web analytics
Axiology Might is right (book) Theology

Might is right, 3

How is it that ‘men of light and leading’ hardly ever call in question the manufactured ‘moral codes,’ under which our once vigorous Northern race is slowly and surely eating out its heart in peaceful inaction and laborious dry-rot?

Standard ‘moral principles’ are arbitrarily assumed by their orthodox apologist to be a fixed and unalterable quantity, and that to doubt the divine-rightness of these ‘principles’ is treason and sacrilege. When the greatest thinkers of a race are incapable, or afraid to perform their manifest and logical function, it is scarcely to be wondered that average citizens are also somewhat unwilling to ‘risk life, fortune and sacred honour’ for the overthrow of popularized ‘right and wrong’ concepts, that they know from bitter personal experience, are unworkable falsities.

Note of the Editor: Of this collage of Western thinkers, only Machiavelli, Darwin, Nietzsche (and perhaps Jung) could be useful for the sacred words. Whoever put together this collage was unaware that there is a brutal discontinuity between the Greek philosophers and the theologians beginning with St. Augustine. Cf. Karlheinz Deschner’s
Christianity’s Criminal History, here and here.

Although the average man feels in his heart that nearly all political and religious conventionalisms are dynamic deceits, yet how cautiously he avoids any open display of antagonism thereto? He has not the courage of his opinions. He is afraid to say openly what he thinks secretly. In other words he is living in a state of subjectiveness; of vassalage. He allows his brain to be dominated and held in bondage by the brain of another. From his infancy he has been deliberately subjected to a continuous external pressure, especially designed to coerce his understanding into strict accord with pre-arranged views of moral, political or religious ‘duty.’ He has not been permitted one moment of real mental liberty. He imbibed fraudulent conventionalisms with his mother’s milk. He listens to the most hideous lies being glorified in his presence as sublime truths.

He hears falsehoods sung in swelling chorus. He hears them sounded on bugles of silver and brass. He hears them intoned by congregations of the faithful amid peals of sacred music, and the solemn roll of chanted prayer. Thus his mind is sterilized by authority before it has had a chance to mature. Thus youth is mentally castrated, that its natural vitality may be afterwards used up in the yoke of custom—which is the yoke of slavery. In the nursery, at school, and at college, plastic brain-pulp is deliberately forced into the pre-arranged mould. Everything that a corrupt civilisation can do, is done to compress the growing intellect into unnatural channels. Thus the great mass of men who inhabit the world of today have no initiative, no originality or independence of thought, but are mere subjective individualities, who have never had the slightest voice in fashioning the ideals that they formally revere.

Although the average man has taken no part in manufacturing moral codes and statute laws, yet how he obeys them with dog-like submissiveness? He is trained to obedience, like oxen are broken to the yoke of their masters. He is a born thrall habituated from childhood to be governed by others.

Chinese civilization deliberately distorts its children’s feet, by swathing them in bandages of silk and hoop-iron. Christian civilization crushes and cramps the minds of its youth by means of false philosophies, artificial moral codes and ironclad political creeds. Deleterious sub-theories of good and evil are systematically injected into our natural literatures, and gradually (without serious obstruction) they crystallize themselves into cast-iron formulas, infallible constitutions, will-o-the-wisp evangels, and other deadly epidemics.

Modern ‘leaders of thought’ are almost wholly wanting in originality and courage. Their wisdom is foolishness, their remedies poison. They idiotically claim that they guide the destinies of nations, whereas, in reality, they are but the flotsam and scum-froth that glides smoothly down the dark stream of decadence.

Thus all the people of the earth are helpless, Seeing those that lead are blind.

Mankind is aweary, aweary of its sham prophets, its demagogues and its statesmen. It crieth out for kings and heroes. It demands a nobility—a nobility that cannot be hired with money, like slaves or beasts of burden. The world awaits the coming of mighty men of valour, great destroyers; destroyers of all that is vile, angels of death. We are sick unto nausea of the ‘good Lord Jesus,’ terror-stricken under the executive of priest, mob and proconsul. We are tired to death of ‘Equality.’ Gods are at a discount, devils are in demand. He who would rule the coming age must be hard, cruel, and deliberately intrepid, for softness assails not successfully the idols of the multitude. Those idols must be smashed into fragments, burnt into ashes, and that cannot be done by the gospel of love.

The living forces of evil are to be found in the living ideals of today. The Commandments and laws and moral codes that we are called upon to reverence and obey are themselves the insidious enginery of decadence. It is moral principles that manufacture beggars. It is golden rules that glorify meekness. It is statute laws that make spaniels of men.

A man may keep every one of the Ten Commandments and yet remain a fool all the days of his life. He may obey every written law of the land, and yet be a caitiff and a slave. He may ‘love Jesus,’ delight in the golden rule and yet continue to the hour of his death, a failure and dependent. Truly the way to hell is by fulfilling the commandments of God. If the all-conquering race to which we belong, is not to irretrievably dwindle into multitudinous nothingness (like the inferior herds it has outdistanced or enslaved), then it is essential that the Semitic spider webs (so astutely woven for ages into the brains of our chiefs) be remorselessly torn out by the very roots, even though the tearing out process be both painful and bloody.

If we would retain and defend our inherited manhood, we must not permit ourselves to be forever rocked to repose, with the sweet lullabies of eastern idealisms. Too long we have been hypnotized by the occult charm of Hebrew Utopianism. If we continue to obey the insidious spell that has been laid upon us, we will wake up some dread morning with the gates of hell—of hell upon earth yawning wide open, to close again upon us forever…

In actual operation Nature is cruel and merciless to men, as to all other beings. Let a tribe of human animals live a rational life, Nature will smile upon them and their posterity; but let them attempt to organize an unnatural mode of existence an equality elysium, and they will be punished even to the point of extermination.

Friedrich Nietzsche Philosophy Theology


against the Cross, 15

Of French origin, although German was the family language, Lou Salomé’s Huguenot ancestors arrived in St Petersburg in 1810. Her father Gustav Salomé had a successful military career and was appointed inspector of the army by Tsar Alexander II. He later married Louise Wilm, of Danish descent, nineteen years younger. The marriage produced six children: after five boys, a cute girl who was named after her mother.

Louise (later called Lou) grew up in a male environment, just the opposite of Nietzsche, who grew up in a female environment after his father’s untimely death. Lou’s birth coincided with the day of the abolition of slavery in Russia. As liberalism—what we call neo-Christianity—claims more and more equality, the abolition of slavery was the antecedent of equal rights for women: an ideal that appeared early in Lou’s life. Thus, contrary to the rules of her time, the teenager refused to receive religious confirmation.

At the age of eighteen, Lou began her studies under the guidance of Pastor Hendrick Gillot, who had her study the philosophers. Thin, blonde, flirtatious and with deep blue eyes, Gillot soon fell in love with her, ready to leave his family to marry the precocious brat, but Lou rejected him outright and realised that she had to go abroad. Her mother decided to accompany her.

