

Protestors summon men to exercise control
over their lusts–just as the Puritans had once done.
[This image & footnote appear in Holland’s book—Ed.]

Yet the divisions satirised by The Handmaid’s Tale were in truth very ancient. They derived ultimately, not from the specifics of American politics in the twenty-first century, but from the very womb of Christianity. Blessed be the fruit. There had always existed, in the hearts of the Christian people, a tension between the demands of tradition and the claims of progress, between the prerogatives of authority and the longing for reformation, between the letter and the spirit of the law. The twenty-first century marked, in that sense, no radical break with what had gone before. That the great battles in America’s culture war were being fought between Christians and those who had emancipated themselves from Christianity was a conceit that both sides had an interest in promoting. It was no less of a myth for that. In reality, Evangelicals and progressives were both recognisably bred of the same matrix. If opponents of abortion were the heirs of Macrina, who had toured the rubbish tips of Cappadocia looking for abandoned infants to rescue, then those who argued against them were likewise drawing on a deeply rooted Christian supposition: that every woman’s body was her own, and to be respected as such by every man. Supporters of gay marriage were quite as influenced by the Church’s enthusiasm for monogamous fidelity as those against it were by biblical condemnations of men who slept with men. To install transgender toilets might indeed seem an affront to the Lord God, who had created male and female; but to refuse kindness to the persecuted was to offend against the most fundamental teachings of Christ. In a country as saturated in Christian assumptions as the United States, there could be no escaping their influence—even for those who imagined that they had. America’s culture wars were less a war against Christianity than a civil war between Christian factions. [a war between Christianity and what, on this site, we call ‘neochristianity’—Ed.]

In 1963, when Martin Luther King addressed hundreds of thousands of civil rights protestors assembled in Washington, he had aimed his speech at the country beyond the capital as well—at an America that was still an unapologetically Christian nation. By 2017, things were different. Among the four co-chairs of the Women’s March was a Muslim. Marching through Washington were Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews. Huge numbers had no faith at all. Even the Christians among the organisers flinched from attempting to echo the prophetic voice of a Martin Luther King. Nevertheless, their manifesto was no less based in theological presumptions than that of the civil rights movement had been. Implicit in #MeToo was the same call to sexual continence that had reverberated throughout the Church’s history. Protestors who marched in the red cloaks of handmaids were summoning men to exercise control over their lusts just as the Puritans had done. Appetites that had been hailed by enthusiasts for sexual liberation as Dionysiac stood condemned once again as predatory and violent. The human body was not an object, not a commodity to be used by the rich and powerful as and when they pleased. Two thousand years of Christian sexual morality had resulted in men as well as women widely taking this for granted. Had it not, then #MeToo would have had no force.

The tracks of Christian theology, Nietzsche had complained, wound everywhere. In the early twenty-first century, they led—as they had done in earlier ages—in various and criss-crossing directions. They led towards TV stations on which televangelists preached the headship of men over women; and they led as well towards gender studies departments, in which Christianity was condemned for heteronormative marginalisation of LGBTQIA+. Nietzsche had foretold it all. God might be dead, but his shadow, immense and dreadful, continued to flicker even as his corpse lay cold. Feminist academics were no less in thrall to it, no less its acolytes, than were the most fire-breathing preachers. God could not be eluded simply by refusing to believe in his existence. Any condemnation of Christianity as patriarchal and repressive derived from a framework of values that was itself utterly Christian. [bold added—Ed.]

‘The measure of a man’s compassion for the lowly and the suffering comes to be the measure of the loftiness of his soul.’ It was this, the epochal lesson taught by Jesus’ death on the cross, that Nietzsche had always most despised about Christianity. Two thousand years on, and the discovery made by Christ’s earliest followers—that to be a victim might be a source of power—could bring out millions onto the streets. Wealth and rank, in Trump’s America, were not the only indices of status. So too were their opposites. Against the priapic thrust of towers fitted with gold-plated lifts, the organisers of the Women’s March sought to invoke the authority of those who lay at the bottom of the pile. The last were to be first, and the first were to be last. Yet how to measure who ranked as the last and the first? As they had ever done, all the multiple intersections of power, all the various dimensions of stratification in society, served to marginalise some more than others. Woman marching to demand equality with men always had to remember—if they were wealthy, if they were educated, if they were white—that there were many among them whose oppression was greater by far than their own: ‘Black women, indigenous women, poor women, immigrant women, disabled women, Muslim women, lesbian, queer and trans women.’ The disadvantaged too might boast their own hierarchy.

