web analytics

Category: Tom Holland

Categories
Axiology Tom Holland

Dominion

Editor’s Note: According to Tom Holland, Christian ethics surround us, even atheists, like water surrounds fish. Although Wikipedia is dominated by our ideological enemies, their article on Dominion is informative, so I’ve reproduced it in abbreviated form below.

Although, unlike us, secular humanist Tom Holland subscribes to Christian ethics, and is therefore also an ideological enemy, anyone who understands the thesis of his book will understand the POV of The West’s Darkest Hour.

The racial right pundits I criticised yesterday are like fish in the axiological ocean that Christianity bequeathed us. They haven’t been able to venture onto dry land but, like the normies, have always been surrounded by the sea. After 1945, among the very notable racists in the US, only William Pierce dared, like the first fish to use its humble fins to venture onto the beach, to take his first steps out of the ocean. The rest remain wrapped in that matrix that prevents them from seeing the water from the dry land.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind (published as Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World in the United States) is a 2019 non-fiction history book by British historian Tom Holland.

The book is a broad history of the influence of Christianity on the world, focusing on its impact on morality—from its beginnings to the modern day. According to the author, the book “isn’t a history of Christianity” but “a history of what’s been revolutionary and transformative about Christianity: about how Christianity has transformed not just the West, but the entire world.”

Holland contends that Western morality, values and social norms ultimately are products of Christianity, stating “in a West that is often doubtful of religion’s claims, so many of its instincts remain—for good and ill—thoroughly Christian”. Holland further argues that concepts now usually considered non-religious or universal, such as secularism, liberalism, socialism and Marxism, revolution, feminism, and even homosexuality, “are deeply rooted in a Christian seedbed”, and that the influence of Christianity on Western civilization has been so complete “that it has come to be hidden from view”.

It was released to generally positive reviews, although some historians and philosophers objected to some of Holland’s conclusions.
 

Background

Tom Holland has previously written several historical studies on Rome, Greece, Persia and Islam, including Rubicon, Persian Fire, and In the Shadow of the Sword. According to Holland, over the course of writing about the “apex predators” of the ancient world, particularly the Romans, “I came to feel they were increasingly alien, increasingly frightening to me”. “The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night [emphasis by Ed.], were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls, and enslaved a million more.” This led him to investigate the process of change leading to today, concluding “in almost every way, what makes us distinctive today reflects the influence over two thousand years of the Christian story”.

 
Overview

In Holland’s view, pre-Christian societies and deities, such as in the Greco-Roman world, tended to focus on and glorify strength, might and power; this was inverted with the spread of Christianity, which proclaimed the primacy of the weak and suffering. Humanism, instead of springing from ancient Greek philosophy or Enlightenment thinking, “derives ultimately from claims made in the Bible: that humans are made in God’s image; that his Son died equally for everyone; that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.” The concept of human rights and equality, as well as solidarity with the weak against the strong, Holland argues, ultimately derive from the theology built on the teachings of Jesus and Paul the Apostle.

The success of what he calls the “Christian revolution” in changing our sensibilities, Holland argues, is evident in how complete its central claims now are taken for granted by “believers, atheists and those who never paused so much as to think about religion” [this includes white nationalists—Ed.]. Holland also argues that many of those who most clearly recognized the “radical” implications of Christianity, and its departure from earlier morality, were those fundamentally opposed to it—including Friedrich Nietzsche and the Nazi Party.
 

Reception

Terry Eagleton, writing for The Guardian, described the book as “an absorbing survey of Christianity’s subversive origins and enduring influence” and an “illuminating study”, concluding “Holland is surely right to argue that when we condemn the moral obscenities committed in the name of Christ, it is hard to do so without implicitly invoking his own teaching.” Philosopher John Gray, writing for the New Statesman, called Dominion “a masterpiece of scholarship and storytelling”. Gray wrote that “Dominion surpasses Holland’s earlier books in its sweeping ambition and gripping presentation… Holland comes into his own when he shows how Christianity created the values of the modern Western world… What makes the book riveting… is the devastating demolition job it does on the sacred history of secular humanism”.