The first destination was Zurich, where Gottfried Kinkel, an apostle of women’s rights at universities, was teaching (the University of Zurich was the only university at the time that accepted women). Falling ill with a lung condition, Lou travelled to warmer climes in search of therapy, and with her mother came to Rome. Kinkel had recommended that they meet Malwilda von Meysenburg (Nietzsche’s very close friend), at whose house literary gatherings were held. In February 1882 Malwilda received the young Russian woman, who dressed sternly and never wore feminine ornaments. Paul Rée met her there and soon fell in love with her, but it occurred to both Rée and Malwilda to introduce Lou to Nietzsche.

He was then on one of his eternal healing journeys, always in search of a clear, cloudless sky, and had been to Messina. It is curious to note that when Nietzsche received Rée’s invitation, he replied with humour that indicated that he had overcome the depression that had led him to believe he would die at his father’s age: ‘I shall soon launch myself on the assault on her. —I need it in consideration of what I want to do for the next ten years’. He who yesterday was a candidate for death is now thinking of the great life!

When Nietzsche arrived in Rome he inquired where he could find Rée, and was told that he was visiting the Vatican. He went there to find him, who was with Lou, and asked them: ‘From which stars have we fallen to meet each other here?’ The retired professor was sixteen years older than Lou, who, at twenty-one, would soon captivate him with her feminine charms.

The ‘Trinity’, as the freethinkers Nietzsche, Rée and Lou called their alliance, had a problem: both father and son fell in love with the holy spirit, which would eventually arouse great jealousy on Nietzsche’s part, as they both made marriage proposals.

For Lou’s self-esteem—Rée bombarded her with letters—, it was in her interest to continue collecting men whose proposals she had rejected since her experience with her mentor Gillot. Thus, the following weeks and months passed with great sorrow for the lovers, who had never before faced such a woman. Nietzsche in particular, now almost in his forties, had fallen in love like an adolescent, so much so that he was now willing to go to Bayreuth if Lou would accompany him, and precisely at the premiere of Parsifal, even if it was a Christian play! Nietzsche would have given anything to travel with Lou to the premiere, and he wrote to his sister notifying her that he had regained his health, adding: ‘I no longer want to be alone and wish to learn to be a man again’. Elisabeth would meet Lou in Jena.

It is unnecessary to go into the details, but in discussing some of Nietzsche’s indecorous proposals, Elisabeth and Lou became deadly enemies—enemies, as only women can be to each other. Suffice it to say that the whole pathetic episode of Rée and Nietzsche’s falling in love, which separated the two friends, shows that this pair had no experience whatsoever with women, let alone liberated women. The philosopher who would preach that when a man goes out with a woman he should never forget the whip allowed himself to be photographed, literally, with a woman holding a whip behind him! Even in his amorous letters, the typical mistake of the inexperienced bachelor in his dealings with women is evident. Instead of being masculine, Nietzsche behaved like a supplicant bridegroom in search of the bride’s ‘yes’:

My dear Lou!

Sorry about yesterday!
A violent attack of my stupid headaches—today they have passed.
And today I see some things with new eyes.
At noon I’ll accompany Dornburg, but before that, we still have to talk for half an hour… yes?

It didn’t occur to the poorly pensioned man, clumsy and almost blind when he walked, that these weren’t ways of winning her over, least of all a woman of steel like Lou, brought up among Aryan men with connections in the army.

When Nietzsche would later become disappointed with Lou, he would write things like ‘frightfully repressed sensuality / delayed motherhood—due to sexual atrophy and delay’. Of course, at Schulpforta the children were never taught that male sexuality is literally a thousand per cent more intense than female sexuality, and perhaps Nietzsche believed that Lou’s sexuality wouldn’t be much different from his! Interestingly, in that list of Lou’s faults that Nietzsche noted, we read that one of them was that she was not ‘docile’.

Nietzsche had in mind not a new philosophical system but rather a new religion. And as a new religion that despised the weak and ennobled the strong, what he now needed was a new metaphysics and disciples, and in his fantasies he had designated Lou and Rée as the first. It didn’t occur to him that he was forcing things, that they both had their own goals in life. For example, the way he wanted to overcome the competition was incredibly clumsy. In Lebensrückblick (Life Review), Lou informs us that nothing had damaged her image of Nietzsche more than his attempts to demean Rée, and although the word wasn’t yet used, she blames him for lack of empathy: not realising that such a crude tactic was immediately detected as such.

Lou didn’t need Nietzsche. Nietzsche, the eternal bachelor whom Wagner had psychoanalysed well—to appease Eros the professor badly needed to get married!—did need Lou. Or rather, he didn’t need this liberated woman but one of the many ‘docile’ old-fashioned educated little women who at that time it wasn’t so difficult to ask for their hands. But the way Nietzsche wanted to pull her into his gravitational field was simply to imagine her as an apostle for his budding religion. In a letter to Overbeck, Nietzsche confessed: ‘At the moment—I don’t yet have a single disciple’. And in a missive to Malwilda, he clarifies: ‘By “disciple” I would understand a person who would swear an oath of unconditional fidelity to me—and for that, he would have to undergo a long period of trial and overcome difficult undertakings’.

The most sophisticated readers of Nietzsche’s work are unaware of his biography! It is very clear, from his own words, that he wanted to form a new cult. From this point of view the two scholarly, heavy treatises that Heidegger wrote about his favourite philosopher which begin with the lapidary sentence ‘Nietzsche, the name of the thinker attests to the content of his thought’ are rubbish! In the hundreds of pages that follow, Nietzsche the man is altogether missing, only his philosophical ‘insights’ are present!

Let’s not forget that Heidegger acknowledged to have read Luther. Much of the mission of the priest of holy words is to shake off the metaphysical cobwebs of the neo-theologians and to philosophise from the real world: the real biography of an Aryan man, the protection of his race and the analysis of his enemies.

It is more than significant that, before his death, the neo-theologian Heidegger claimed that philosophy had come to an end and that now ‘Only a God can save us’. He also claimed that for only a few months he had believed in National Socialism, and that during his ten months as rector of the University of Freiburg he refused NS orders to put up an anti-Jewry poster; to remove works by Jewish authors from the library, and to allow the burning of books at the university. But on one thing I agree with Heidegger: academic philosophy (i.e., neo-theology) is dead. The religion of sacred words must emerge, stripped now from all Christian vestiges, and not in the form of ontologies written in corrupted German.

Nietzsche wanted to create a religion very different from ours (the 14 and 4 words). In her Friedrich Nietzsche in seinen Werken, published when the philosopher was already mad, Lou would reveal juicy anecdotes that open a window into his mind. In their conversations, Nietzsche revealed to Lou that he wanted to spend a decade of his life studying the natural sciences in order to obtain a scientific basis for his theory of the eternal return! Lou adds: ‘Only after whole years of absolute silence did he intend… to appear among men as the master of the eternal return’. The following passage is key to understanding how Nietzsche wanted to drag Lou toward the dark side of the force so to speak, as if this woman was to become a sort of Sith apprentice in the wake of the philosopher’s terrible revelation:

Then he rose to take his leave, and as we stood on the threshold his features suddenly transformed. With a fixed expression on his face, casting fearful glances around him, as if a terrible danger threatened us should any curious person eavesdrop on his words, muffling the sound of his voice with a hand to his mouth, he announced to me in a whisper the ‘secret’ that Zarathustra had whispered into the ear of Life, to which Life would have replied: ‘Do you know, Zarathustra? No one knows’. There was something extravagant—indeed, sinister—in the way Nietzsche communicated to me ‘the eternal return of the identical’, and the incredible transcendence of this idea.