That it was the fate of rulers to be brought down from their thrones, and the humble to be lifted up, was a reflection that had always prompted anxious Christians to check their privilege. It had inspired Paulinus to give away his wealth, and Francis to strip himself naked before the Bishop of Assisi, and Elizabeth of Hungary to toil in a hospital as a scullery maid. Similarly, a dread of damnation, a yearning to be gathered into the ranks of the elect, a desperation to be cleansed of original sin, had provided, from the very moment the Pilgrim Fathers set sail, the surest and most fertile seedbed for the ideals of the American people. Repeatedly, over the course of their history, preachers had sought to awaken them to a sense of their guilt, and to offer them salvation. Now, in the twenty-first century, there were summons to a similar awakening. When, in October 2017, the leaders of the Women’s March organised a convention in Detroit, one panel in particular found itself having to turn away delegates. ‘Confronting White Womanhood’ offered white feminists the chance to acknowledge their own entitlement, to confess their sins and to be granted absolution. The opportunity was for the rich and the educated to have their eyes opened; to stare the reality of injustice in the face; truly to be awakened. Only through repentance was salvation to be obtained. The conveners, though, were not merely addressing the delegates in the conference hall. Their gaze, as the gaze of preachers in America had always been, was fixed on the world beyond. Their summons was to sinners everywhere. Their ambition was to serve as a city on a hill.

Christianity, it seemed, had no need of actual Christians for its assumptions still to flourish. Whether this was an illusion, or whether the power held by victims over their victimisers would survive the myth that had given it birth, only time would tell. As it was, the retreat of Christian belief did not seem to imply any necessary retreat of Christian values. Quite the contrary. Even in Europe—a continent with churches far emptier than those in the United States—the trace elements of Christianity continued to infuse people’s morals and presumptions so utterly that many failed even to detect their presence. Like dust particles so fine as to be invisible to the naked eye, they were breathed in equally by everyone: believers, atheists, and those who never paused so much as to think about religion. Had it been otherwise, then no one would ever have got woke. [pages 528-533, bold added—Ed.]

Evil Sexual "liberation"

American sexual psychoses

Translated and excerpted from an article by a German:

With the current draft of the Self-Determination Act, anyone who uses the wrong (old) first name (dead-naming) a person can be fined 2,500 €. This is how the law wants to enforce the use of the new pronouns, because whoever wants to be politically correct here [in Germany] must ask every interlocutor about the current sexual orientation before naming. Where does this fixation on intimate practices come from?

It is part of the core cultural substance of Puritanism. When the Puritans invaded North America, they found open sexuality among the Amerinds, just as the Victorians found among the Indians, which had its own spaces for homosexual or transsexual phenomena—the Indians still know the subculture of the Hijra. This uninhibited interaction confirmed the Puritans in their idea that the savages, like the ancient pagans, were possessed by the devil and were morally depraved. The Puritan colonial rulers immediately enacted their infamous sodomy laws, which of course also applied to the indigenous population.

Based on the English Buggery Act, they declared all sexual acts that did not serve the purpose of procreation to be a criminal offence, regardless of the sex of the participants, and intensified the punishments to monstrous levels: onanism, anal and oral sex were massive crimes. In the ‘freest country in the world,’ anyone who let his wife suck him off went to jail and was dispossessed. If he had sex with a rear-entry position, the God-fearing Christians would hang him from the nearest tree. Both men and married couples who practised anal intercourse were hanged. Unlike murder, the priesthood wasn’t exempted from the death penalty. The offender’s property became the property of the state.

Pennsylvania, for example, explicitly criminalized fellatio, and Massachusetts extended criminalization to lesbians, who were flogged Taliban-style. So it goes queerly through all the states. In the New Haven Law Code of 1656 hell was declared heaven. In Puritan-woken politics lesbians were threatened with the death penalty for the first time.