Other reviews were more mixed. A review in The Economist described Holland as a “superb writer”, though also writing that “his theory has flaws”, and that “correlation is not causation”. Samuel Moyn, writing for the Financial Times, similarly stated that “Holland shines in his panoramic survey of how disruptive Christianity was for the ethical and political assumptions that preceded it”, while criticizing how “the illustration of the conquest of the west by Christianity risks becoming so total that it explains everything and nothing.” The scholars James Orr G.R. Evans and Samuel Moyn all regarded the book’s earlier sections on Ancient history as stronger than its later sections on more modern history. Evans writes that “The third section on “Modernitas” is perhaps the least successful, because of the degree of compression which it attempts”.

Peter Thonemann, writing for the Wall Street Journal, called Dominion “an immensely powerful and thought-provoking book”, stating “it is hard to think of another that so effectively and readably summarizes the major strands of Christian ethical and political thought across two millennia”. At the same time, he criticized its argument as selective, writing “Mr. Holland postulates a golden thread of Nice Christianity… this argument—that everything Nice in our contemporary world derives from Christian values, and everything Nasty in the actual history of Christendom was just a regrettable diversion from the true Christian path—seems to me to run dangerously close to apologetic”. The Los Angeles Review of Books stated that “Dominion’s most important contribution is in emphasizing how terms we take for granted, even concepts seemingly as fundamental as ‘religion’ and ‘secular,’ come ‘freighted with the legacy of Christendom'”, stating that his argument about the Christian origin of “human rights, socialism, revolution, feminism, science, and even the division between religion and the secular” is carried out in a “mostly convincing way”. Mendo Castro Henriques praised certain aspects of the book, but noted that the book omitted certain key figures such as Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas More and Erasmus and failed to pay attention to the profound importance of art and music throughout Christian history.

Many reviewers noted the distinctive approach used by Holland, centred on the lives and personalities of figures in history, as opposed to an in-depth history of ideas or theological analysis. Moyn described how “Holland brings the past to life through his characters, which are always vividly drawn”. Eagleton wrote how “Holland has all the talents of an accomplished novelist… Rather than unpack complex theological debates, the book gives us a series of vivid portraits of some key figures in Christian history”. Daniel Strand similarly wrote that “As opposed to intellectual history, which too often floats above historical events, Holland focuses on historical actors and their motivations”. Mendo Castro Henriques wrote, “Dominion is not a history of ideas, but of the body and soul of humanity.”

It was also favorably reviewed by the Sydney Morning Herald, The Critic, the New Yorker, and Kirkus Reviews who called it “an insightful argument that Christian ethics [emphasis by Ed.], even when ignored, are the norm worldwide.” In a mixed review, Gerard DeGroot, writing for The Sunday Times, wrote that he “[had] to commend the originality of this book” but disagreed with its thesis, writing “the values described as Christian seem more like simple human nature… The idea that charity and tolerance are evidence of Christian influence seems too ethnocentric”.

Philosopher A. C. Grayling has rejected Holland’s interpretation of Christianity’s influence on modern morality, meeting Tom Holland for a debate on the subject.
 

Influence

Despite being intended as a work of history and not apologetics, the book has since publication been cited as both an influential contribution to recent debates on “cultural Christianity”, and, for some, as a path to conversion in its own right. As such, this has in certain Christian milieus been described as the “Tom Holland train” to the Christian faith.

It was featured in The Atlantic as one of “Five Books That Changed Readers’ Minds”, where it was listed by Derek Thompson. American right-wing activist Charlie Kirk stated that reading Dominion helped convince him that the “canon of Western values” were rooted in Christianity.

Categories
Axiology Christendom Tom Holland

Secular Christianity

On Friday I posted a 13-minute segment of a video under the title ‘Transvaluing Cross’ about a recent interview with Tom Holland. Now I’d like to embed the full interview, which lasts more than an hour:

At minute 11 Holland says something that explains secular Christianity:

‘If you are hostile to Christianity in the West, almost certainly you will be hostile to Christianity because of deeply Christian reasons’ (my emphasis).