In Freemasonry, they speak of ‘The Great Secret’ that only the highest initiates can have access to. What Lou says was the great secret of the religion that Nietzsche now wanted to inaugurate.

That the pensioned philologist wanted to make a new religion out of such an idea is noticeable in that he even wanted to erase the fact that this idea was traceable to his readings of Heraclitus. Instead, he wanted us to believe that Zarathustra arrived at the great secret by himself. The critic of mysticism had himself fallen into the initiatory practices of the ancient Greeks. Recall that for the Pythagoreans some mathematical findings were to be hidden from the people. Only the initiated were qualified for this knowledge, such as the existence of the dodecahedron.

But Heraclitus was not Zarathustra. Nietzsche put something of his own into this doctrine since he didn’t want it to be merely an updating of the old one.

It is not the professional philosophers, like Heidegger et al, who get to the heart of the matter but the biographers, and sometimes the translators. If any scholars had to delve into the marrow of Nietzsche’s thought, it was his translators into English and Spanish: Reginald John Hollingdale (1930-2001) and Andrés Sánchez Pascual (1936-). It was precisely because of Sánchez Pascual’s translations that I began to read Nietzsche in 1976 when I was seventeen years old; translations accompanied by countless erudite footnotes, without which it would have been impossible for me to understand the obscure passages of Nietzsche’s legacy.

Hollingdale for his part made me see that Nietzsche had mixed what he had read in Schulpforta about Heraclitus with the ruthless Lutheran pietism with which he had been brought up—programmed, rather—: a mixture of Christian beatitudes with the terror of eternal damnation.

Let us remember what we have called on this site parental introjects, and that Nietzsche came from a family of theologians in both his father’s and his mother’s line. From his childhood, he had been imprinted with the idea of infinite individual responsibility in every personal affair, which would result in either reward or punishment. From this Nietzsche derived, according to R.J. Hollingdale, the idea of his new metaphysics. The question ‘Is this how you would do it an infinite number of times?’ or the imperative ‘Let us live in such a way that we wish to live again and live like this eternally!’ surpass even the categorical imperative of the other German philosopher whose Id had also been shattered by the bogeyman of the pietistic superego: Kant.

On the eternal return of the identical Nietzsche said that ‘a doctrine of this kind is to be taught as a new religion’, Zarathustra’s gospel. But even though it was a post-theistic religion, it was still in some ways the old one. This reminds me of what someone who was in Freemasonry once told me: that to enter that cult, the candidate was required to believe in the immortality of the human soul. In other words, it doesn’t matter that 19th-century Freemasons were rabid anti-clericals: they were still slaves to parental introjects (unlike Nietzsche, they even asked the novice to believe in the existence of God).

Hollingdale hit the nail. In his introduction to his translation of the Zarathustra, he interprets Nietzsche’s Amor fati as the Lutheran acceptance of life’s events as divinely willed, and the implication is that to hate our fate is blasphemous. For if in Lutheran pietism the events of life are divinely willed, it is impiety to wish that things should have turned out differently than they did.

Thus, the Nietzschean doctrine of eternal return was strongly influenced by Christian concepts of eternal life. Same song, different tune. When Hollingdale published a biography of Nietzsche, professor Marvin Rintala responded in The Review of Politics in January 1969 with a review saying that Hollingdale had failed to understand the essence of Pietist Lutheranism: ‘The great petition of the Lord’s Prayer is for Pietists “Thy will be done”.’ In his introduction to Penguin Books’ Thus spoke Zarathustra released after the biography of Nietzsche he had published, Hollingdale was honest enough to concede that he stood corrected, and writes: ‘This is much in line with the Christian origin of the conception of Zarathustra that I ought to have guessed even if I did not know it’.

Like the Freemasons, and despite the anti-clericalism that Nietzsche shared with them, none of them was free of the malware that our parents installed in our souls. With his Zarathustra, Nietzsche himself thus became a neo-theologian, and the same could be said of the much more recent New Age, and even of secular neo-Christianities as I have so often exposed on this site. There is always a neo-theological tail that drags even the most radical racialist into the abyss, as Balrog’s whip of fire dragged Gandalf into the bowels of the earth. Our mission is to cleanse these last vestiges of Christian programming, however recondite they may be hidden in the Aryan collective unconscious: something that can be done by fulfilling the commandment of the Delphic oracle, to know thyself (which is why I have written introspective autobiography).

But let us return to our biographee. By post, Nietzsche received a refusal from Lou, who went alone to Bayreuth where she had a great time and would even meet the great Wagner himself. (These were times when Nietzsche, for his part, was to receive the printing proofs of The Gay Science.) Never was he so close to despair and suicide as in the winter that followed his farewell to Lou. Eventually, this smart woman would write the novel Im Kampf um Gott (The Struggle for God). The central character is the son of a parish priest who falls in love with a girl…

‘Poor Nietzsche’—Wagner’s expression—didn’t impregnate Lou. But nine months after his amorous disaster, and in the greatest intoxication of Dionysian inspiration he ever suffered, he gave birth to his most beloved son, Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Like Dante who never savagely possessed the body of his Beatrice he coveted so much—which is what he really needed instead of terrorising the Aryan man with hellish nonsense—, Nietzsche thus transformed his tragicomic private life into the high flights of lyricism, pushing the expressive power of the German language to its limits like no other poet.

Axiology Theology

‘Residual Christianity’

That Western atheists remain, at heart, Christians is evident from the realisation that Christianity is not only the dogmas of the Nicene Creed (Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, Factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium, etc.), which atheists reject. Christianity is also the scale of values that took over the soul of the Aryan.

From this angle, Western atheists are even more Christian than theistic Christians, in that they have hypertrophied, and increasingly so in a downward spiral, the egalitarian, universalistic and individualistic morality of traditional Christianity to such levels that it is exterminating their race. A traditional Christian, like Matt Walsh, can see some of this psychosis (for example how gender ideology is destroying Western children). Atheists can’t even see it any more, insofar as they have taken dogmatic egalitarianism to levels that would have been considered insane even in the darkest moments of the Middle Ages.

Hitlerite Savitri Devi located the root of Christian and neo-Christian madness (i.e. atheistic hyper-Christianity) in the idea of man as bequeathed to us by the Bible. Other critics of the Bible who are not Hitlerists, such as our friend Gaedhal, have come to identical conclusions. In his statement today, Gaedhal said:

Thanks to technology, the earth, as regards humanity at least, is a single sympatria as regards human evolution. ‘Sympatric evolution’ is the antonym of ‘allopatric evolution’, allopatriae or distinct and separate human habitats no longer exist thanks to modern transportation. This is why I am a white globalist.

If humanity were any other animal, then blacks and whites would be considered different species. They might share a common genus or family. However, there is such a difference between the two—their skin: their largest organ are opposite colours!—that they would be classified as different species. Very few people believe both in evolution and in its implications and corollaries. Humanity, which is simply a genus of mammals, is special-pleaded. Again, I blame residual Christianity for this.

The reason why humanity is special-pleaded for is because there is a residual belief that the Jewish tribal god, Yahweh, specially created humanity, and breathed into us Cartesian-dualist ‘reasonable/rational souls’, and of course all of these Cartesian-dualist souls are equal. Soul equality is the basis for liberal secular equality.