For centuries, this monstrous punitive and religious practice produced uptight, guilt-ridden subjects ready to atone and submit… The name of the Protestant sect of the Quakers is derived from this trembling out of fear of God. The clinical picture of anxiety neurosis includes a pronounced avoidance behaviour. Thus, evangelicals today still don’t want to have anything to do with the ‘dirty stuff’ of sexuality…

The brief period of more liberal normalcy between the 1970s and 2000s is now coming to an end. Woke sex is picking up the old thread, and it is anything but free. It is as neurotic, guilt-ridden, and defensive as the old one. Men are afraid to be alone in an elevator or room with women. The woke LGBTQIA+ priesthood is obsessed with intimate practices and categorises everyone’s identity by his/her sexual behaviour. It punishes anyone who doesn’t comply with woken laws. Apple and other corporations ban their employees from flirting. On college campuses, intimacies between students must be quasi-contracted in advance. Whoever deviates from the agreement and licks first, although according to the script he should have kissed, is up for rape. Eroticism with all its ambivalences cannot and should not arise in this climate of fear…

This brings us to the centre of queer, which is also the innermost core of the Puritans. The overcoming of the flesh, and the fearful rejection of sexuality is the bond that connects LGBTQIA+ and sodomy laws. This is also their common Christian heritage: the ‘Holy Family’ is sexless. The mother Mary conceives Jesus ‘immaculate,’ that is, without sin, from God who begets sexlessly. The father Josef is not involved in his procreation. Jesus lives at home with his mother and has no erotic interest. A religion that worships a saviour whose ‘Holy Family’ is sexless and whose apostles only speak derogatorily about sexuality, already harbours in its myth of origin a deep rejection of everything sexual.

According to Paul and Augustine, sexuality and suffering entered the world with the Fall… What comes from nature, the innate, the body, is condemned. This is reminiscent of Plato, who called the ‘body the prison of the soul,’ and of the Christian, world-despising hatred of all that is natural. Writer J. K. Rowling was massively threatened for the statement, ‘If biological sex isn’t real, it erases the reality of women worldwide.’ That’s what it’s all about, the erasure of men and women and sexuality.

But one does not underestimate… the power of the United States. The Anglo-Saxons already brutally used sodomy laws as a means of domination, and wokeness is nothing more than another US revivalist movement to subjugate other peoples with the best of consciences. American colonialism, like Christianity, sets deadlines. Time is running out, and those who have not yet adopted the last insane twist of American sexual neuroticism are lagging behind.

Homosexuality Sexual "liberation"

Pathological homosexuality

by Gaedhal

The radical trans-exclusionary feminists are usually full-throated supporters of homosexuality.

Again, it is not my intention to whip up violent hatred either against Trannies or homosexuals. We have had internet pornography launched at us—by Jews—as a psychological weapon for thirty years now. Trannies and homosexuals are victims of this. Trannies and homosexuals who mind their own business have my deep respect and sympathy. I wish them no harm or ill will.

Who voted for thirty years of internet pornography? Nobody did. Fuck democracy. Do you think that Hitler would allow this?

That being said, Gluck’s arguments that transanity is Pornogenic, i.e. a pathology created through porn use could easily be used with homosexuals. Pornography, as she says, is like heroin. You need harder and more concentrated doses of it to achieve the same effect. You start off with the nude women of Playboy. Before long, it is scat porn. It is lactation porn. It is gangbang porn. Some years go by, and then it is gay porn, then it is transexual porn. Some years go by and then it is so called “child porn”. Gluck is correct when she says that we live in a pornified culture. I remember remarking to myself that the early 2000s were disgustingly pornified. All the Jewish “entertainment” media was exceedingly pornified.

Trannies are at the stage in their porn addiction, according to Gluck, where they need trans porn to be sexually stimulated. Trannies aren’t quite at the “child porn” stage. In my view, though, homosexuals are only one stage behind the trannies, and only two stages behind the paedophiles.

If Gluck advances pornogenesis and the contagion model for transanity, then why cannot I advance pornogenesis and the contagion model for homosexuality? If Gluck says that Trannies are on a trajectory that leads inexorably to paedophilia, then why cannot I say that homosexuals are merely one step behind trannies on this same trajectory? If transanity spreads by social contagion, according to Gluck, then why cannot I say the same thing about homosexuality?