Now that I’ve watched the full interview, I’ve noticed something that Holland fails to notice. When he talks about Roman sexuality during the Roman Empire he says that it was ruthless compared to our morality. But like any normie, Holland doesn’t know he’s talking about the decadent Roman Empire, not Republican Rome. Anyone who wants to learn about Aryan customs and habits when it comes to marriage should read what Tacitus said about the ancient Germans, or what Eduardo Velasco wrote about Spartan marriage.

Quite apart from that flaw, the interview is excellent for understanding the POV of this site, The West’s Darkest Hour. Holland explains admirably how Christian ethics transmuted into the civil rights preached by Martin Luther King, and the sexual ‘liberation’ that reigns today including the ‘rights’ of transgender people.

Nevertheless, ‘although progressives are deeply Christian’ says Holland, ‘for the first time in American history they are not acknowledging that’.

Categories
Christendom Tom Holland Videos

Transvaluing Cross

Categories
Tom Holland

Incredibly,

a sincere Christian explains well what neo-Christianity is. And throughout his recent 37-minute video he uses a couple of interviews of him with Tom Holland.

In the end this Christian, Glen Scrivener, hopes that some unbelievers will return to Christianity, but at least admits that some neo-Nietzscheans are here to stay.

Categories
Axiology Ethnic cleansing Tom Holland

Brutal inertia

What I said to Jamie on Tuesday has got me thinking a bit.

At the end of Who We Are, William Pierce said that history has tremendous inertia: a phrase that made a big impression on the way I see the world. It is a phrase that should resonate with those who want to save the white race from extinction because it has great explanatory power for what is happening.

The present subtitle of this site says that the enemy to be identified is Christianity. But I actually mean the morality bequeathed to us by Christianity, which has reached truly psychotic levels of metastasis in the secular—and supposedly anti-Christian!—West with the Woke fad.

Ever since various Roman emperors introduced ‘spiritual terror’ into the Aryan psyche (Hitler’s phrase in one of his after-dinner talks during WW2), through parental introjects whites have been transmitting this malware to their progeny. This happened until, in the last century, Uncle Adolf tried to transvalue values. That’s why euthanising millions of retards, deporting the subversive tribe out of Germany, or even genocide of non-Aryans began to take place, in the first half of the 1940s, in Poland and the Soviet Union.

The inertia is apparent when we see that on this side of the Atlantic Pierce suggested the same thing but only at the novel level, in The Turner Diaries (published as a serial from 1975 to 1978). Dates are important here. In Who We Are (published as a serial from 1978 to 1982), which is non-fiction, we do see isolated phrases about the need for expulsion and extermination, but not as frankly and directly as the SS Master Plan East.

In the early 1940s, there was already, at least in Europe’s most powerful country, an effective transvaluation of all Christian values. After the catastrophic defeat and the triumph of the forces of Evil, a mind as extraordinarily lucid as Pierce’s had to speak in novel form, or say things between the lines if he spoke in a non-fiction format. But then historical inertia pulled the Aryan’s collective unconscious, once again, back into Christian morality! Today’s nationalists ‘know’ that genocide is iniquitous, especially if practised for racial or eugenic reasons. This is evident even in the mainstream forums of contemporary white nationalism, where it would be inconceivable to promote exterminationism even between the lines as Pierce did, let alone the overt exterminationism of the Nazis’ Master Plan East.

The historical backlash has been such that, in reaction to the Third Reich, the entire West has been regressing to a kind of 13th and 14th-century neo-Franciscanism (see my discussion of St Francis on pages 132-137 of Daybreak). In my previous posts, I talked about the relevance of studying cases of mental disorders of a specific subject, and in the comments section I linked videos of psychologists talking about how certain types of disturbed subjects suffer a regression in which they sometimes look like toddlers. We can already imagine the same phenomenon but on the scale of an entire civilisation (Western civilisation). And I don’t say at the level of an entire race because Latin Americans, who aren’t white, are also suffering from Wokism. This radically secularised phase of Christian values only affects nations that wholeheartedly embraced Catholicism and Protestantism.

