On Monday I said that William Pierce, the year of his departure, uploaded a lucid podcast in which he said that we could see the JQ in a novel way: that we, because of our failings, were enabling the empowerment of Jewry.
The accepted wisdom on the racial right is diametrically opposed: the Jews empowered themselves without our help, to the point of dominating our societies. This claim is sometimes heard on the non-racial right as well. For example, on this day the respected Colonel Douglas Macgregor said a couple of times in this interview that Bibi dominates the American Congress!
Obviously, it is the other way around: it is the traitorous whites, the worst scum of whites that have existed since prehistoric times, who have empowered Jewry to delusional levels. Although Pierce died two decades ago, it is refreshing to know that on the other side of the Atlantic an intellectual, Tom Sunic, holds a POV analogous to mine. In The Occidental Observer this week Tom wrote in his article ‘Homo judaicus: The Political Theology of US Foreign Policy’:
America’s unconditional support of Israel resembles a belated form of White House Christian-inspired medieval neurosis. Fear of being called an anti-Semite prevents American politicians and a great number of American academics from openly criticizing Israel.
When some sparse critical voices are heard, they usually leave out the founding myths of the Biblical narrative, and focus, instead, on dry facts relating to the influence of Jewish lobbies in America.
In the typical fashion of American “expertise,” American academics who happen to be critical of Israel use one set of arguments while neglecting other scholarly approaches. In their analysis of the holy alliance between postmodern Israel and America, American scholars tend to forget that the Old Testament ties between these two countries had already predestined America to nurture a special and privileged rapport with the state of Israel.
My emphasis!
One does not have to agree with everything Sunic says in that article, or in the book on which the article is based. But what I quote above superbly portrays the POV of The West’s Darkest Hour as far as the JQ and the CQ are concerned.
Yesterday I got the book whose review I reproduced last Sunday: Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World by Tom Holland (pictured left). I read the preface and a few pages Holland wrote about how Hitler and Himmler had broken with Christian ethics. I found what I read fascinating, and I would like to start reviewing Dominion in many entries under a new series that could be titled ‘How the Woke Monster Originated’. Although the author is a normie, Dominion demonstrates the main thesis of The West’s Darkest Hour: Christian ethics governs today’s secular, atheistic West (a moral compass that, I would add, directs us to ethnic suicide).
I have done this with another normie writer: Richard Weikart’s book on Hitler’s pantheistic religion, not to mention another normie, the late Karlheinz Deschner’s criminal history of Christianity. Alex Linder does something similar: he reads entire books on tape recordings which he then uploads onto the internet, commenting here and there on a few illustrative passages. The difference is that Linder does in audio what I do in text.
The dust cover of Holland’s book contains these words:
Today, the West is utterly saturated by Christian assumptions… Christianity is the principal reason why, today, we assume every human life to be of equal value.
Bingo! And this cannot but remind me of what, alluding to Nietzsche’s loneliness, I said the day before yesterday about my solitude—insofar as reversing Christian ethics in our moral compass results in social ostracism, even from those who argue in racialist forums.
I said that Holland is a normie. When I just started to leaf through his book yesterday, I detected a terrible flaw. In the last two chapters, he cherry-picked historical cultural milestones (which I label ‘neochristian’) from 1916 to 1967—skipping how WW2 was a vicious conflict perpetrated by Anglo-Americans who abhorred a pagan resurgence in Europe (Tom Sunic talks about this in Homo Americanus).
Another thing that irritates me greatly about Holland is that living in London, where there are still English roses, he doesn’t denounce in the least how the English Establishment is exterminating them by promoting intermarriage. It’s obvious that, despite his lucidity in Dominion, Holland suffers from a huge blind spot at the centre of his vision.
But that’s natural: the book of a true dissident—like Sunic’s Homo Americanus—wasn’t elegantly published by a prestigious publisher (as Dominion was), nor would it have reached me as quickly and efficiently via Amazon Books. And though I’ve only just started reading it, there are several things to keep in mind before the first instalment of this new series.
First, Holland, who had a Christian upbringing and then became a secular freethinker, hasn’t read Richard Carrier. As a scholar, he has no excuse since Carrier’s magnum opus was published five years before Dominion. Like many agnostics today, Holland believes that Jesus existed, though he hastens to add that the only thing that can be known about him is that he was crucified by the Romans (before Dominion, Holland wrote a book about the last days of the Roman Republic that became a bestseller).
While Holland hasn’t read Deschner’s ten volumes, there is no excuse for him not to mention the very readable book by his fellow countrywoman, Catherine Nixey, on how Christians murdered the classical world (as a conventional scholar, Holland confines himself to Gibbon’s nineteenth-century treatise).
Needless to say, in the Index at the end of Dominion, which is replete with scholarly bibliographical references, the names of David Skrbina and Tom Goodrich are missing (as I said above, WW2 should be a perfect paradigm for Dominion’s central thesis) as is missing Kevin MacDonald (Holland has written on several occasions about anti-Semitism). Has Holland even read Hitler’s after-dinner talks?
However, the last chapter of Dominion is entitled ‘Woke’, and Holland claims that this ethos is by no means a new phenomenon but, by doing a deep psychic archaeology of the West from the ancient world, it is the same mental virus albeit mutated.
If all goes well, on Monday I will start my comments on this very erudite 612-page book.
One of the earliest epigraphically attested reference to the word arya occurs in the 6th-century b.c.e. Behistun inscription.
Moreover, it was not only with the initiates of the Forbidden City of Lhasa (and perhaps with the Dalai Lama himself) that the spiritual elite of the SS Order—which was that of a new traditional civilisation in the making, if not currently in gestation—sought contact. To my humble knowledge, there were also similar meetings in India: meetings that few people in the West suspect, quite apart from the political conversations that may have taken place with certain Hindu leaders, such as Subhas Chandra Bose, in India and Germany before and during the Second World War.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s Note: With the benefit of hindsight, it is relatively easy to see that this esoteric search was a fool’s errand. Given what happened in real history, what the Nazi elite ought to have studied was already written in the German language. I refer to the texts by Nietzsche that we quote at the appendix to the masthead of this site (pages 84-90, here).
Now that Christian axiology has reached its apex, albeit in secularised form, it is clear that Evil, with a capital ‘E’, always came from Judeo-Christian ethical injunctions in secularised form.
It is not that the 21st-century priest of the sacred words is feeling superior to the Nazis of the previous century. Rather, they lacked the perspective that we have so far. For example, what we said last November about the evangelist Mark, who invented the fictitious figure of Jesus just after the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, is something that no German Nazi ever thought of.
The exegesis of the New Testament had to develop to the degree that it has developed today—and I am referring to the non-existence of the historical Jesus—for us to realise that the whole New Testament thing was, from the beginning, a very subversive text aimed against Rome (this is very clear in the last book of the Bible).
There was nothing to be looking for in Tibet or India. The Third Reich would have done well to take New Testament studies where Richard Carrier has recently taken them. But as the Irish commenter Gaedhal said on this site, American racialists are even more primitive than liberal Christians in that they don’t even want to know that the New Testament has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny since the German Enlightenment (cf. what we have been saying about Reimarus). Apparently, I am the only one who has pointed out these studies in the racialist forums of the new century. But let’s move on to Savitri….
______ 卐 ______
Since 1935, a cultural magazine, The New Mercury, had been published in Calcutta, very ably edited by Sri Asit Krishna Mukherji, in collaboration with Sri Vinaya Datta and some others. The Fuhrer’s speeches, of which the official press, both in English and Bengali, reported only excerpts, were spread in extenso, especially if they were, as was often the case, of interest beyond ‘politics’. One of them, which particularly caught my attention at the time, was on the subject of ‘Architecture and the Nation’. But the said journal also published studies on everything that could tend to bring to light a deep, non-political connection, going back very far and very high, between the traditional Hindu civilisation as it has never ceased to exist, and the traditional Germanic civilisation, as it had existed, long before Christianity, and aspired to be reborn. These studies revealed in their authors, in addition to the indispensable archaeological erudition, serious knowledge of cosmic symbolism. Several of them were, needless to say, centred on the Swastika.