Conservatism Liberalism Racial right Sexual "liberation"

My old metaphor

I watched a recent video of Jordan Peterson arguing with a Woke guy and was surprised that when the Woke guy told him that he knew a trans person who had been successful in life, Peterson acknowledged that in that case his sex change might have been a success story, albeit an exceptional one. Yesterday Tucker Carlson, in criticising the grotesque trans males who show off to children at schools, said in passing that perhaps it was a good thing that the homo community succeeded with the (misnamed) ‘gay marriage’.

Given that Peterson and Carlson are the best-known conservative figures in the media, what they recently said reminded me of my metaphor: that it is really the Left that is in the driving seat, and that the right can only apply the brakes slightly here and there but that both are headed for the cliff.

And what about white nationalists? If we remember my metaphor, while it is true that the nationalists have jumped off the train of the big Leftists and the dwarf rightists, they are heading, at pace, towards the same abyss. Not long ago there was an article on homosexualism in The Unz Review that mentioned Greg Johnson. When in the comments section I wanted to link to an article in The Occidental Observer by Andrew Joyce critical of Johnson’s apology for open and avowed homosexualism, I learned that Kevin MacDonald had deleted it.

Woke people (Jews and Leftists on the driving seat), conservatives who barely apply the brakes, and American racialists who got off the train but are headed in the same direction… What’s wrong with this picture? For those who don’t know this site, see pages 92-95 of Daybreak, ‘Ethnosuicidal Nationalists’, a book linked in the featured post.

Axiology Daybreak Publishing Science Sexual "liberation"

Relocating articles

‘A new epoch is coming, one perhaps even more revolutionary than that resulting from Copernicus’s work’. —SS pamphlet

One of the advantages of not having our books published by a well-known publisher is that you can polish the content of all of them until they are just right.

Now that I’ve uploaded the PDFs to the featured post I realised that I could make some improvements, such as cutting and pasting those texts from the Daybreak book that I didn’t write into On Exterminationism, so that the former would have only my articles (also, Mauricio’s ‘How awake are you’ looks better in On Exterminationism than in Daybreak).

It is very difficult to arrange a series of books in such a way that the dialogue between them is impeccable. When I took a hard sciences course at the Open University of Manchester, I was impressed that eleven textbooks published by the OU (pic, the 9th) alluded to one another, with the proper numbering so that the student may review some passage from another book. Editorially, doing this through eleven books is very difficult unless there is a supervisory team to order, in the most didactic way possible, the content of the entire course.

But a single person can manage to order his thoughts on paper if he has unlimited time, which is what happens when no reputable publisher dares to publish any of our books (or censors them as Lulu, Inc. did).

Also, on Wednesday I posted a comment reminding visitors of the existence of an article in which I quoted the passage from Desmond Morris that so impressed me about why female breasts are so beautiful. Of course, I had alluded to that passage in the opening essay of On Beth’s Cute Tits but I hadn’t quoted it to speed up the little essay. But now that I’ve been going through my Daybreak Publishing books, it occurred to me to add that late-2020 entry to the book (or rather a mere PDF, while I get the funds for a printer).

* * *

What is killing the white race is neochristianity, in the sense of taking the Christian idea that only human souls are real—not the body or race—to its ultimate consequences. Watch Matt Walsh’s film ‘What is a Woman?’ on YouTube!

Paradoxically, the Woke monster that has Christians like Walsh scared is nothing more than taking the Christian principle of the human soul to the secular plane; for example, that there are men with vaginas, women with penises, and men who menstruate or who can give birth because what matters is how a particular human self-perceives himself or herself: a soul. It doesn’t matter that many atheists and agnostics no longer believe in post-mortem survival. What matters is that the Christian principle of the human soul has mutated into the secular realm in the most bestial way imaginable.

One of the things I liked most about Desmond Morris’s The Naked Ape is that it confronts us with the fact that we are just another animal species: something that even secular humanists fail to understand. Their neochristian programming still carries atavisms, the dragon’s tail as it were, of the old religion of our parents. Himmler, or whoever wrote the SS pamphlet we reproduced in The Fair Race, hit the nail on the head when he said that the revolution of understanding this sort of thing could be far more cataclysmic than the Copernican revolution. Hence the relevance, I would add, of approaching the human being from the point of view of zoology, as Morris does.