The term, allopatric, is worth bearing in mind. Allos means ‘other’ in Greek; patria means ‘fatherland’ in Latin, and ‘-icus’ means ‘of’, ‘concerning’, ‘denoting’ in Latin. Thus, evolutio allopatrica, in Latin, is ‘allopatric evolution’. Etymologically, genetic changes ‘roll out’ through mutations and natural selection in two different habitats. Whites and Blacks have evolved allopatrically for hundreds of thousands of years.

What technology has done—and I agree with you [Dr Robert Morgan] on this—is that it has turned, for the human species at least, the entire planet into a single evolutionary habitat or patria. How anybody makes any sense of scientific terminology without knowing Greek and Latin is beyond me!

Whites have evolved in the European patria, or habitat, during this time, and blacks have developed in the sub-Saharan African habitat. In any other species that had two populations that evolved allopatrically for hundreds of thousands of years, then we would expect to see a considerable genetic divergence between these two populations. As Jerry Coyne points out: Whites hybridised with Homo Neanderthalis, whereas blacks did not.

So not only have whites evolved allopatrically, they have also hybridised! However, the one thing that we must not do is speculate on racial differences that may have evolved as a result of hundreds of thousands of years of allopatric evolution and hybridisation.

That is heresy!

As I said before: Woke scientists must possess a residual belief in Cartesian-dualist souls that were specially created equal. Woke scientists must have a residual belief that there is some god up there, on his celestial perch, magically making us all equal.

Sam Harris, I think, has come under fire for not recusing himself of the heresy of evolved racial differences with sufficient vigour. I follow the Woke Atheist site, Only Sky, which is great for its critiques of Christianity. They had an article, recently, about ‘The New Atheists and White Supremacy’. Charles Murray, in Wokism, is so heretical that he is excommunicatus vitandus, i.e. he is both ‘excommunicated and must be avoided’, just as Alfred Loisy was by the Catholic Church. Only Sky were criticising Richard Dawkins for not disassociating himself from Murray.

Woke atheists are not only egalitarian: they are fanatically egalitarian to the point of sabotaging Murray’s scientific lectures on IQ. Gaedhal is right that we must learn Greek and Latin, the languages of European high culture before the Judeo-Christian invasion. But even in plain language without Latin, it is possible to understand the above quote with these plain words of Jack Frost in a thread on The Occidental Observer eight years ago now:

Christians believe that the soul is eternal and always exists, either in heaven or in hell. Now, the soul is raceless and according to them the only important thing about a man; the body is dross, merely a shell. Why should someone who believes he is raceless and never going to die, and who is focused intently on things not of this world, but an anticipated next, worry himself about trivial matters such as the survival of Western civilization or this or that biological race? Clearly, to do so would be a heresy.

But even in plain English, the The Occidental Observer racialists didn’t listen to Frost because they were determined to combine the uncombinable: the religion of our parents with racial preservation.

The image at the top of this entry, by the way, illustrates St Augustine’s mental warfare and eventual conversion, which I used in my September 2015 post quoting Frost’s words. It is time for a tremendous internal struggle like the one that that Punic theologian suffered but, now, to reverse his theology and remain as we were before the Semitic infection that took over the empire.



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’.

Judaism Old Testament Tacitus Theology

The Holy Hook, 4

by Laurent Guyénot

How Christianity reinforced Jewish alienation

Also to consider is the effect that the Christian sanctification of the Jewish Tanakh has had on Jews themselves. It has discouraged Jews from questioning their scriptures and freeing themselves from their psychopathic god. Any Jew who questioned the divine inspiration of the Torah was not only banned from his community, but found no shelter among Christians: this happened to Baruch Spinoza and many others. For two thousand years, Christians have prayed that the Jews would open their heart to Christ, but they have done nothing to free them from Yahweh.

Critics of Jews in pagan Antiquity had a simple logic: although Jews were considered an ethnos, it was commonly admitted that their misanthropy was due to their religion. It was the fault of Moses, who had taught them to scorn the gods and the traditions of others. Hecataeus of Abdera gives in his Aegyptiaca (around 300 BCE) an alternative version of the Exodus: to appease their gods during a plague, the Egyptians expelled from their lands the many tribes of migrants (those known in Acadian as habirus), and some of them settled in Judea under the conduct of their leader Moses who, ‘because of their expulsion, introduced a kind of misanthropic and inhospitable way of life’.[14]

The Roman historian Tacitus tells a similar story and also attributes to Moses the introduction of ‘new religious practices, quite opposed to those of all other religions. The Jews regard as profane all that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they permit all that we abhor’ (Tacitus, Histories V,3-5).

Plutarch reports in his treatise on Isis and Osiris that some Egyptians believed the god of the Jews to be Seth, the murderer of Osiris, exiled by the council of the gods in the desert from where he periodically returns to bring famine and discord. This opinion was so widespread in the Greco-Roman world that many people believed that the Jews worshiped in their Temple the golden head of a donkey, symbol of Seth in the divine bestiary of Egypt. The Roman general Pompey is reported to have been surprised not to find this famous donkey head when he entered the Holy of Holies in 63 BCE.

Everything was simple, then: the Jews were not racially, but religiously degenerate. But the Christian Fathers, who held that only the Jews had worshiped the true God before the coming of Jesus Christ, had to elaborate a sophisticated explanation for the Jews’ asocial behavior, one which is so self-contradicting that its message to the Jews amounts to a ‘double bind’: on the one hand, the Jews are told that their Yahweh is the true God and that their Bible is holy, but on the other hand, they are criticized for behaviors they have learned precisely from Yahweh in their Bible.

They are accused of plotting to rule the world, although it is the very promise that Yahweh made to them: ‘Yahweh your God will raise you higher than every other nation in the world’ (Deuteronomy 28:1). They are blamed for their materialism and their greed, but that also they learned from Yahweh, who dreams only of plunder: ‘I shall shake all the nations, and the treasures of all the nations will flow in’ (Haggai 2:7).

Above all, they are rebuked for their separatism, although this is the very essence of Yahweh’s message to them: ‘I shall set you apart from all these peoples, for you to be mine’ (Leviticus 20:26). Jews who want to break away from Jewish separatism deserve death, according to the lesson of the Bible. The Church Fathers have repeated Yahweh’s endless complaint against his people’s irrepressible tendency to compromise themselves with the gods of the nations by oaths, shared meals or—abomination of the abomination—marriages. But are not these ‘stiff-necked Jews’ who rebelled against the tyrannical yoke of the Levites, precisely those who sought to extricate themselves from the Jewish alienation by assimilating into the surrounding civilization? Were they not doing exactly what we would like them to do today? The contradiction is in many Christian writings. John Chrysostom, for example, writes in his First Homily Against the Jews (II,3):

Nothing is more miserable than those people who never failed to attack their own salvation. When there was need to observe the Law, they trampled it under foot. Now that the Law has ceased to bind, they obstinately strive to observe it. What could be more pitiable that those who provoke God not only by transgressing the Law but also by keeping it?

This amounts to telling the Jews: ‘Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.’ Christians accuse them of having rebelled against Yahweh yesterday, and they accuse them of obeying Yahweh today, under the pretext that Yahweh’s orders no longer stand. How unconvincing to the Jews!