They seemed to show, indirectly, the exceptional character of a great modern state which recognised as its own a sign of such universal significance; engraved it on all its public monuments, and printed it on all its banners. At the same time, they suggested the aspiration of this great State to renew contact with the primordial Tradition, from which Europe had already detached itself for centuries, but of which India had kept the invaluable deposit.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s note: Let me clarify this matter a little more. All this searching for India’s Aryan roots is good. What was wrong is not seeing the Christian enemy next door: the Anglo-American slaves of Judeo-Christian ethics, who would murder this revived Aryan baby through the Hellstorm Holocaust (read Tom Sunic’s Homo Americanus). In other words: the priority should have been to know their fanatic enemy, the Judaized Anglo-Americans, and looking for the Aryan roots should’ve been a secondary matter. Savitri continues:
______ 卐 ______
I have no evidence that the Ahnenerbe played any part in the publication of the New Mercury. This seems to me all the less likely as this special section of the SS was itself only founded in 1935, the same year as the said magazine. But I know that the latter was at least partly financially supported by the government of the Third Reich. Germans, and representatives—German or not—of German firms in India were supposed to subscribe to it. And at least one of them, to my knowledge, was recalled to Germany, having been dismissed from the direction of the branch which he governed for years, for having refused to do so and declaring that ‘this new-style propaganda’ (sic) did not interest him.
The founder and editor of the periodical, Sri A. K. Mukherji, remained in close contact with Herr von Selzam, the German Consul General in Calcutta, as long as he remained in that post. And this official representative of Adolf Hitler gave him, on the eve of his departure, a document addressed to the German authorities, in which it was specified in no uncertain terms that ‘no one in Asia had rendered the Reich services comparable to his’. I saw this document. I read it again and again, with joy, with pride, as an Aryan and a Hitlerite, and as the wife of Sri A. K. Mukherji. I have already alluded to it in these reflections.
I can’t say whether or not the services referred to therein went beyond the rather narrow confines of Sri A. K. Mukherji’s activities as editor of a fortnightly, traditionalist journal, both Hindu and pro-German. It would seem that they had outgrown them, for the journal had lasted only two years; the British authorities having banned it towards the end of 1937, shortly after the definitive ‘turning point’ in the evolution of British policy towards the Reich. In any case, I didn’t know Sri A. K. Mukherji personally at that time: his name only evoked, for me, the existence of the only magazine of distinctly Hitlerian tendencies that I knew in India. But one thing leads me to believe that his knowledge of esoteric Hitlerism, i.e. of the deep connection of the Führer’s secret doctrine with the eternal tradition, was in no way comparable to the vague impressions I might have had on the same subject. In the very first conversation I had with him, after having had the honour of being introduced to him—on 9 January 1938—, less than two years later, he was destined to give me his name and his protection, and asked me incidentally what I thought of Dietrich Eckart.
I knew that this was the author of the famous poem Deutschland erwache, the fighter of the very first days of the Kampfzeit, who died a few weeks after the failed putsch of 9 November 1923 at the age of fifty-five: the comrade to whom Adolf Hitler had dedicated the second part of Mein Kampf. I was still unaware of the existence of the Thülegesellschaft, and was therefore far from suspecting the role that the poet of the national revolution had played with the Führer.
I enthusiastically displayed my pitifully little erudition. My interlocutor, who had rendered, and would soon render, to the Third Reich (and later to its Japanese allies) ‘services comparable to those of no other’, smiled and moved on to another subject.
Some issues of this site are being discussed at The Occidental Observer, in the comments section of a recent book-review by Professor Kevin MacDonald. I left a comment and a commenter said yesterday:
C.T.: Your central essay is highly educational and leads logically to its conclusion: ‘The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul… I call Christianity the one great curse… the one immortal blemish upon the human race’. I would strongly recommend your central essay and also your The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour to anyone genuinely interested in the truth of this subject. In particular, I strongly support the ‘Revaluation of all values!’ section in the latter work. I was a naive Christian for much of my life before discovering eye-opening material such as yours.
The thread is interesting. It shows how a ‘Christian-wise’ scholar—just as anti-Semites are ‘Jew-wise’—resorts to doublethink. This was the first comment of Tom Sunic:
Nice review, valuable comments. This subject needs to be covered more often in TOO—even at the risk of alienating some of our WN Christian friends.
One of them responded:
Tom: You are a great asset to the movement and I respect your work. I know that you are vehemently anti-Christian with some justification in light of modern-day Christianity acting in opposition to the interest of European people. Christianity is not the problem, but rather Jewish intellectual subversion of Christianity. Traditional Christians are potential allies and a recruitable population that can be moved into the dissenting right column. Examples: E. Micheal Jones, Giles Corey and Nick Fuentes.
This is how Sunic resorted to a doublethink-like compromise:
Yes. I agree. I am not hostile to Christianity—nor to Catholicism (having in my close and distant families and friends Jesuits, Dominicans, etc). I only stress that Christianity is not and must not be conflated with our white national/racial awareness. Our own sense of the sacred we should keep to ourselves—and not put it on public display.
But later he added:
I see no reason why we can’t critically and scholarly address the issue of the monotheist mindset? Being White doesn’t mean we must all abide, all the time by all evangelical, Levantine ukases. Saul alias Paul, Augustine, Cyprian, Tertullian, and their latter-day secular offshoots, Marx, Freud, Trotsky and Co, were of North African-Levantine ancestry. Not of European ancestry.
The problem with Sunic is that he insists on staying in the middle of the psychological Rubicon, where they will throw stones at him from both sides of the river (Normieland and our side).
I could discuss with Sunic the issues but I find it virtually impossible to talk to his ‘WN Christian friends’. They are not only wilfully ignorant of the work of Biblical historical criticism but their view about the gospel borders on fundamentalism. As Gaedhal said today on this site, when you see the craven and cultivated stupidity of whites, those who prostrate themselves before a book of Semitic nonsense, an obscene compendium scribbled by Jews, then you welcome the racial destruction that is coming their way.
The quantity of Christians in the racialist right still surprises me, and I’m not just talking about Americans.
The last time I saw a video of Keith Woods, it seemed to me that this beardless boy was in the process of abandoning racialism in pursuit of his parents’ religion. Now he interviews an apologist of his faith on YouTube (here): a channel that hasn’t been taken down because Woods’ message isn’t a threat to the System’s narrative.
I think I should link here some of the most incisive criticisms of various racialist authors of Christianity because the message of this site seems to be being preached on deaf ears. No Christian that I know of has tried to refute, say, what we say in the masthead of this site (here). Even the shortest articles don’t seem to have prompted them to reflect.
Let’s start by quoting Tom Sunic, who unlike the beardless Woods is a mature intellectual: ‘Christianity became a Universalist religion with a special mission to transform the Other into the Same. The seeds of egalitarianism—albeit on the religious, not yet on the secular level—were sown. Many Whites make a fundamental mistake when they portray new civil religions as part of an organised conspiracy of a small number of wicked people. In essence, civil religions are just secular transpositions of the Judeo-Christian monotheist mindset’.
Sunic is European. In America, writing about today’s Christian racialists, William Pierce said: ‘They ignore the Jewish origins of Christianity’. Also in the US, Jack Frost compared Christianity to cancer that started as a sort of Jewish psyop in the first century: ‘Cancer, too, doesn’t necessarily kill immediately. You can have cancer for years until it suddenly metastasises and kills you. You can have it and be apparently strong and have many accomplishments; but nevertheless, you have it, and it will eventually kill you’ (read the long text: here). Frost had in mind something akin to what another commenter has said and I quote on the sidebar: ‘1945 was the year of the total inversion of Aryan values into Christian values’, the current metastasises that is killing the West.