When I finish making these changes, I will add an entry containing the revised PDFs and delete the PDFs I’ve linked to in the featured post. So, in time, these books will remain as didactic as the science course I took at the OU the previous century: a time when you didn’t see so many people of colour in Manchester.

Francisco Franco Real men Sexual "liberation"

Franco, 1

I have been watching documentaries interviewing Spanish academics about Francisco Franco and Franco’s Spain that have given me pause for thought.

The first surprise I got was that the Second Spanish Republic ‘liberated’ women, a Newspeak term meaning that it altered sexual roles in the 1930s through a ‘feminism’ that was reversed during Franco’s regime, when women resumed their role as procreators. Homosexuality was also considered degenerating with the return to family values.

I was also unaware that the Spanish Civil War had been so bloody and that the battles from town to town, village to village had been so prolonged because the Republicans really believed in their ideology and fought, together with the foreigners who came to Spain to fight for the ‘freedom’ of Spain, with extraordinary persistence and faith.

In the mature phase of the war, the huge posters that lined the streets of Madrid with Stalin’s face really surprised me, as did the level of power enjoyed by the Soviets who had come to Spain to advise the Republican government. A picture is worth a thousand words, and those huge faces of Stalin and Lenin in Madrid leave no doubt as to who were the good guys in that war.

The memory of Franco should be revalued. If Hitler and the Germans had not been crushed by the bad guys in our film, the sexual decency that reigned under Franco would still reign in the West today. I recently said in the comments section that if I were to make a political career I would, like Hitler, have to compromise with Christians. And indeed: it is Christians like Matt Walsh in North America, and Agustín Laje in Latin America, who are doing a stupendous battle against the continent’s most florid psychoses when it comes to sexuality.

Today’s Woke monster is the final spawn of a process of inversion of values that began, in its secular phase, with the French Revolution but has only now reached its culmination in the United States whose hegemony influences the entire West, including that projection of the West, ‘Latin America’.

Another thing that has been striking me in the documentaries I watch is the tremendous support from civil society that the generalissimo received throughout his dictatorship. If Americans were to transvalue their values to the sexual decency of the past, they would have to repudiate democracy and consider having their first dictator although, unlike the first dictator in the UK—Cromwell—, without inviting Jews into the nation. (Recall that Protestantism has been more friendly to Jews than old-fashioned Catholicism.)

It is impossible to begin to familiarise oneself with Franco’s dictatorship without feeling that democracy must be repudiated as a body-snatched pod, including freedom of expression. The ceremonies in the big Spanish cities commemorating the historic milestones, so similar to the street ceremonies in Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy, with tens of thousands of civilians cheering the Caudillo, are very inspiring about how we should proceed if we were to seize power. What I liked most, when the Nationalists won the war, were the tens of thousands (50,000?) of Reds executed. As long as the white nationalists of America don’t become men—real men kill the enemy—they deserve the System they have. In any case, 50,000 is nothing compared to the 50 million, or more, killed by the Communists in the century in which I was born.

That said, Franco’s Spain cannot be the model of the transvalued racists. Most of its military was rather monarchist, and they disliked the Nazi model because they considered it atheistic and idolatrous. Franco’s Spain never reached the level of Italian fascism. Although the Falange wanted to imitate Mussolini, it was opposed by the army, the monarchists and the Catholic Church hierarchy. Franco’s regime had the air of a fascist state, but in reality it never was. If Hitler had won, the Falange would have had its chance (see what Hitler thought of Franco’s Spain by clicking on the ‘Francisco Franco’ category below this article).

At the end of World War II, the Falange had a million members. We must consider that the Spanish Civil War was a prelude to WW2, as Soviet, German and Italian forces were involved in the form of direct aid to the two Spanish sides. But with the Allied victory over the Axis, Franco’s Spain began to be punished in an isolationist purgatory. It was then that Falangism was defeated in favour of a ‘Christian democracy’, which was fashionable in post-war Europe.

Spain was isolated, and to satisfy international pressure, the fascist salute was abolished. Thus the entry of Catholics into the post-war government in Spain made it clear to the Falangists that their influence would wane. (Only George Lincoln Rockwell would, on the other side of the Atlantic, pick up the torch: an isolated individual.) Only in this way, by proclaiming that the ideology of post-war Spain would be a ‘national Catholicism’, could Spain be more or less tolerated, though not admitted with open arms by the international powers.