I see no open rebellion against this inertia anywhere, whose pendulum has now reached its psychotic phase. I see no transvaluation even in the forums of the racial right. On the contrary: unlike the hardcore Nazis and Pierce, there is a clear attempt to distance oneself from any idea of eliminating the enemy by ethnic cleansing. The inexorable force in this era is the backlash due to the values bequeathed by the New Testament, as Tom Holland has seen in Dominion and his lectures and interviews. (Holland himself is infected with these inverted values, but his axiological analysis of the West is spot on.)

Categories
Bible Tom Holland

Slave cult for Goyim

by Gaedhal

I have laboured under the delusion that ‘Sieg Heil!’, in German, meant ‘praise victory!’ I thought that ‘Heil’ was an imperative verb. Aber nein! (But no!) Heil is a noun. Thus, what ‘Sieg Heil’ actually means is: ‘Victory [in this life is] Salvation!’ And this is an extremely antichristian sentiment. In Christianity, it is God who avenges. When Job said:

‘For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth’ (Job 19:25 KJV).

He could very easily be saying: ‘I know that my avenger liveth’, as the Hebrew word: ‘goʔel’ can mean both: ‘avenger’ and ‘redeemer’. ‘Redemption’ and ‘vengeance’ are similar concepts.

Anyhow, in Christianity, it is victory in the life to come that is salvation.

However, the Jews have the correct idea: ‘salvation’ or in Hebrew: ‘shewangah’ is simply: ‘the ability to live in an ethnostate in one’s ancestral homeland’. The Jews care not for post-mortem paradises in the skies. Neither do Nazis. Nazis want their own homogenous ethnostate in their ancestral homelands.

‘No pride, no honour!’—Aron Ra (a leftist).

Indeed! Pride is tabooed by Christianity. However, what was the slogan of the SS?

‘Meine Ehre heisst Treue’ (‘My honour is called loyalty’).

In Nazism, pride is a good thing, whereas in Christianity, it is the worst of sins. Indeed, ‘Ehrmann’, the name of a prestigious American Bible scholar—although, the final ‘n’ is truncated from how he spells it—means: ‘honourable man’.

This is why I think that saint Paul equivocates when he says:

‘For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob’ (Romans 11:25 KJV).

In my view, what he is saying is that by ‘saving’ the Goyim, by converting them to an auxiliary slave cult that promises a mythical post-mortem paradise, then the Jews will be saved in the sense that Jews understand it, i.e., they will have a homogenous ethnostate in their ancestral homeland of Palestine.

Thanks, largely to Christianity, the Jews were indeed ‘saved’ in the sense that they understand it, in 1947 with the creation of the state of Israel.

The reason why the Jews are bombing the living daylights out of the luckless Palestinians is because they are perfecting their salvation. There still exist filthy Goyim dogs in both Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. The Jews will not consider themselves fully saved, until the Goyim are either exterminated or evicted from the West Bank and Gaza.

Who lets the Jews get away with this? The Christians. Biden is a Zionist Catholic. Catholicism is the largest sect of Christianity. Michael Johnson will not countenance calls for an Israeli ceasefire. Thus, it is not sufficient for antitheists just to criticise Christianity and Islam. The root of this rotten Abrahamic tree, i.e. Judaism, must also be strenuously criticised.

In short, I think that Tom Holland is largely correct. Nazism was a repudiation of Christian moral axiology. Christianity is otherworldly. Nazism, like Judaism, want Sieg or Shewangah in this life! Christianity sees humanity as fallen and incapable of good. Nazism says: you can act, even without the grace of a Jewish desert god, with faithfulness and honour. Thus, Nazism is Pelagian i.e. it posits that man has no need of the gods to act in a virtuous way. Christianity says Pride is a Sin. Nazism says: My Pride is called Faithfulness.