What Wood’s apologist says about the mischaracterisation of Nietzsche and that the state ideology (the George Floyd incident) is unrelated to historical Christianity, is unfounded. See my article in English (here) that has recently been translated to German (here).
Okay, I am an obscure blogger. But Woods and his Christian apologist even ignore what Hitler said about Christianity (here) or what William Pierce said about the same subject (here). New visitors of this should know the ideas of a Swede that prompted my awakening to the Christian Question (here).
(David Ryckaert, Old Man Sleeping, ca. 1640-1642, oil on panel.) Two days ago I wrote ‘TOO cucks Johnson’ and today I visited that discussion thread on The Occidental Observer to see if Greg Johnson was defending himself against the author’s mild criticism. But apparently Johnson is in a semi-depressive stage. He used to argue quite a bit in the discussion threads both on his site and at the Observer. Today he hasn’t even responded with an article in his Counter-Currents webzine. However, when reviewing the new responses to the Observer article I came across this gem that commenter Chelsea Zahn posted yesterday:
It isn’t that our people are committing suicide; it’s that the Jews are committing genocide on our people. Whites might be stupid and weak… but the problems originate with Jewish supremacism and the Jews’ irrational hatred and fear of white Christian people.
This commenter’s statement is a gem because it encapsulates the myths of white nationalism. In the first place, the Jews didn’t take the West through a conventional war. If an alien saw Chelsea’s words without any historical context, he would imagine that the Jews were fearsome warriors who raided the white nations and imposed a genocidal Diktat. But it was not like that. The war was fought for the soul of the white man: a war that Judea won from the times of Constantine because of those white traitors who abandoned the Aryan gods in pursuit of the god of the Semites.
Yesterday I added a new sticky post, ‘If this site…’ containing three links in the only comment so that the new visitor becomes familiar with our point of view. One of those required readings for new visitors is the mini-book on how Christianity seized the souls of the citizens of the Roman Empire as revenge for the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem and Jerusalem itself, temporarily turned into Aelia Capitolina: a fully Roman city founded by Emperor Hadrian on what was left of ancient Jerusalem.
What happens throughout the West is suicide insofar as not even secular white nationalists have repudiated Christian ethics, the little gift of that old war between Judea and Rome as explained also in the books Daybreak and On Exterminationism you can download from the sidebar.
Furthermore, Chelsea slanders the Aryan race by calling it weak and stupid. They were not like that until whites started to worship the god of the Jews. No one in the ancient world would dare to call whites ‘weak’ or ‘stupid’—say in the days when Roman emperors ravaged Jerusalem and enslaved its population. They only became weak and stupid by obeying the commands of the gospel.
Notice also how Chelsea does not say ‘Aryan people’ but ‘Christian people’, which makes me think that she is a Christian, that is, an artificial Jewess insofar as she obeys the injunctions written by the Semites who wrote the New Testament for gentile consumption. (The Jews would never follow the universalistic commandments and out-group altruism that is breathed in the words of that fictional character, Jesus.)
In sum, white nationalists are so asleep in the matrix that it controls them as ever. And they will remain asleep until their race becomes extinct. Last month Tom Sunic tried to wake up Observer readers about the dangers of their stupid religion. He lectured them with these words: ‘Eventually Whites will need to make a decision about where to choose the location of their identity, in Athens or in Jerusalem’.
But his words fell on deaf ears. Most white nationalists ignore that it was Christianity that laid the groundwork for Jewish takeover. The vast majority of white nationalists, like all other whites, continue to choose Jerusalem, not Athens.
Today a commenter of Prussian heritage commented: ‘It is because of Christian values and morality that there has not yet been a true uprising over the current order’.
This is absolutely true, and we can illustrate it even with the best mind the American continent has produced: William Pierce. After his first novel, in which he throws Christian ethics overboard while proposing exterminationism as the solution to our problems, Pierce cucked somewhat with his second novel: in which he used the figure of a Christian preacher as a possible way to wake up his people.
But that’s impossible. From Christian ethics the movement will get nowhere. It was precisely because of Christian ethics that Americans felt a moral obligation to destroy the Third Reich (read Tom Sunic’s Homo Americanus with a preface by Kevin MacDonald).
In order to tentatively elicit a convincing answer regarding the pathology of White guilt one needs to raise some rhetorical questions about Christian teachings. Why are White Christian peoples, in contrast to other peoples of other races and other religions on Earth, more prone to excessive altruism toward non-White out-groups? Why are guilt feelings practically nonexistent among non-White peoples?
One answer to these questions may be found in Christian teachings that have made up an important pillar of Western civilization over the centuries. Over the last one hundred years, modern Liberal and Communist elites have aggressively promoted those same feeling of White guilt, albeit in their own atheistic, secular and ‘multicultural’ modalities. One must rightfully reject the Liberal or Antifa palaver about White guilt, yet the fact remains that the Vatican, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the German Bishops’ conference, along with all other Christian denominations in Europe and the US today are the loudest sponsors of non-White immigration to Europe and America, as well as the strongest advocates of White guit. The Church’s ecumenical preaching about a global city under one god with all of humanity is fully in accordance with the early Christian dogma on man’s fall and his eventual redemption.
It must be pointed out that early Christian apostles, evangelists and theologians who foisted the dogma of man’s guilt were all by birth and without any exception non-Europeans (St. Augustine, Tertullian, St. Paul, Cyprian, etc.) from North Africa, Syria, Asia Minor and Judea.
Having this in mind, lambasting Islam or Judaism in the present as the sole carriers of aggressive non-European anti-White ideology, as many White nationalists do, while downplaying the Middle-Eastern birthplace of Christianity, cannot be a sign of neither moral nor intellectual consistency.
The Roman poet Juvenal, describes graphically in his satires the Rome of the late first century, a time when the city was swarming with multitudes of Syrian lowlifes, Chaldean star worshippers, Jewish conmen, and Ethiopian hustlers, all of them offering a quick ride to eternal salvation for some and eternal damnation for others.
Similar messianic, redemptive beliefs about the shining future, under the guidance of prominent early Bolshevik agitators, most of them of Jewish origin, have found their new location, two millennia later, among credulous intellectuals and equality-hungry masses. After the fall of Communism, the same messianic drive to punish the guilty ones who defy modern Liberal and multicultural scholasticism found its loudest mouthpiece among US neocons and antifa inquisitors.
This is not the place to rehash Friedrich Nietzsche’s own emotional ravings at Christians, nor quote dozens of thinkers and scholars who had earlier described the psychological link between early Jewish and Christian zealots of first-century Rome and communist commissars of the early twentieth century. Times have changed but the obsession as to how extirpate or reeducate those who doubt the myths of the System haven’t changed a bit.
The psychological profile of US modern-day Antifa zealots and their college professor supporters bears a close resemblance with early uprooted, largely miscegenated, effeminate Christian masses in the late Roman empire. The Jew St. Paul and later on the North African St. Augustine—judging by their own convulsive contrition—suggest that they suffered from bipolar disorder. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (7:18) may be the key to grasping the modern version of neurotic White self-haters put on display by prominent news anchors and humanities professors today: ‘And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can’t. I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway’.
Walter F. Otto, a renowned author on ancient Greek gods and one of the most quoted Hellenistic scholars, describes the differences between the ancient Greek vs. Christian notion of the sacred. He notes that ancient pagan Greeks laid emphasis on the feelings of shame, unaware of the meaning of feelings of guilt…
At some point Whites will need to realise that a successful healing of their feelings of guilt presupposes a critical reassessment of their Judeo-Christian-inspired origins. If Whites in Europe and the US were once upon a time all eager to embrace the Semitic notion of original sin, no wonder that two thousand years later they could likewise be well programmed to put up with a variety of World War II necrophiliac victimhoods, as well as tune in to fake news delivered by their politicians.