Anti-Yahwism is the only effective criticism of Israel because it is the only fair criticism. It cuts short the accusation of anti-Semitism, since it aims at liberating the Jews from the sociopathic god who has taken control of their destiny—and who is, of course, only the puppet of the Levites. A manifesto of anti-yahwism might begin with this statement by Samuel Roth from his book Jews Must Live:

Beginning with the Lord God of Israel Himself, it was the successive leaders of Israel who one by one foregathered and guided the tragic career of the Jews—tragic to the Jews and no less tragic to the neighboring nations who have suffered them. Despite our faults, we would never have done so much damage to the world if it had not been for our genius for evil leadership.[15]

Zionist pioneer Leo Pinsker wrote in his booklet Auto-Emancipation (1882), that the Jews are ‘the people chosen for universal hatred.’ They are indeed, but not because Gentiles are universally affected by a ‘psychic aberration,’ a ‘variety of demonopathy’ known as Judeophobia, as Pinsker believes, but rather because their covenant with Yahweh has programmed them to be hated wherever they go.[16]

It’s time to tell the Jews what Christians have been unable to tell them: You were never chosen by God. You have just been misled by your Levites to take your vindictive tribal god for the universal Father in Heaven. This cognitive short-circuit has caused in your collective psyche a grave narcissistic personality disorder. For our own misfortune, we Gentiles have been fooled by your self-delusion and have fallen, too, under the psychopathic bond of your leaders. But we are now waking up, and as soon as we recover our senses and our dignity, we’ll help you out of it too.


[14] Peter Schäfer, Judéophobie: Attitudes à l’égard des Juifs dans le monde antique, Cerf, 2003, pp. 13-15.

[15] Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live: An Account of the Persecution of the World by Israel on All the Frontiers of Civilization, 1934, (archive.org).

[16] Leon Pinsker, Auto-Emancipation: An Appeal to His People by a Russian Jew (1882).

Israel / Palestine Judaism Old Testament Racial right Theology

The Holy Hook, 3

by Laurent Guyénot

Christians’ learned helplessness

It is beyond question that Christianity played a major role in the creation of Israel, and continues to play a major role in securing American and European support for its criminal enterprises. This has nothing to do with Jesus’ teaching or the example he set with his life and death, of course. Rather, this was due to the Od Testament, Israel’s Trojan Horse inside Christianity. By recognizing the Jews’ special status as the people of the Old Testament, Christians have granted them an extraordinary symbolic power that no other ethnic community can compete with.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note: Since he’s writing for The Unz Review, Laurent omits to add that white nationalism should be seen as a failed movement. Except for Hitler and his closest henchmen, every Jew-wise man knows about the Jewish problem but none wants to say who is responsible for their power.

______ 卐 ______

For two thousand years, Christianity has taught Gentiles to consent to the delusional claim of the Jews to divine election: are they not the first and only ethnic group whom the God of the universe has addressed personally, the people whom He has loved to the point of exterminating its enemies? It matters not that Christians tell the Jews that they have lost the election because they rejected Christ: the main price is theirs. To accept the biblical notion of ‘chosen people’, whatever the reservations, is to accept the metaphysical superiority of the Jews. If Christ is Israel’s Messiah, then truly, ‘salvation is from the Jews’ (John 4:22).

We are experiencing today the final consequences of this submission, which the peoples of Antiquity could never have imagined in their worst nightmares. The exalted status of the Jews and of their ‘holy history’ is the deeper reason for their influence on the affairs of the world. By accepting the triple biblical paradigm—Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land—, Christian Churches, Catholic and Protestant in particular, have become complicit with the imperialistic project of the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, there will be no definitive emancipation from Zion without mental and moral emancipation from the biblical matrix.

When reading the Book of Joshua, a Christian is supposed to approve, as a matter of principle, the extermination of the inhabitants of the cities of Canaan and the stealing of their land, since it was ordained by God. The editors of my Bible de Jérusalem explain in a footnote to chapter 3:

Joshua was considered by the Fathers as a figure of his namesake Jesus [their names are identical in Hebrew], and the Jordanian passage as a figure of Christian baptism.

How can Joshua be a figure of Jesus? What has Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount to do with Joshua’s bloodthirsty fanatism? How can the god of Joshua be the Father of Christ? A crippling cognitive dissonance has seized Christian peoples, causing a chronic inability to think intelligently about the divine, and to see and resist the violence of Israel. We can also compare the Christian world to a son who has been lied to all his life about his real father, and, on top of that, told that his father was a war criminal, when in fact he is the son of a loving father. The neurotic ailments that genealogical lies and secrets may cause over several generations, though largely mysterious, have been well documented in the last fifty years (particularly by French psychogenealogists), and I believe such considerations, applied to the usurpation of our Heavenly Parent’s identity by the psychopathic Yahweh, are relevant to the psychology of nations.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note: Unlike Laurent, we are not theists but pantheists (see the abridgement of Richard Weikart’s book on Hitler we made for this site).

______ 卐 ______

As a matter of principle, the Christian is supposed to approve Yahweh’s sentence on those who ate with the Moabites and took wives among them: ‘Yahweh said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people. Impale them facing the sun, for Yahweh, to deflect his burning anger from Israel”’ (Numbers 25:4). But then, why blame the Jerusalem priestly cast for sending Jesus to the torture? Explain to me in which way they were unfaithful to the Torah! Not to mention, of course, the inherent contradiction in blaming them for the Cross since, according to the Gospel, ‘the Son of man was destined to suffer grievously, and to be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and to be put to death, and after three days to rise again’ (Mark 8:31).

The sanctification of Yahweh’s bloody leadership during the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan has made Gentiles incapable of understanding the historical foundation of Jewishness, and helpless in the face of its intrinsic violence today. It has created a blind spot in Christians’ mind: they may see the effects of Zion’s evil power, but not its cause, falsely assuming that the moral corruption they see in Jews comes from the Talmud and the Kabbalah.

Christians cannot even see the Jewish plan for world domination that is written in plain language, right under their nose. If the Jewish Tanakh had not become the Christians’ Holy Book, it would have been exposed as the proof for Israel’s racist and supremacist ambitions long ago. But when it comes to the Old Testament, Christians are seized by a severe reading disorder: when the book says ‘Israel will conquer the world’, they read ‘the Church will convert the world’.

If the ‘Jewish question’ is about the inordinate power of Israeli elite networks within nations, then the Jewish question is also a Christian question: (emphasis by Ed.) it is about the built-in vulnerability of Christian societies to this power. Deep down, anyone who grew up a Christian knows that the chosen people will have the last word, because if Yahweh is God, his promise is eternal, as he himself declares, in his inimitable style: ‘By my own self I swear it; what comes from my mouth is saving justice, it is an irrevocable word’ (Isaiah 45:23). One can even speak of Christians’ ‘learned helplessness’ in front of Jewish power, since they are taught in their Scriptures that God has always guided Israel’s merciless slaughter of his enemies—no need for Scofield’s footnotes to know that. There is also learned helplessness in having as ultimate model a man crucified by the Jews: how can the ‘imitation of Christ’ save us from the high priests’ power to lobby and corrupt Pilatus?