The slave cult for Goyim, in both Romans and in the Petrine epistles demands passivity in the face of government tyranny. Nazism starts revolutions in beerhalls. When the Nazis had an uprising or Putsch then they were directly disobeying Romans 13. This is a point that Andrew Seidel brings up concerning the American Revolution in The Founding Myth. When the American Revolutionaries rebelled, they defied Romans 13. Thus, Seidel argues, that the American Revolution was also antichristian in spirit.

Funnily enough, both the American Revolution and the German Revolution seemed to begin in beer halls. In America, seemingly, it was the Green Dragon Tavern. It is a talking point on the left that the American Revolution, and its subsequent westward expansion inspired the Nazis.

Categories
Tom Holland

Morgan quote

‘As Tom Holland says in Dominion, the triumph of Christianity in the West has been so complete that no one is left who truly stands outside it, which means that all revolutions against it are merely heresies, re-interpretations of Christian ideas’.

—Robert Morgan

Categories
Axiology Tom Holland

Antipodes

Michael Jones and Tom Holland

Almost at the beginning of this interview, Tom Holland said: ‘Christianity has so kind of saturated the meaning of words in English that it was incredibly difficult to use them’ in his books, ‘and get back to a pre-Christian world’. So saturated that ‘even being opposed to Christianity has Christian roots’! We can see this among those racialists who are ostensibly secular but who ultimately subscribe to Christian morality. Holland even claims: ‘Atheism… is very very Christian in its impulse.’

This is why I hate atheists.

Then up to minute 22, Holland says that the notion that anything secular has existed in the West is a delusion: that the secular and the religious have always been two sides of the same coin. Westerners have been unable to see this because they don’t realise that, axiologically, secular values are essentially religious values. (Holland mentions Richard Dawkins, whom he accuses of unconsciously moving within a matrix of Protestant values.)

After 37 minutes, Holland talks about how difficult it was for Anglo-American Christians to tolerate racialised slavery in their colonies. For, according to Christian teaching, all human beings are equal. First, the Quakers began to hammer away at this issue, then Evangelical Episcopalians followed until abolitionism emerged.

‘Slavery is a monstrous sin,’ says Holland rephrasing the Christians of another age. But this is where you see that even contemporary white nationalism is, still, a Judaic creature. I have already mentioned, and it is worth mentioning again, that in a discussion between two of them it seemed very obvious to the ‘secular’ racialist that the Christian racialist’s question was beyond the pale: ‘What’s wrong with slavery?’ referring to Old Dixie.

The sad truth is that the anti-Semites on the WN forums are still servants of the Jews. They obey Judeo-Christian-inspired precepts which, from their origins, were always aimed at demoralising the pagan Roman and convincing him that he had better worship the god of the Jews. From this angle, The West’s Darkest Hour is the only authentically Jew-wise site in existence today. Even the critics of Christianity on the racial right are not authentically Jew-wise because they fail to recognise that any Aryan who subscribes to Christian morality is even worse than a subversive Jew, for the internal traitor is worse than the external enemy.

After 42 minutes, the interviewer asks Holland a central question: What would the world be like if Rome had not succumbed to Christianity? After an historical prologue, by the 47th minute Holland answered: ‘Why do black lives matter? Because historically in the United States, black people were enslaved… Or why there are trans rights roiling countries of Christian heritage in a way that they’re not roiling in countries with other [emphasis in Holland’s voice] heritage?’ Given that values have been inverted throughout the West because of Christianity, Holland adds that it is their victimhood what ‘gives them credit; being a victim becomes a source of privilege.’

Then Holland talks about his forthcoming book on his trilogy on Rome, but he is completely unaware of the work of scholars that we have summarised here challenging the historicity of Jesus. This is a terrible gap in Holland’s intellectual baggage and reminds me that white nationalists also ignore this issue. Immediately afterwards during the interview with Michael Jones, Holland makes the same mistake in discussing the origins of Islam.