Eventually Whites will need to make a decision about where to choose the location of their identity. In Athens or in Jerusalem.
Five years ago, trying to communicate with the commenters of The Occidental Observer, Jack Frost said: ‘Although it might be possible to develop a racist interpretation of Christianity (e.g., what the Nazis tried), I’ve never seen a convincing theological justification of it. The fact that all major churches and 99%+ of all who today call themselves Christians reject racism ought to tell you something… You probably want to hang on to most of Christianity as it has been “traditionally” practiced in relatively modern times, while discarding only the anti-racism. Everyone who ever tried that has failed, but I guess you don’t see that as a problem. Then again, the cognitive dissonance issue is nearly as problematic. In order to accept being called a racist or a Nazi with equanimity, normal American whites would have to reconcile that with their country’s history of being violently opposed to racism of any kind, from the Civil War forward. They would have to admit to themselves and to others that all of that blood shed in trying to stamp out racism had been shed in vain, and in fact, worse than in vain, in an evil cause. They would have to admit that their ancestors were evil, and that they themselves had also been evil before they saw the light and became racists’.
Frost thus tried to argue with the Christian white nationalists of the US. Now let’s talk about a normie at the south of Rio Grande.
A guest at my home, a chiropractor, said this week that the covid-19 pandemic is an international conspiracy to force everyone to be vaccinated and implanted with a chip for social control purposes. What is the difference between this nutter and many who, in the white advocacy forums, advance the craziest conspiracy theories? Doesn’t this have to do that all these people, normies and nationalists, are like the Jew Andrew Solomon (i.e., they violate the Oracle of Delphi’s commandment, they don’t know themselves)? If they knew themselves they would know that many of their internal demons (read: conspiracy theories), and even the idea they have about the (non-existent) Hebrew god they worship, is nothing more than the shadows transferred from the parental image. Paleological thinking has not been completely surpassed in the West, not even among racialists. Even high IQ Jews commenting on racial issues grotesquely distort reality.
Consider Ron Unz for example. This Jew likes to brag that he is against the official narrative about World War II and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as most Americans believe that Oswald did not act alone. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of books about the murder promote conspiracy theories, in addition to blockbuster movies like the filth filmed by Oliver Stone. What Unz doesn’t want to see is that no one reads what he calls the official Warren Report. Instead, they consume all the prolefeed for the proles on JFK with which the System has stupefied the Americans.
It is true that I no longer enter the sites of white nationalism, but I do click on the threads of the commenters when they link to this site. In one of these threads I saw that Jack Frost, who now comments under another pseudonym in Unz Review, accepts the official story about Caligula, which paints him as a monster. Let us remember what Evropa Soberana tells us in the essay that I have promoted the most on this site, which teaches us to understand JQ at its origins. I quote from the chapter ‘Rome against Judea; Judea against Rome’ in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour:
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (‘Caligula’)
In 38, Caligula, the successor of Tiberius, sends his friend Herod Agrippa to the troubled city of Alexandria, to watch over Aulus Avilius Flaccus, the prefect of Egypt, who did not enjoy precisely the confidence of the emperor and who—according to the Jew Philo of Alexandria—was an authentic villain. The arrival of Agrippa to Alexandria was greeted with great protests by the Greek community, as they thought he was coming to proclaim himself king of the Jews. Agrippa was insulted by a crowd, and Flaccus did nothing to punish the offenders, despite the fact that the victim was an envoy of the emperor. This encouraged the Greeks to demand that statues of Caligula be placed in the synagogues, as a provocation to Jewry.
This simple act seemed to be the sign of an uprising: the Greeks and Egyptians attacked the synagogues and set them on fire. The Jews were expelled from their homes, which were looted, and thereafter segregated in a ghetto from which they could not leave. They were stoned, beaten or burned alive, while others ended up in the sand to serve as food to the beasts in those macabre circus shows so common in the Roman world. According to Philo, Flaccus did nothing to prevent these riots and murders, and even supported them, as did the Egyptian Apion, whom we have seen criticising the Jewish quarter in the section devoted to Hellenistic anti-Semitism.
To celebrate the emperor’s birthday (August 31, a Shabbat), members of the Jewish council were arrested and flogged in the theatre; others were crucified. When the Jewish community reacted, the Roman soldiers retaliated by looting and burning down thousands of Jewish houses, desecrating the synagogues and killing 50,000 Jews. When they were ordered to cease the killing, the local Greek population, inflamed by Apion (not surprisingly, Josephus has a work called Contra Apion) continued the riots. Desperate, the Jews sent Philo to reason with the Roman authorities. The Jewish philosopher wrote a text entitled Contra Flaccus and, along with the surely negative report that Agrippa had given to Caligula, the governor was executed.
After these events, things calmed down and the Jews did not suffer violence as long as they stayed within the confines of their ghetto. However, although Flaccus’ successor allowed the Alexandrian Jewry to give their version of the events, in the year 40 there were again riots among the Jews (who were outraged by the construction of an altar) and among the Greeks, who accused the Jews of refusing to worship the emperor. The religious Jews ordered to destroy the altar and, in retaliation, Caligula made a decision that really showed how little he knew the Jewish quarter: he ordered to place a statue of himself at the Temple of Jerusalem. According to Philo, Caligula ‘considered the majority of Jews suspects, as if they were the only people who wished to oppose him’ (On the Embassy to Gaius and Flaccus). Publius Petronius, governor of Syria, who knew the Jews well and feared the possibility of a civil war, tried to delay as long as possible the placement of the statue until Agrippa convinced Caligula that it was a poor decision.
In 41, Caligula, who already promised to be an anti-Jewish emperor, was assassinated in Rome, which unleashed the violence of his German bodyguards who had not been able to prevent his death and who, because of their peculiar sense of fidelity, tried to avenge him by killing many conspirators, senators and even innocent bystanders who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Claudius, the uncle of Caligula, would become the master of the situation and, after being appointed emperor by the Praetorian Guard, ordered the execution of the assassins of his nephew, many of whom were political magistrates who wanted to reinstate the Republic.
This is the probable cause of the unprecedented historical defamation of this emperor: the texts of Roman history would eventually fall into the hands of the Christians, who were mostly of Jewish origin and viscerally detested the emperors. Since, according to Orwell, ‘he who controls the past controls the present’ the Christians adulterated Roman historiography, turning the emperors who had opposed them and their Jewish ancestors into disturbed monsters. Thus, we do not have a single Roman emperor who has participated in harsh Jewish reprisals who has not been defamed by accusations of homosexuality, cruelty or perversion. The Spanish historian José Manuel Roldán Hervás has dismantled many of the false accusations against the historical figure of Caligula (The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, pages 59-63, italics added in this last paragraph).
Roldán-Hervás’ book is in Spanish. But English speakers who are interested in a view of the facts that sticks a little more to history than popular calumnies in the Judeo-Christian era can read the Wikipedia article on the Roman emperor. (Although Wikipedia is enemy territory, they sometimes write comparatively neutral articles. At least the lead paragraph of the article on Caligula, for example, does not describe him as a monster.)
I have said several times that to save the white race from extinction it is necessary to rewrite the history of the West, so I use the symbol of the weirwood tree and the raven that, unlike the normies, can see the past. Following the crow’s lead, it is not only necessary to reclaim the pagan emperors such as Caligula and Nero within a new narrative. Concurrently we must take down from the pedestal those figures that Christianity placed on top, something that I would like to illustrate with Charlemagne.