The Judeo-Babylonian metaphysical hoax makes God not just ridiculously anthropomorphic, but Judeomorphic. To be fooled by it is to mistake the Creator of the Universe for a topical demon rumbling and spitting fire from a Midianite volcano (Exodus 19), adopted as tutelary deity by a confederation of Semitic nomadic tribes craving for a piece of the Fertile Crescent. It is to internalize an extremely primitive and unspiritual image of the divine that is obstructive of sound metaphysical thinking: the divorce between philosophy (the love of Wisdom) and theology (the science of God) is one manifestation of this cognitive dissonance in Western thought.

In the final analysis, the jealous Yahweh, destroyer of all pantheons, is so unconvincing in the garb of the Great universal God that he is fated to be discarded in his turn. Atheism is the end result of biblical monotheism: it is the rejection of the biblical God, mistaken for the true God. ‘If Yahweh is God, no thanks’ has been the simple rationale for atheism in Christendom since the Enlightenment: Voltaire, for example, scorned Christianity by quoting the Old Testament. Yahweh has ruined faith in a divine Creator.

Catholic Church Christendom Deranged altruism Judaism Protestantism Theology

How Yahweh conquered Rome, 2

by Laurent Guyénot

The two sides of the big lie

Is this quest really necessary? Can there be any benefit for Western civilization in questioning its already shaky Christian foundation? And is the Big Lie such a big deal? Before proceeding, I want to share my viewpoint on these questions, on which I have thought long and hard.

‘The greatness of White civilization sprung from the Christian faith.’ Such a statement seems hardly controversial. And yet, I think it is completely mistaken. The achievements of our civilization stem from the inner strength of our race, which include an exceptional propensity to ‘idealize’, by which I mean both to generate ideas and work toward their realization. The genius of our race is to be creators of powerful Ideas that drive us forward and upward. This capacity, which Søren Kierkegaard calls ideality (In Vino Veritas, 1845), is not to be confused with what we commonly call idealism, although it may be argued that idealism is our vulnerability, the weakness inherent to our strength.

For centuries, the Christian faith has been a vehicle—one could almost say a superstructure—for our yearning to idealize and realize; it has not produced it. Priests did not build the Cathedrals in which they officiated (most churches were collective ventures of cities, towns and villages); the troubadours and poets who elaborated the sublime ideal of love which is our ‘civilization’s miracle’ (Stendhal)[5], were not monks; Johann Sebastian Bach wrote Church music, but he was not an clergyman, and his Ave Maria would sound just as great if sung to Isis; many geniuses of our European pantheons, like Dante, Leonardo da Vinci or Galilee, were nominal Catholics by obligation, but secret lovers of Sophia (read my article ‘The Crucifixion of the Goddess’). The source of the artistic, scientific and cultural genius of the White race is not Christianity.

Kevin MacDonald makes a discreet but crucial point in his preface to Giles Corey’s The Sword of Christ when he writes that ‘the adaptive aspects of Christianity’ are what ‘produced Western expansion, innovation, discovery, individual freedom, economic prosperity, and strong family bonds.’[6] This is true if by ‘the adaptive aspects of Christianity’ we mean the aspects that are adopted and adapted from the ancient Greco-Roman-Germanic world, rather than from the Old and New Testament. Among the adaptive aspects of Christianity must be counted its various national colors. Russian Orthodoxy is good for Russia for the same reason that Confucianism is good for China: because it is a national Church, so that being a Russian Orthodox means being a patriot.

The same could be said in the past about Lutheranism for Germany or, in a narrower context, Catholicism for Ireland. But these national versions of Christianity are, in fact, in opposition to its universal (katholikos) mission statement—and to papal Rome. Family values are also adaptive aspects of Christianity. Jesus disavowed his family (Matthew 12:46-50) and Paul taught that, ‘it is good for a man not to marry,’ marriage being recommended only for those who cannot help fornicating (1 Corinthians 7). ‘Christian values’ are not Christian at all, they are simply conservative. In fact, if we look at its popular expressions, Catholicism has been so adaptive that it can be said to be more pagan than Jewish. What’s Jewish about Christmas or Mother Mary?

The problem with Christianity is with its non-adaptive and now prominent Jewish aspects. It is not just the grotesque notion that Jews are chosen, but the even more grotesque character of the god who chose them. Paradoxically, with its anthropomorphic—or should we say Judeomorphic—image of God inherited from the Torah, Christianity has laid the foundation for modern atheism, and, perhaps, harmed Gentile ideality irremediably. Because the Old Testament God is ‘a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a capriciously malevolent bully,’ Richard Dawkins decided to be an atheist, like the vast majority of scholars from Christian background.[7]

They have all, by their own admission, confused God with Yahweh, and fallen victim to the Big Biblical Lie. And because they cannot conceive God outside of the Biblical paradigm, they ban Intelligent Design from universities under the slanderous accusation that it is another name for the biblical God (watch the documentary Expelled: No Intelligent Allowed), whereas it is in fact a vindication of the Greek Sophia. The sociopathic Yahweh has ruined the reputation of God and led to modern Western godlessness.

And so the Big Jewish Lie begot the Big Atheist Lie—or shall we call it the Darwinian Lie? ‘Yahweh is God’ and ‘God is dead’ are opposed like the two sides of the same coin. Our materialistic civilization is in fact more Jewish than the Christianity it rejected, because materialism (the denial of any otherworld) is the metaphysical core of the Hebrew Bible (read my article ‘Israel as One Man’).

If Christianity could include, among its adaptive aspects, the rejection of the Old Testament’s Jealous God and the Big Lie of Jewish chosenness, then it would be redeemable. But Christians would rather sell their souls to the devil than become Marcionites. In two thousand years of existence, institutional Christianity has consistently evolved in the opposite direction, becoming more and more scriptural, Judaized, and Israel-centered: from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, and from Catholicism to Protestantism, the trend is unmistakable. What else can you expect from an institution that has always invited the Jews, and declared that they cease being Jews the moment they receive baptism?

And so Christianity is a dead end. It is now part of the problem, not the solution. It may have served us well for some centuries [Note of the Editor: Guyénot hasn’t read the ten volumes of Karlheinz Deschner’s Christianity’s Criminal History], but in the long run, it has been an instrument of Gentile enslavement to Jewish power. At least, it has not helped us to prevent it, and it cannot help us to overcome it. Many today ask: why are we so weak? It is high time to consider the obvious: having been taught for generations to worship and emulate the man nailed on the cross under Jewish pressure is not the best incentive to resist martyrdom. There is an obvious correlation between being told yesterday that it is moral to ‘love your enemies’ and getting jailed today for ‘hate speech.’

I hold no personal grudge against Christianity. Catholicism is a part of my happiest childhood memories, and the sound of Church bells never fails to strike a deep chord in me. My grandparents on my mother’s side were Catholic bourgeois who raised a large and happy family with sound moral values. If I could see any hope in this social class, I would be a political Catholic like Balzac, or a romantic Catholic like Chateaubriand. But Catholic bourgeoisie is near extinct, having never recovered from Maréchal Petain’s demise. Their children called them fascists and their grandchildren are addicted to pornography. Catholicism has deserted the country too: there are no priests, and what good is a country priest anyway if he cannot bless the crops at Easter?