The other issue that Holland doesn’t seem to address in the interview or his book Dominion is that the sexual mores and customs of Sparta, Republican Rome and ancient Germans were different from those of Imperial Rome. Holland seems to judge the entire pre-Christian world by the standards of pagan degeneracy, not when they were healthy.

But after 1:08 Holland confesses something vital that makes him our ideological enemy. While it is clear that we can use Dominion to show that liberalism is a direct child of Christianity and that atheists are de facto neo-Christians, we repudiate what he says: ‘I would say I am much more of a Christian than a theist… uhm, I’ve come to recognise that I am pretty much completely Christian in my values and my assumptions. The problem I have is believing that there is a God, ha!’

Holland even confesses that he only feels God—I would say the god of the Jews—during Passover and Christmas, but that the rest of the year he remains sceptical. But even on those remaining 363 days that is the same problem of white nationalists who presume to be secular: the scale of values of these so-called anti-Semites comes directly from a religion of Semitic origin.

For new visitors, my Dominion excerpts can be found here. Just compare Holland’s position in the above interview with my position at the end of that link. We are antipodes!

Categories
Axiology Philosophy of history Tom Holland

The Appian way

Christian morality is the seedbed that makes today’s secular West what it is, and for contemporary American racialists the hardest pill to swallow is that their movement has failed because of Christianity. And it will continue to fail unless they become true apostates, not only apostates from Christian dogma but also of the axiological side of Christianity: the so-called secular side. After all, ‘secular’ is just the tricky term St Augustine chose for his theological system, used even in our modern world, when in fact the ‘secular’ and the ‘religious’ have always been two sides of the same cultural coin.

Any racialist movement was doomed from the start, is doomed and will be doomed to failure unless it is understood that Christianity, or more specifically Christian morality, has always been the Devil for the white man. This includes the morality of today’s atheists whose worldview we here call Neo-Christian.

Only by telling us the story of the white race as it really happened in the Greco-Roman world (and here we can think of some essays from The Fair Race), together with elementary historical facts such as the non-existence of Jesus that Richard Carrier talks about, and how the New Testament was authored by Jews as David Skrbina believes, will it be possible to modify the collective unconscious of the white man—especially if we add to that a few pages from Karlheinz Deschner’s Criminal History of Christianity and the history of the Holocaust committed by the Allies, so well described in Tom Goodrich’s Hellstorm. The psychohistorical work of Tom Holland, who has lost faith in traditional Christianity is also pivotal even if, as a typical British liberal, he is our ideological enemy. But let’s use him as a useful idiot!

Holland hit the nail on the head when he said that National Socialism has been the most radical movement since Constantine, especially because it rebels against St Paul’s idea that there is no difference between Jews and Greeks (transformed today in the religious belief that there is no difference between blacks and whites): the original mental virus that caused the inversion of values. Holland also points out that the National Socialists repudiated the very essence of the emblem of the Cross: that a crucified victim is more morally worthy than the crucifying Romans. This idea persists in our times during mass hysteria phenomena such as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots of 2020 surrounding the death of George Floyd when countless whites, even outside the US, bent the knee before primitive negroes in the most humiliating way!

Holland has said in several interviews that the central emblem of Western civilisation, Christ on the Cross (now downtrodden negroes on ‘crosses’) provides a moral framework for understanding the Woke phenomenon. Before reading Dominion, in ‘On empowering carcass-eating birds’ in my book Daybreak I had already said that empowering transgender people was a kind of neo-Franciscanism, in reference to St Francis of Assisi (‘let’s love and kiss the new leper’), and quoted the biblical passage that the last shall be first and the first last. Analogously, speaking about whites bending the knee after the BLM riots, Holland has said that this grotesque self-debasement ultimately goes back to the Gospel narrative of the Passion, ‘to that very, very primal image of a man tortured to death by an oppressive state apparatus: Jesus on the cross.’ Not only at the end of Dominion but in his lectures this London historian has also said that a thoroughgoing rejection of Christianity would allow us to return to the ways of the blond beast. (As axiological enemies of Holland, we would add that the first thing this beast would do will be to drive the millions non-whites out of their lands and punish the recalcitrant as the Romans did in the Appian Way.) In a home interview with a conservative Australian, Holland added:

The modern who has more profoundly and unsettlingly understood just how radical that idea is—how radical the idea that the Cross, of all things, should become the emblem of the new civilisation—, was a man who was not just an atheist but a radical hostile, anti-Christian atheist: Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche said: this is a repellent thing. Nietzsche identified with the power and the glory and the beauty of classical civilisation; and he thought that Christianity, notoriously, was a religion for slaves. And he saw in the emblem of Christ nailed to the Cross a kind of disgusting subversion of the ideals of the classical world: a privileging of those who properly should be ground beneath the heels of the mighty. And he saw it as a kind of sickness that then, it kind of infected the blond beast as he called it: that the primordial figure of the warrior gets corrupted and turned into a monk, a monkish figure who is sick with poverty and sympathy for the poor and the oppressed…

Fascism, I think, was the most radical revolutionary movement that Europe has seen since the age of Constantine because unlike the French Revolution, unlike and the Russian Revolution, it doesn’t even target institutional Christianity: it targets the moral-ethical fundamentals of Christianity. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution are still preaching that idea that the victim should be raised up from the dust and that the oppressor should be humbled into the dust; it’s still preaching the idea that the first should be last and the last should be first just as Christ has done.

The Nazis do not buy into that.

In the post-WWII world westerners culminated the inversion of healthy values that started with Constantine. They enshrined the privileges of the unprivileged and the universality of all human beings—orc immigrants included—because they now live in the shadow of what enshrined the opposite: Hitlerism; and, given their Christian programming, that scares them. As Holland said at the end of another interview, ‘to cling to the idea that, say, racism is the ultimate sin is still for deeply Christian reasons. It’s possible to imagine a different world in which the strong are powerful and in which the world is divided into the civilised and the barbarians because that’s what the Ancient World was like, and that’s what the Nazis enshrined. It’s perfectly possible. The fact that we regard them as abhorrent I think is testimony of how Christian we remain.’

What Angela Merkel did, opening the doors to two million refugees in anti-Nazi Germany, is ultimately an extreme form of following the parable of the Good Samaritan. Always keep in mind that Jesus didn’t exist but that some Jewish rabbis, the mythmakers, wrote the New Testament. No racialist movement that fails to see this can succeed because despite their rabid anti-Semitism racialists continue to, ultimately, obey the Jews who wrote the NT. They are jew-obeyers. They all live, atheists included, under the moral sky bequeathed to us by the mighty archetype of ‘God on the Cross.’ And outside racist forums, the attempt to make not only the dispossessed blacks but poor transexual people the first, and the healthy white man the last, is but the final metastasis of an inversion that began to take root in our collective unconscious as early as the 4th century of the Common Era.

For decades, in my soliloquies I have often said to myself: ‘A fish cannot criticise water.’ We live in a matrix. Without knowing it or recognising it, secular humanists have been swimming in Christian waters since what misleadingly they call the Age of Enlightenment (actually a ‘Dark Enlightenment,’ as some right-wing intellectuals have pointed out). Ultimately this whole issue of ‘human rights’ is nothing more than a transposition to the legal plane of the Pauline ideas that there is no difference between Jew and Greek, woman and man. In the Athenian democracy only the native males of Attica had the right to vote. Neither slaves nor women nor mudblood foreigners could do so. The assumption that we owe modern democracy to the Greeks is false: we owe it to Christian mandates. Furthermore, modern westerners commit what I call, again in my soliloquies, the psychological fallacy of ontological extension. They believe that all cultures share their humanitarian values when not even the ancient Greeks, the Romans or Norsemen did; let alone billions of contemporary Muslims, Chinese or Hindus. In Holland’s words, ‘the conceit of the West is that it has transcended Christianity to become purely universal; purely global, and therefore it can market itself in those terms. But its values, its assumptions, its ethics remain palpably bred of the marrow of Christianity.’