The only living historian for whom I have respect told me that he would rate Charlemagne well up in the top five most evil characters of European history. I recently acquired Thomas Hodgkin’s The Life of Charlemagne, which I recommend to those who have swallowed the Christian version of this evil man. If we keep in mind the message of the historical sections in The Fair Race, we will see that even after the Aryan apocalypse of the 4th and 5th centuries, there were still many Germanic tribes in the 6th and 7th centuries who refused to worship the god of the Jews. Charlemagne forced these uncontaminated Aryans to worship the enemy god: a historical milestone that, for the 3-eyed raven, has to do directly with the philo-Semitic state that the entire West is currently suffering. (We could imagine a parallel world in which at least part of the Aryan populations had not been worshiping, for more than a millennium, the volcanic demon that appeared to Moses in a desert.)
Christianity, or more accurately the secular ethics that was inspired by Christian ideals after the French Revolution, has hypnotised all whites, racists included. Rarely do I criticise William Pierce, the best mind the United States has produced. But it is about time to do it. The Frost quote at the top of this article nails it. After The Turner’s Diaries, the anti-Christian Pierce cucked with his second novel, Hunter, by putting a Christian preacher as the spark that could awaken Americans from their torpor. That’s a failure to grasp the crow’s view about the CQ!
Now that, thanks to the insight of the three-eyed crow I have broken with American White Nationalism, I have no choice but to start getting acquainted with German National Socialism…
Berlin, 1936
Hitler has been in power for three years, a period during which hundreds of kilometres of roads and thousands of houses have been built for the German people. In 1936 the Führer ordered to launch his most ambitious project: the architect Albert Speer would erect a gigantic city in the old centre of Berlin.
In the spring of 1936, Hitler was inspecting the construction of a highway alongside Albert Speer when he suddenly said: ‘I still have left for commissioning an important building, the most impressive of all’. At the time that was no more than a comment, because there were more urgent international policy issues to attend to. Hitler had decided to test England and France by sending German troops to the Rhineland region, whose control Germany had lost in World War I and which was to remain demilitarized under the Treaty of Versailles. London and Paris reacted with weak protests, and Hitler knew then that he might be on the hunt for new territory.
In June Hitler was ready to reveal to Speer his architectural plans for Berlin. The first thing he did was to warn him that he should skip the bureaucracy. ‘The city council is impossible,’ he said. ‘From now on, you make the plans’. Then he gave him two pieces of paper the size of two postcards and added: ‘Take these two drawings and when you have something ready, show it to me’. Hitler’s drawings depicted an enormous triumphal arch and an even larger vaulted hall, with a capacity of 180,000 people. These constructions would be located at the ends of a five-kilometre long avenue inspired by the Champs Elysées in Paris. ‘I made these sketches ten years ago and have kept them because I have never had doubts that one day I would build these two buildings. And that’s what we’re going to do now’, he confided to Speer, who left the meeting thoughtful and surprised.
The architect was thirty-one years old and, in just a decade, he had starred in a meteoric career: from an unemployed draftsman living from his father to a celebrated architect of the National Socialists.
Speer first saw Hitler at a rally in Berlin in the 1930s, and he was dazzled by his charisma, which led him to join the National Socialist Party and work there as an assistant. After Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, he was commissioned to reform the party headquarters in Berlin. His colossal style earned him immediate recognition. When Hitler saw his works, he commissioned him to reform the Zeppelin Field in Nuremberg and, before it was completed, assigned him the following task: rebuilding Berlin as Germania, the capital of the Third Reich that was to last a thousand years.
According to the Führer’s instructions, the works were to be completed by 1950. Speer had a vague notion of the dimensions Hitler was thinking of. To be sure, he enlarged the drawings and compared the size of the buildings with that of the people who appeared there. He also realised that the cupola Hitler had planned for the Grosse Halle was too flat and instead projected an enlarged version of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The triumphal arch, to which the Führer had added a simple balustrade, ended up with a forest of columns.
After several months, Speer had his sketches ready. Out of respect for Hitler’s designs, he did not sign them and left the space blank for the Führer to do so, but Hitler declined the honour.
It didn’t take long for Speer to realise that building a five-kilometre version of the Champs-Elysées in Berlin, with the Grosse Halle on one end and the Arc de Triomphe on the other, was not so easy. Unless it was integrated into a more ambitious city project, the grand avenue would seem out of place. The plan quickly took on gigantic proportions. Speer decided to create two axes (north-south and east-west) that would intersect in the centre, near the Grosse Halle, and would have an airport at each of the four points. Around the city a ring road would extend, within which there would be other circular highways, forming rings. The access roads would come out of the centre, like the spokes of a wheel. The plan included the complete restructuring of the railway network, which would have only two main stations, Nordbahnhof (North Station) and Sudbahnhof (South Station). Areas with roads considered obsolete would be free for other purposes.
The project also included residential neighbourhoods, a university, a hospital area, new parks, and several subway lines. Hitler was delighted but, as the months went by, it became clear that he was particularly interested in Victoria Avenue, included in the north-south axis. In meetings where they talked about the project, he listened patiently to all the news and then asked: ‘Where do you have the plans for the Avenue?’ They saw each other several times a week, in the late afternoon, when the Führer had finished the work of the day, and they could spend hours hunched over pianos and models. ‘One day Berlin will be the capital of the world’, Hitler predicted, and imagined the visitors stunned and intimidated by the magnificence of those buildings.
Hitler had Speer’s office placed near the Reichstag, so that just by walking through a garden, he could go see him and also the thirty-meter-long model of Germania. This was divided into several modules mounted on wheels, so that the Führer could move them and enter the city. He also used to bend down to observe the model at eye level.
He delighted in imagining ministries, exhibition halls, and office buildings of major German corporations; also the new opera, the palaces and the luxurious hotels. ‘I was participating in that reverie willingly’, Speer later wrote. On one occasion, those responsible for air defence heard about the 290-meter-high Grosse Halle project. One of them warned that enemy planes would use the building as a target to attack Berlin, but Hitler ignored it. ‘Goering has assured me that no enemy aircraft could enter Germany. We are not going to let this kind of thing interfere with our plans’, he said. The leader and architect tried to keep the project a secret. Hitler feared the possible reaction of Berliners when they were told that at least 50,000 houses had to be thrown away to make way for new construction; but the mayor of Berlin, Julius Lippert, knew the plans and showed his opposition, which led to Hitler’s removal from office to move on.
The works started in 1939, with columns of workers moved to the centre of Berlin to demolish the buildings. The inhabitants of the area had to abandon their homes and were housed in houses that had belonged to the now expelled Jews. Speer had granite brought from Norway and Sweden, as he believed that this material would impregnate Germania with the magic of the Greek and Roman architecture (see YouTube clip above, ‘What did ancient Rome look like’) and give it an image of greatness and eternity. In 1941, Swedish stone producers signed an agreement with Germany to sell 10 million cubic meters of granite to it. This guaranteed supply for 10 years, but few deliveries were ever made. Just a year later, in 1942, the Third Reich announced that it could no longer receive granite. Germania’s work had been suspended and the workers were assigned to much more urgent tasks. The Germans paid for the purchases of the material, but left the granite stacked in the nations of origin with the intention of collecting it once they won the war.
To secure victory over the Allies, Hitler had appointed his favourite architect, Speer, as the new Minister of Armament. Thanks to his organizational skills, Speer managed to multiply war production by resorting to different methods, including the use of prisoners from concentration camps as slave labour. During the Nuremberg Trials, Speer denied having any news about the extermination of Jews or the concentration camps. At the end of the process, he managed to avoid the death penalty, but was sentenced to twenty years in prison, which he served in Spandau prison in Berlin. When he was released, Speer went to the Tempelhof airport and crossed the area that was intended to be Victory Avenue.
Had it not been for American intrusion in Europe, the Führer’s palace would have occupied an area of two million square meters. As I said, it had to be finished by 1950, the year in which Hitler had planned to start inhabiting it. Today’s white advocates could have visited it!