Therefore, since I don’t believe that Jesus literally rose from his tomb, I consider that institutional Christianity has exhausted its potential for civilization in the West. Look at our pope, for Christ’s sake!

‘Inside every Christian is a Jew’ (Pope Francis).

I speak as a Frenchman, but I doubt that American Catholicism has much more Holy Spirit left. It died in Dallas with Arlen Specter’s magic bullet. Of course, there are brave Catholics like E. Michael Jones, who has captured the evil genius of the Jewish race in his indispensable book on The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. But Professor Jones is the exception that proves the rule. And I am not even talking of American Protestantism, today a mercenary force for Zion.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note:

In this the author is terribly mistaken. Jones is a thousand times worse than a Jew because, as a good Catholic, he is a vile traitor to his race (traitors are worse than external enemies). After he debated Jared Taylor a year ago, I wrote: ‘After 1:39 the Christian Jones showed his true colours. The moderator asked him: If the millions of non-white Muslims and blacks in France suddenly became Catholics should they be expelled? Emphatically Jones answered “No!… They could become Frenchmen, without any problem!” He even added that an African who migrated to Poland could become Polish as well…’

______ 卐 ______


[5] Stendhal, Love, Penguin Classics, 2000, p. 83.
[6] Giles Corey, The Sword of Christ: Christianity from the Right, or The Christian Question, Independently published, 2020, p. xiii.
[7] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, 2006, p. 51.


The Calvinist god

by Gaedhal

I am not overstating the case when I say that the Calvinist god hates you. It is a tenet of Calvinist theology that Yahweh is at enmity with his creation. We are born, children of wrath. Yahweh has us in his wrath scope from the moment that we are born. Calvinist idiots like Voddie Baucham speak of infants as ‘vipers in diapers’.

YouTuber Pinecreek (Doug) once said that he likes Voddie Baucham. I can honestly say that I like none of these people.

Why is Yahweh at enmity with his creation? Because he decreed this enmity with his creation even before the foundation of the world.

The stupidity and evilness of the Calvinist god! He decreed to be at enmity with his own creation instead of decreeing to be at peace and concord with his own creation.

Yahweh decreed the Fall, in Calvinism.

If a god is at enmity with you; if a god wants to damn you to hell forever, for his own sovereign glory, then, to me, this is the same thing as his hating you. The Calvinist god, although not real, might as well be, as he resides in the minds of millions of his deluded devotees, causing them to do some really harmful stuff. Thus, it is okay to hate the Calvinist god back.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note:

As I recently said in the comments section of another article by Gaedhal, incredible as it may seem, the answer to all this could be found in my autobiography, on the page where I quote a Swiss writer who asks the question, ‘Why does mankind worship such horrible gods?’

The Swiss woman implies that it is precisely because we had horrible biological parents. Remember that the idea of divinity is nothing but a parental projection. If our parents behave well, we will have the gods of Olympus. But if they behave badly, as they have done since Constantine, the projection will be towards evil gods. Or hasn’t Gaedhal read what I wrote in Day of Wrath about psychohistory?

The key to all this is that white nationalists living in the US will never save their DNA as long as they continue to believe in and worship the Calvinist god.

Autobiography Christendom Christian art Constantinople Eastern Orthodox Church Karlheinz Deschner Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Theology

Christianity’s Criminal History, 155

– For the context of these translations click here

The dispute over images begins

If we are well-informed about the 6th century of Byzantine history, thanks especially to the detailed descriptions of the historian Procopius, the 7th and 8th centuries remain in great obscurity. Only the chronicles of two theologians, both defenders of images and who died in exile—that of the patriarch of Constantinople Nicephorus and, somewhat more extensively, that of Theophanes the Confessor—shed little light on that violent period, within which the late 7th and early 8th centuries are regarded as one of the darkest epochs of Byzantine history.

Emperor Justinian II (685-695, 705-711), who tried so hard to derive imperial power from the will of God, had many thousands of Slavic families, previously deported by him, executed. In 695 he was expelled from the throne and, with his nose cut off, banished to Crimea. Subsequent rulers succeeded one another in rapid succession, and for two decades total anarchy triumphed. In addition, the Bulgars, nomads from the Volga territories, broke into the empire and in 711 advanced under Chan Terwel to the vicinity of Constantinople. In 717 the Arabs reappeared and besieged the capital, although Leo III (717-741) the Isaurian was able to repel them. But it was precisely this saviour of Byzantium, so exalted by Christianity to this day, who was also the author of a bloody Christian quarrel, which shook the Byzantine world for more than a century and more violently than any other religious dispute, and contributed to no small way to the estrangement between eastern and western Rome.

By general estimation the conflict began in 726, when a devastating earthquake in the southern Aegean was interpreted as a ‘judgement of God’ because of the new ‘idolatry’ that had penetrated the Church: the worship of images. Emperor Leo III ordered the removal of all representations of saints, martyrs and angels, and in 730 ordered their destruction, not excluding images of Christ and Mary. Iconoclasm, which caught on not only among the clergy but also among the masses, has often been the subject of study but has been explained perhaps more contradictorily than any other phenomenon in Byzantine history. What is certain is that it shook the empire to hardly imaginable limits. Much more than a mere theological dispute or religious reform movement, it also represented a clash between civil and ecclesiastical power and reduced the state to a heap of ruins; and this at a time of a certain political recovery within and beyond the borders and when the Christological controversies had already ended.

Moreover, the starting point of the dispute over images was a purely theological-dogmatic problem. Already the primitive Indo-European religion was devoid of images, as were the Vedic, Zarathustrian, Old Roman and Old Germanic religions. And so was the Jewish religion in particular. The Old Testament already strictly forbade any worship of images. Nor did early Christianity know of any figurative representation of God. Quite the contrary. Just as ancient Judaism expressly condemned the making of representations and just as the prophets mocked ‘those who make a god and worship an idol’, so also the early church fathers fought long and hard against the worship of images, which was to become so widespread later on.

Even in the 4th century, theologians such as Eusebius and Archbishop Epiphanius of Salamis were against graphic reproductions, while the Council of Elvira forbade the reproduction and worship of images. On the contrary, it was ‘heretics’, the Gnostics, who initiated the change and who introduced the image of Christ and its veneration into Christianity.

Its use spread to the East from the 4th century, and by the 6th century it was as widespread there as it is today. Not only images of Christ were venerated, but also those of Mary, the saints and angels. It was mainly the monks who encouraged this practice for a very specific material reason: iconolatry was part of their business (e.g. the pilgrimages that brought money). The pro-icon theologians (iconodules) justified it all, because according to their interpretation it was not the dead image that was worshipped, but the living God, and, as Nicephorus said, ‘a vision leads to faith’. On the other hand, the destroyers of images (iconoclasts) tried to give renewed validity to the Christian prescriptions, which were unquestionably older.

But the people venerated the icons themselves as bearers of health and miracles. The icon became the content and synthesis of their faith. It was engraved on their furniture, clothes and armour. Thanks to heaven or priestly art, icons began to speak, bleed, to defend themselves when attacked. Moreover, there were eventually icons that represented a real novelty, since they were ‘not made by human hands’ (acheiropoietai).