The term catholic derives from the Greek, katholikos. If we translate ‘universal human rights’ into the Greek of the first centuries of our era, we would be talking about ‘catholic human rights’ insofar as catholic means precisely universal in the sense of no longer making distinctions between Jew and Greek, woman and man, slave and free man: all are now equal in the eyes of a Semitic god. Human rights are catholic in this universal sense. Hitler targeted the idea there exists such a thing as universal human dignity, as well as the idea that the first should be last. From his viewpoint, our viewpoint, and I am talking to those who will read Savitri Devi’s Memories and Reflections of an Aryan Woman, or our books Day of Wrath and On Exterminationism, there is no such a thing as rights. Only the moral duty to dispose of the obsolete versions of Homo sapiens. This is the ultimate repudiation of the Christian heritage. And the horror that most westerners feel at the figures of Hitler and Himmler is nothing other than their continued enslavement to the archetype of the Jew on the Cross which they are still unable to exorcize from their psyches, even if this symbolic ‘Jew’ now takes other forms.

If we see Christianity and the French Revolution’s human rights as two sides of the same axiological coin, let us venture to say that the perfect symbol of our counter-revolution would be for thousands of blonde beasts starting to wear T-shirts emblazoned with Himmler’s face while burning churches, crucifying those who tried to destroy their race and wiping their asses with the remains of the pages of the now destroyed Bibles all over the West, but especially in the US. And the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which symbolises the historic inauguration of Neo-Christianity, must be razed to the ground as well.

As Nietzsche would say, Umwertung aller Werte!

Categories
Axiology Tom Holland

Watch Holland!

It doesn’t matter that Tom Holland is a normie, a liberal like everyone else and even anti-Nazi: he is spot on in this interview!

The Nazis do not buy into that. The Nazis buy into the Nietzschean idea that the weak are weak and should be treated as weak, as contemptable, as something to be crushed.

Atheists of today [like Richard Dawkins et al]… they are basically Christians. Nietzsche saw humanists, communists, liberals—people who may define themselves against Christianity—as being absolutely in the fundamentals Christian, and I think he is right about that because I think that in a sense atheism doesn’t repudiate the kind of ethics and the morals and the values of Christianity.

Just transvalue Holland’s neo-Christian axiology and we arrive at the POV of this site!

Update of June 7

In the full interview, after the half-hour mark, Holland touches on a topic he didn’t get to touch on in Dominion because this book was published the year before the BLM 2020 riots. Holland says that in America blacks have been last and whites first.

‘Why is that inherently wrong?’ Holland asks his interlocutor with emphasis. He elaborates for a few minutes on George Floyd and says that this collective hysteria that whites suffered had its origins in the great inversion of values that was initiated by the figure of a helpless victim on the Cross.

From the 38th minute, the anti-Nazi Holland returns to Nazism and then discusses the genesis of the ultimately religious idea of ‘human rights’ after the French Revolution. Holland says that believing in such rights is as theological as believing that Jesus rose from the dead.

Near the 42nd minute, Holland says that Hitler saw in St Paul the Jew whose ideas destroyed Greece and Rome.

After minute 53 Holland says something very interesting. Christian ethics (which is the same as the neo-Christian ethics of atheists) constantly destroys its structures and reinvents itself. This is clear from the Middle Ages to the present day: all those funny anecdotes Holland tells in his book that I didn’t quote on this site because it would have meant quoting his whole book.

In the final minutes Holland hits the nail of all nails: just what we said recently about Richard Spencer’s ‘doughnut’ metaphor (the black hole of anti-Hitlerism) and the ‘Foundation Myth’ article, quoted in red at the top of this site. Holland said that Westerners today ask what Hitler did and they are doing exactly the opposite of that!

‘And by doing the opposite they are doing it for Christian reasons’.

Bingo (see also this moment from a Holland lecture in Romania).

Postscript of 8 June:

And in this lecture from his town, half a year ago, Holland even talks about how ridding ourselves of Christian morality permits us to become exterminationists, and even quotes Himmler (a step which, incidentally, Holland dares not take!).