But due to the Americans Hitler had to commit suicide to prevent the humiliation at Nuremberg. The buildings were demolished. The granite blocks were never collected. After the war they were stored for years in different ports until, in the end, they were acquired by tombstone manufacturers. In this way, a large part of Germania, Hitler’s dream, ended in different European cemeteries. Thus Germania (like the moral of the whole white race) ended up turned literally into tombstones…
Let us now return to the issues at the beginning of this article. To understand this site, it is essential to remember the message of Soberana’s master essay on the surreptitious war that Judea waged against Rome during the Christian takeover of the classical world. It is also necessary to understand that, once Soberana’s vision has been assimilated (whom I have compared to the raven who sees the past as it happened), many so-called civilisation builders of the Christian era become monsters (for example, Charlemagne) and many monsters become murdered heroes (for example, the anti-Semite Caligula).
This transvaluation of values is only possible by seeing the past as it actually happened.
From this angle, which can also be seen in Pierce’s only non-fiction book, the so-called ‘barbaric’ invasions of the Germans in Rome that culminated in 410 AD were, in fact, Aryan invasions on a treacherous city that had been conquered by a Semitic cult. By transvaluing values, the ‘barbarians’ would now be the miscegenated Romans that had been brainwashed by the Semitic bishops to the extent of destroying their classical culture (the German incursions into Rome may have once again brought light into Europe had it not been for what Charlemagne would do centuries later).
The way Judea defeated Rome was very similar to the way Jews in the West have been acting since Napoleon emancipated them: by controlling the narrative with which whites see themselves. In the 4th and 5th centuries subversion was carried out through theologians and Semitic bishops who gained enormous power to educate princes from Constantine forward. From this angle, the imperial Rome of the last centuries is similar to imperial America since Jewry’s presence began to become evident in the media. Charlemagne’s favourite book was St. Augustine’s The City of God Against the Pagans, an ideology that Charlemagne used to genocide the Saxons and convert the Saxon survivors to the Semitic cult. Similarly, as Tom Sunic has written in Homo Americanus, the Americans’ initiative to intervene in World War II was, ultimately, a theologically motivated undertaking. I must quote from Chapter V: ‘In Yahweh We Trust: A Divine Foreign Policy’:
Homo Americanus (chapter excerpts)
It was largely the Biblical message which stood as the origin of America’s endeavour to ‘make the world safe for democracy’. Contrary to many European observers critical of America, American military interventions have never had as a sole objective economic imperialism but rather the desire to spread American democracy around the world…
American involvement in Europe during World War II and the later occupation of Germany were motivated by America’s self-appointed do-gooding efforts and the belief that Evil in its fascist form had to be removed, whatever the costs might be. Clearly, Hitler declared war on ‘neutral’ America, but Germany’s act of belligerence against America needs to be put into perspective. An objective scholar must examine America’s previous illegal supplying of war material to the Soviet Union and Great Britain. Equally illegal under international law was America’s engaging German submarines in the Atlantic prior to the German declaration of war, which was accompanied by incessant anti-German media hectoring by American Jews—a strategy carried out in the name of a divine mission of ‘making the world safe for democracy’.
‘The crisis of Americanism in our epoch,’ wrote a German scholar, Giselher Wirsing, who had close ties with propaganda officials in the Third Reich, ‘falls short of degeneracy of the Puritan mindset. In degenerated Puritanism lies, side by side with Judaism, America’s inborn danger’…
In the first half of the 20th century American Biblical fundamentalism resulted in military behaviour that American postmodern elites are not very fond of discussing in a public forum. It is common place in American academia and the film industry to criticise National Socialism for its real or alleged terror. But the American way of conducting World War II—under the guise of democracy and world peace—was just as violent if not even worse.
Puritanism had given birth to a distinctive type of American fanaticism which does not have parallels anywhere else in the world. Just as in 17th century England, Cromwell was persuaded that he had been sent by God Almighty to purge England of its enemies; so did his American liberal successors by the end of the 20th century think themselves elected in order to impose their own code of military and political conduct in both domestic and foreign affairs. M.E. Bradford notes that this type of Puritan self-righteousness could be easily observed from Monroe to Lincoln and Lincoln’s lieutenants Sherman and Grant…
Whereas everybody in American and European postmodern political establishment are obliged to know by heart the body count of Fascist and National Socialist victims, nobody still knows the exact number of Germans killed by American forces during and after World War II. Worse, as noted earlier, a different perspective in describing the US post-war foreign policy toward Europe and Germany is not considered politically correct… [in spite of the fact that] the American mistreatment of German POWs and civilians during World War II must have been far worse than that on Iraq after 2003.
Just as communism, following the Second World War, used large scale terror in the implementation of its foreign policy goals in Eastern Europe, so did America use its own type of repression to silence heretics in the occupied parts of postwar Europe… The American crusade to extirpate evil was felt by Germans in full force in the aftermath of World War II. Freda Utley, an English-American writer depicts graphically in her books the barbaric methods applied by American military authorities against German civilians and prisoners in war ravaged Germany. Although Utley enjoyed popularity among American conservatives, her name and her works fell quickly into oblivion…
In hindsight one wonders whether there was any substantive difference between warmongering Americanism and Communism? If one takes into account the behaviour of American military authorities in Germany after World War II, it becomes clear why American elites, half a century later, were unwilling to initiate a process of decommunisation in Eastern Europe, as well as the process of demarxisation in American and European higher education. After all, were not Roosevelt and Stalin war time allies? Were not American and Soviet soldiers fighting the same ‘Nazi evil’?
It was the inhumane behaviour of the American military interrogators that left deep scars on the German psyche and which explains why Germans, and by extension all Europeans, act today in foreign affairs like scared lackeys of American geopolitical interests…
A whole fleet of aircraft was used by General Eisenhower to bring journalists, Congressmen, and churchmen to see the concentration camps; the idea being that the sight of Hitler’s starved victims would obliterate consciousness of our own guilt. Certainly it worked out that way. No American newspaper of large circulation in those days wrote up the horror of our bombing or described the ghastly conditions in which the survivors were living in the corpse-filled ruins. American readers sipped their fill only of German atrocities. [Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co. 1949), p. 183]
Utley’s work is today unknown in American higher education although her prose constitutes a valuable document in studying the crusading and inquisitorial character of Americanism in Europe.
There are legions of similar revisionist books on the topic describing the plight of Germans and Europeans after the Second World War, but due to academic silence and self-censorship of many scholars, these books do not reach mainstream political and academic circles. Moreover, both American and European historians still seem to be light years away from historicising contemporary history and its aftermath. This is understandable, in view of the fact that acting and writing otherwise would throw an ugly light on crimes committed by the Americans in Germany during and after the second World War and would substantially ruin antifascist victimology, including the Holocaust narrative.
American crimes in Europe, committed in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, included extra-killings of countless German civilians and disarmed soldiers, while tacitly approving serial Soviet genocides and mass expulsions of the German civilian population in Eastern Europe… As years and decades went by, crimes committed by the Americans against the Germans were either whitewashed or ascribed to the defeated Germans…
The exact number of German causalities during and after the Second World War remains unknown. The number of German dead varies wildly, ranging from 6 to 16 million Germans, including civilians and soldiers… It is only the fascist criminology of World War II, along with the rhetorical projection of the evil side of the Holocaust that modern historiographers like to repeat, with Jewish American historians and commentators being at the helm of this narrative. Other victimhoods and other victimologies, notably those people who suffered under communism, are rarely mentioned… According to some German historians over a million and a half of German soldiers died after the end of hostilities in American and Soviet-run prison camps…
The masters of discourse in postmodern America have powerful means to decide the meaning of historical truth and provide the meaning with their own historical context. Mentioning extensively Germany’s war loses runs the risk of eclipsing the scope of Jewish war loses, which makes many Jewish intellectuals exceedingly nervous. Every nation likes to see its own sacred victimhood on the top of the list of global suffering. Moreover, if critical revisionist literature were ever to gain a mainstream foothold in America and Europe, it would render a serious blow to the ideology of Americanism and would dramatically change the course of history in the coming decades.