An almost medieval clericalism pervaded the mores of Franco’s Spain, along with the exaltation of the national. But therein lay the problem. As we have seen, Christianity had been the ideology that weakened the Visigoths in Hispania by mixing their blood. After the dictator’s death, Spain would be at the mercy of the liberal, deranged West.

Ancient Greece Ancient Rome Constantine Heinrich Himmler Hitler's Religion (book) Richard Weikart Sexual "liberation"

Some reflections

I would like to say something about the seventh chapter of Hitler’s Religion; not just what I quoted here, but the entire chapter. My reading of this book continues to confirm my premise: The most influential NS men, and those who inspired them, were just one step away from reaching the other side of the psychological Rubicon, but didn’t reach solid ground. (N.b.: I cannot link to the article ‘My stepping stones’ on the psychological Rubicon for the moment, as a technician is just about to see if it is possible to upload the WordPress-censored entries here. If this new incarnation of WDH doesn’t appear for a few moments, don’t be alarmed: we’re reconfiguring it.)

From this follows the need to create a new religious movement to take this last step, a movement I call the priesthood of the sacred words. And in doing so I must confess that I find myself somewhat closer to Himmler than to Hitler on this point.

On pages 189-90 of Hitler’s Religion Weikart informs us that, although Hitler criticised Gothic cathedrals and medieval mysticism for their somberness, he didn’t believe that NS was a religious cult for holding mystical ceremonies. In fact, his 1938 Nuremberg Rally speech was an open rebuke to Himmler, Rosenberg and other neo-pagans in the movement. Rosenberg himself in his major work recalled that Hitler had disapproved of Himmler’s plans to reintroduce the cult of Wotan and Thor. Hitler was even suspicious of Rosenberg’s studies of Germanic prehistory because he preferred the cultures of Greece and Rome.

Recall from The Fair Race that the original cultures of Greece and Rome were founded by Norsemen, and that only in their more decadent stages did they undergo interbreeding. I can well understand Hitler on this point and what he said about Wotan in one of his after-dinner talks. But Himmler’s idea was the right one: for a movement to be successful, it is necessary for believers to feel the mysterium tremendum, what Jung and others call the numinous.

And that can only be inspired by a semi-religious movement. I understand Hitler because there were occult and parapsychological aspects in some high-ranking National Socialists that had to be rejected. But an ideal compromise would have been, as Manu Rodríguez rightly said in one of our books, to use the rebuilt Greco-Roman temples (starting e.g., by destroying the Vatican and putting in its place a huge temple to Zeus) to teach languages, history and literature of the peoples with Nordic blood (peoples that obviously include Greece and Rome in their origins).

The other reflection I wanted to communicate this day is due to the recent article ‘What is a Woman?’ by Spencer Quinn, who tells us: ‘It began in the 1960s, when we pretended that blacks were the intellectual equals of whites’.

That is not true. While Quinn is correct in saying that Matt Walsh (pic above), who produced the amazing documentary What is a Woman?, didn’t dare to name the influential Jews in gender ideology, the ideology of equality began in the writings of a much older Jew, St Paul. Constantine brought to Constantinople the inversion of Greco-Roman values we read in that famous verse in the Epistle to the Galatians, inducing, with all the power of the Roman Empire, a melting pot of races in the so-called second Rome. There began the Aryan decline big time. While the ancient Greeks and Romans with Nordic blood were racists, Christianity broke down the barriers—not something as recent as the 1960s.

Once I finish reviewing Weikart’s book on Hitler’s religion, we will continue translating Karlheinz Deschner’s history of Christianity.

Sexual "liberation"

What is a Woman?

Update of June 7th: Because you have to pay to watch this documentary and the link I posted wasn’t payable, Odysee removed it but I suggest people watch it on Daily Wire.


______ 卐 ______

Christian Matt Walsh isn’t one of us, but his June 1st documentary is amazing!

Incidentally, mass formation, or more precisely mass psychosis about sex, ‘didn’t start with Kinsey. It started in Weimar Germany. The books that were burned by national socialists were gender theory transgender clinic materials’.