______ 卐 ______


Editor’s Note: For The West’s Darkest Hour, the only thing that matters is the destruction of Greco-Roman art by Christians (Christians destroying their art is as good for us as BLM destroying the statues of white Christians). In this image we see St Benedict’s monks destroying a statue of Apollo. Regarding those images Karlheinz Deschner speaks of in the last sentence, the supposedly miraculous images ‘not made by human hands’, for two years I researched the most famous relic of this type, the image on the shroud of Turin, and published my findings here. In my humble opinion, the so-called ‘shroud’ of Turin was the last ditch of Christendom’s dying apologetics (the apologetics of American fundamentalists is so ridiculous that no one takes it seriously). Deschner continues:

______ 卐 ______

Thus the believing people increasingly exalted the images, identifying them with the saint they represented. They kissed the statues and the representations, and lit candles and lamps for them. The sick sometimes took coloured and scratched particles from them to obtain health. They were incensed and the faithful knelt before them; in a word, the people treated such objects in exactly the same way as the pagans treated their ‘idols’.

And it was precisely the opponents of iconolatry, the iconoclasts, who interpreted this as a kind of idolatry. They came from the imperial household, from the army and especially from certain regions under the influence of anti-image Islam, such as the territories of Asia Minor. They also lived in the borderlands of the eastern part of the empire, where especially the Paulician admirers of the Apostle Paul were opposed to the worship of the cross and images, ceremonies and sacraments. These were ‘heretical’ Christians, who first appeared in Armenia in the middle of the 7th century and who for more than two centuries were extremely active on the eastern Byzantine frontier.

It is, however, curious, and at the same time sheds some light on the whole controversy, that the emperors and army, who were the most bitter enemies of the cult of images, had earlier been its special promoters. The rulers of the 6th and 7th centuries, taking advantage of the delirium of the masses for images, had used them for their political and especially military purposes. The images were led into countless battles and whole cities were placed under their protection, turning them into fortress defenders.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note: This seems like a long time ago. But for me it is very close. When years ago I tried to tell my Catholic father that the Islamisation of Europe was a very alarming phenomenon, and France came into the conversation, he replied triumphantly: ‘Nothing can happen there: there is the Virgin of Lourdes!’

My smiling father’s statement couldn’t be understood without an explanation. In 1883 my great-grandfather Damián Tort Rafols, who could speak French, brought back a bronze replica of the Virgin’s grotto, which he bought in France. The replica became an object of worship for the Tort people of Chiapas and Puebla, and still stands a few metres away from where I am writing. The level at which the ancient Tort worshipped this replica, according to intergenerational anecdotes, has always impressed, and embarrassed, me.

What struck me most about my father’s triumphant declaration is that, more than a thousand years after that Byzantine delirium, there are still people who believe such things as that a specific Virgin can protect a city or nation, be it modern France or any other. Deschner continues:

______ 卐 ______

But all too often they had failed in that function as one city after another fell to the ‘infidels’, which undoubtedly brings us closer to the direct cause of iconoclasm. If the images had performed the miracles expected of them, their destruction would probably never have happened. ‘But the icons hadn’t delivered what the people expected’ (Mango).

The revolt had come mainly from the Eastern episcopate. The iconoclastic party had its main representatives in the minor Asian bishops Constantine of Nakoleia, Metropolitan Thomas of Klaudioupolis and Theodore of Ephesus. The iconoclastic party also had its first fatalities: several of the soldiers sent to remove the images were killed in a popular uprising. The iconodules, the image-worshippers, were found in almost every corner of the empire. In the East they included the nonagenarian Patriarch Germanos of Constantinople (715-730) and the metropolitan John of Symnada, as well as monks. In the West, the cult of images was defended by the great masses, and above all by the papacy, which claimed greater autonomy and even political leadership from the very beginning. It was no coincidence that Byzantine sovereignty succumbed to a considerable extent in central Italy.

The imperial court soon renounced iconoclastic actions in Italy. Although the monarch Constantine V (741-776), a vehement enemy of images, who declared himself a true friend of Christ and a worshipper not of his image but his cross, personally wrote some polemical writings and created his own theology, especially against the representation of Christ, which for him was an expression of Nestorianism or Monophysitism, i.e. the separation or mixing of ‘the two natures’ in Christ. And the Council of Constantinople (757) rejected outright the worship of images as the work of Satan and as idolatry.

Autobiography Deranged altruism Racial right Theology

I don’t think your Lord exists

by Gaedhal

Schopenhauer famously said that the sun sees so much carnage on its daily course that it were better if the earth, like the moon, were still in a crystalline state and not able to call forth the phenomenon of life.

I agree with the carnage bit. I disagree with the notion that a crystalline dead universe is superior to a universe with life in it.

Just personally I think that not existing forever is an unimaginable concept. Hitchens said that every attempt to imagine the extinction of our own personal consciousness fails. Alan Watts, a non theist, said that not existing forever is not an experience that you can have. The atheist Epicurus said that death does not concern us. Where we are, death is not; and where death is, we are not. Thus, as opposed to Benatar, I propose, instead, making the best of a bad situation. Existing on this Hell Planet of parasitism and predation is a bad situation.

However, Schopenhauer’s point that no decent God would claim this Hell Planet of predation and parasitism as his own handiwork still stands. The parasites and predators on this planet are no compliment to any decent God. By believing in this Lord of theirs, it sets you up to be duped in so many other ways. If you can buy that today with its rapes, murders, tortures, shootings, stabbings, car deaths, starvations, amputations, acts of paedophilia etc., was created by their Lord, then you can also buy Matt Chandler’s crocodile tears and his extremely sketchy outline of the events that transpired.

There is much more to this story than meets the eye.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s Note: Matt Chandler is a pastor of a church in Texas.

Gaedhal hit the nail on the head when he said ‘by believing in this Lord of theirs, it sets you up to be duped in so many other ways. As long-time visitors to this site know, I only woke up to racial issues after I turned fifty springs in this world. Before that, I devoted myself to understanding a family tragedy caused, first and foremost, by my father.

After decades of thinking about it, I concluded that once you accept astronomical doublethink, as in Christianity with the doctrine of eternal damnation and the punisher being a god who supposedly loves us infinitely, you can believe anything.

I am not going to detail how Puebla Catholicism corrupted my father’s mind in the 1930s and how that is related to a tragedy that happened in the 1970s. Anyone who wants to know about that can read my autobiographical books. But after decades of pondering the subject I see clearly that the original sin lies in the religion of our parents.

That’s why I have hope…

If the original sin is Christianity, the white race can still be saved. Serious would be, as Kevin MacDonald seems to suggest, that universalist altruism is genetic among whites. I don’t think it is, because whites weren’t bananas before Christianity. It was Christianity that made them crazy, like methamphetamine makes crazy those drug addicts we see in the TV series Breaking Bad.

If deranged altruism is genetic, the Aryan is doomed to extinction. If instead it is malware that has taken hold of the Aryan psyche, it is possible to remove the malware from our souls through Nietzschean transvaluation (which includes ‘secular’ values back to Greco-Roman values). See why The Wests Darkest Hour is the only thing worthwhile among the racialist forums? No one but us is proposing the formula Umwertuung aller Werte as the salvation of our souls.

Nota bene: Today I won’t add another article on Deschner’s history of Christianity because I am still very busy correcting the syntax of the book Daybreak.