My two cents
What Stalin and the Anglo-Saxons did in World War II produces a phenomenal hatred in me. For the second time in history since Charlemagne, the possibility of Aryan liberation thanks to Germania was crushed… by other Aryans. Today the United States, like the Judaised Rome since the times of Constantine, is the enemy to overcome. It is time to start preaching an infinite hatred for the new Great Whore that must be crushed in the coming apocalypse.
I call the people of the Americanised alt-right ‘Jew-obeyers’ because they have internalised the Christian prohibition to hate. I have recently learned that The Occidental Observer published an article on hate but let me guess: Did that article blame Christianity one hundred percent for the psyop against hating (remember I no longer read alt-right articles)? Instead of a conservative webzine like The Occidental Observer I prefer the words Kai Murros said about hate. Listen to Murros in a very short clip where a couple of bars of Parsifal’s music can be heard: here. Or what Alex Linder wrote:
Hate is not some useless organ like the appendix. It’s there for a reason. Why does Christianity do all it can to talk us out of necessary and functional drives? Well, the answer is that it’s a bit of software meant to disable our enemy recognition module. Christianity preaches blind love, and that love is murdering the West.
Note of the Editor: Of the intellectuals of contemporary white nationalism, I only have respect for Tom Sunic, who like me is aware of the Christian problem and how capitalism is poison for the fourteen words. The difference is that he speaks in a very polite manner and I in a very rude manner.
For example, I am delighted these days because Murka, which has been the greatest promoter of both capitalism and Judeo-Christianity, is going to die thanks to the crisis unleashed by the coronavirus (the pin) and the Fed (the bubble), as can be seen in my most recent posts.
On the other hand, in an article published today on The Occidental Observer the Croatian Sunic focuses on Europe:
______ 卐 ______
To each his own Nietzsche. With this sentence one could start yet another discussion on this famous and famed thinker. Given the staggering number of works about him it is essential to raise the question: which Nietzsche should one read first? Should one read Nietzsche’s own prose first, or should one first read works by other authors who have written about him? And which work and by which author? The problem is all the more serious as there are no two works, no two authors among tens of thousands that are in agreement on the same interpretation of Nietzsche’s ideas. Of course, the same remark could be leveled against my own interpretations of Nietzsche. My understanding, interpretation and choice of words regarding Nietzsche’s thoughts may be different from those of other authors who claim to be his best interpreters. Consequently, I may be accused of using interpretations that may not be shared by Nietzsche or his countless interpreters.
What needs to be highlighted, however, is the link established by Nietzsche between Christian values and their secular offshoots used now by the ruling class in the West as a legal and psychological basis for the arrival of non-European migrants into Europe. The System, through its sermons about human rights, whose ideological origins go back to early Christianity, is quite successful in destroying European peoples and cultures.
Aside from being an influential philosopher Nietzsche was also a philologist who understood well the subtleties of political language. Therefore, one should first single out some of his words and find out their conceptual equivalents in the French and in the English languages today, especially in the realm of higher education and high-level political rhetoric. One must keep in mind that his denunciations of Christian morality are contrasted with his praise of combative virtues of the old Greco-Roman “virtù” stripped of any modern moralinfreie Tugend. Nietzsche invented the word “moraline” in order to combat the excessive moralizing of the Church and the ruling class of this time. Strangely enough the word “moraline” is never used today in the modern German language, having also no adequate substitute in the English language. The great German-American connoisseur and translator of Nietzsche, H.L. Mencken translated moralinfreie Tugend as “free of moral acid.” By contrast, modern French nationalists, when deriding the fake news of the modern System, often resort to the original German “moraline.” In the USA, however, this word could be substituted by its conceptual equivalent of “virtue-signalling.”
When transposed into our own language Nietzsche’s words read like a harsh condemnation of the modern System with its invocations of words such as “humanity,” “peace” and “tolerance.” The goal of the System is to force citizens of European extraction to become prey to perpetual feelings of guilt. This is how Nietzsche predicted the modern unfolding of the System hundred and thirty years ago:
Almost everywhere in Europe today, there is a morbid over-sensitivity and susceptibility to pain, as well as an excessive amount of complaining and an increased tenderness that wants to dress itself up as something higher, using religion as well as bits and pieces of philosophy—there is a real cult of suffering.
In addition to his denunciation of Christian morality Nietzsche levels harsh criticism against Christian providentialism which manifests itself today in the gregarious spirit of mass democracy. Of course, the System needs to sugarcoat modern, secularized versions of Christian teachings in the mystique of human rights, in the myth of multiculturalism, in the decrees on race-mixing, and in the usage of politically correct verbiage. Pity for those who failed, for lowlifes, for criminals, including illegal Third World migrants in search of a better life in Europe, has become a mandatory vogue in political and media outlets. Professor Pierre Chassard, who could be ranked as first among French “New Right” interpreters of Nietzsche, defines Nietzsche’s criticism of Christian providentialism: “The wretched of the Earth, who are nailed to the cross, may be the only fortune tellers. Life misfits may be the elect of heaven. Only they are the good guys and others are the bad guys.” The list of self-engineered misfits could grow longer if one were to add numerous White politicians and academics burdened by self-hate and choosing therefore to become purveyors of the dogma of interchangeability of peoples, races, and genders. Such a self-hating behavior, of which Nietzsche was the first critic, is today the trademark of the System.
One could start with the expression “the great replacement.” This wording, coined by the writer Renaud Camus, is deemed unworthy by the System. Nonetheless, although Camus’ book is very useful, its title may be subject to misunderstanding. Instead of the expression “the great replacement,” one is tempted to use a more specific expression: “the great invasion.” However, even the term “invasion” harks back to the notion of the political of the previous centuries when its use was generally accompanied by an armed conflict—which is not the case for the time being with the floods of non-Europeans who are being adorned by the Western media with the sentimental title “refugees.” Understandably, the System and its scribes must avoid the usage of the terms “invasion” or “replacement,” preferring instead the romantic expressions such as “cultural enrichment” or “diversity”—terms which went global after having first appeared in the American language in the 80s of the previous century. Moreover, even if one were to agree on the label “invasion” when describing Afro-Asian migrants on their way to Europe, the choice of this word would take us far off into the field of polemology, a subject that can be tackled only in passing.
According to Nietzsche the moralization of politics leads to chaos which he labels with the word “democracy.” It is incumbent therefore upon his readers to study the effects of democracy peddled globally by the System if one was to grasp the incoming tide of chaos. To that effect it suffices to listen to the hypermoralistic language of the ruling class in order to realize that the true goal of their political experiments—dubbed “democracy” and “diversity”—is nothing else but a gigantic hoax. The outpouring of hypermoralistic narratives among Euro-American leaders, other than serving as a legal smokescreen for humanitarian actions on behalf of non-European migrants, also functions as a grand cover up for the repression against independent thinkers.
In Bismarck’s Germany at the end of the nineteenth century, Nietzsche did not need to confront mass migratory inflows of non-Europeans. Much earlier, however, he had grasped the origins and the global dynamics of the hypermoralistic mindset that had already taken root among politicians and intellectuals of his time—either in its liberal version or in its crypto-communist form. That early bourgeoning hypermoralistic endeavor, whose goal was the creation of the best of all worlds, or the shining communist futures, was bound to lead, a hundred years after Nietzsche’s death, to multicultural chaos observed today.
It is pointless to scorn migrants, the majority of whom are Muslim non-Europeans, without however deciphering moralistic, globalist, altruistic and ecumenical ideas that have been peddled around by the Church over the last two thousand years. It was Nietzsche’s merit to be the first to grasp that all our current political concepts, all abnormalities in the liberal system are just secular derivatives of Christian thought, “whereby this morality is increasingly apparent in every political and social institution; the democratic movement is the heir to Christianity.”
In the System today, which claims to be the best, any criticism of parliamentary democracy, or multiculturalism, let alone of miscegenation, is bound to enter the framework of the penal code or the demonology of its mainstream media executioners. While on the one hand the System prides itself on being tolerant, claiming to extend unrestricted voice even to its critics, while hiding behind the words of tolerance, diversity and humanism, on the other, it exerts total control of its population—a phenomenon hitherto unseen in the entire history of the West. From the point of view of modern languages, from the point of view of the notion of the political, the System is succeeding in reversing real European values and replacing them with surreal ones. Within the framework of these new moralizing and ecumenical values, described by Nietzsche and transposed now into the modern System, it can be expected that non-European masses entering Europe, will describe themselves as “poor refugees.” Incidentally, the term “refugees” is not of their choice; it is being bestowed on them by the System and its sycophant media.
This is how professor Alfred Baeumler, one of Nietzsche’s disciples in the first part of the twentieth century and later to become a high-ranking academic in National Socialist Germany, depicts the nihilistic message inherent in the language of liberal democracy in Europe between the two wars.
Nihilism, chaos, is the inevitable consequence of the belief in harmony without struggle, a belief in indiscriminate (gegensatzlos) order. True order only arises from the power relationship spawned by the will to power… Only chaos is inhumane. The rule of tolerance and moral ideas, of reason and of compassion, in short of “humanity,” always leads to inhumanity.
Doubling down on his exotic doppelganger
As a follow-up to such hypermoralistic endeavors conducted by the System one can observe its politicians being more and more inclined toward splitting their own selves—a process which they subsequently project on non-European migrants who are cherished now as the beacon of progress and innocence. Such a process of White self-denial is especially visible in Germany, a country which in 1945 was forced to remake its identity. As an illustration of German split-mindedness or dopplengaegertum, one could mention several authors of fantastic tales at the beginning of the nineteenth century who, by indirection, best predicted the fractured identity of Europeans and especially the German people two hundred years later. A good example is the famous horror story writer E. T. A. Hoffmann and his novella The Sand Man. The main character of his tale falls in love with a machine which resembles an attractive woman he had previously fabricated in his self-delusional mind. Toward the end of the tale the imaginary woman-automaton pushes the unfortunate hero to suicide. Today, we are witnessing a similar mechanical and suicidal fixation by great many German and European politicians, who, as a rule, must pretend to be enamored with fictitious and exotic Third World migrant imagery, and who are overjoyed at the thought of demolishing their own identity and replacing it with the newly borrowed make-believe Afro-Asian identity. This time around, however, men of the System are not only being themselves physically replaced by real Afro-Asian migrants; they themselves yearn to replace their original White identity by non-White surreal supra-identity.
One can provide some crass examples of such a mimetic Double while studying European politicians and their penitential pilgrimages to the holy places of world politics, namely Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv. The Germans, however, must perform an additional station of the cross by paying a penitential visit to Israel and recite a diplomatic chorus of mea culpa sermons. Two years ago, when German Chancellor Merkel visited Israel, she declared that “being aware of this responsibility (the Nazi crimes against the Jews, N.A.) is part of our national identity.” Without its Double, that is, without the forceful embrace of the Other, who was once either denied or colonized, the System and its do-gooders could not survive.
In the same vein, European politicians and intellectuals imagine themselves to be morally obliged to double down on their moralizing fervor on behalf of non-Europeans, assuming that they will thus better eliminate any external suspicion of their alleged neo-fascist or right-wing feelings, or better shed the label of their post-colonial crypto-nostalgia. Naturally, one could argue a lot about the benefits of this new doppelgangertum of European politicians, which has resulted in increased self-hatred, self-censorship and hypertrophy of false morals toward exotic strangers. Nietzsche grasped well this self-castrating mindset which has become today the main guideline of the System.
With respect to this entire kind of priestly medication, the “guilty” kind, any word of criticism is too much… One should at least be clear about the expression “be of use.” If by this one intends to express that such a system of treatment has improved man, then I will not contradict: I only add what “improve” means for me—the same as tamed, weakened, discouraged, sophisticated, pampered, emasculated (hence always the same as injured).
The search for the mimicked Double, observed among Western rulers, has reached by now pathological proportions. EU politicians must double down on their benevolence towards Afro-Asian migrants in order to better rid themselves of possible charges of would-be anti-Semitism or of being guilt-free for their colonialist and racialist past. In the majority of cases, however, such mimetic behavior is the natural consequence of the Allied re-education since 1945, the aim of which was and still is the creation of new European species.
In this essay on Nietzsche one cannot dispense with the name of the German anthropologist Arnold Gehlen who wrote that “the hypertrophy of morality occurs when we accept each human being in his humaneness only, and provide him in this capacity with the highest rank of existence.” Gehlen was perhaps the best connoisseur of Nietzsche during the cold war era, despite the fact that his analyses of the pathology of self-induced hypermoralism of German politicians had earned him lots of enemies on the Left and a great deal of ire among Frankfurt School reeducators. The moral hypertrophy of the early postwar System he describes is now being duplicated by European and US rulers and their “fake news” servicemen, both attempting to silence any voice of White dissent.
Neither is the Catholic Church and the papists the world over lagging behind. The most recent in the line of the moraline combat is Pope Francis with his sermons on the rights of immigrants and with his homilies that “migrants are the symbol of all those excluded from the globalized society.” When listening to Pope’s urbi and orbi, it is worth studying the reaction of would-be Afro-Asian migrants. Despite their modest IQ, they are not stupid. They know that they have powerful allies, not only in anti-fascist circles but also among the high Catholic clergy, both in the United States and in Europe.
Surely, George Soros and a host of left-leaning NGOs can be criticized for facilitating the flooding of the West by African and Asian migrants. However, the fact remains that African and Asian migrants follow only the unilateral welcoming calls from European politicians whose words had the prior blessing of the Pope and the high Catholic clergy. The latter is always diligent when mobilizing for migrants shelters or “sanctuary cities”—a gesture which only redoubles migrants’ appetite. In fact, the Church operates today as a sort of a counter-power vis-à-vis the actual legal power in place, which in any case is very lax with regard to migrants’ arrivals.
Beyond the moralizing phrases about the benefits of multiculturalism and miscegenation propagated by the System and the Church, the iron laws of biology and heredity cannot be ignored. In the years to come the states of the European Union will be exposed to multireligious and multiracial conflicts among and between new non-European migrants, conflicts of great magnitude and long duration. By their obsessive politics of self-denial, European countries, with Germany at the helm, will hardly be able to cope not just with the great replacement, but also with internal conflicts between diverse ingroups of non-European migrants themselves. Contrary to a wide misconception among EU leaders and many academics, racial intolerance and xenophobia is by no means the privilege of White nationalists. Racial pride and racial exclusiveness are by no means the monopoly of the White European stock. Low-level conflicts between and among nationals of Asian origin and nationals of sub-Saharan origin now residing in the West, will have a bright future. Worse, side by side with various moralizing social justice warriors and anti-fascist squads, the System won’t be able to persuade migrants to embrace the same liberal ukases, the same legal standards, the same scholastic tests, nor the same Western political concepts. Liberal rules and regulations, when forced upon non-White migrants, will always remain unacceptable to them. Thus, in the name of “diversity” the System keeps destroying not only the identity of European peoples, but also the identity of non-European newcomers.
Sooner or later multicultural states break up and terminate their trajectory in civil wars. Also, within the great replacement overhaul underway now, interracial wars among non-European migrants will be aggravated by large demographic changes. In addition, these hybrid civil wars looming large in the West now, will be accompanied by an increase in victimhood narratives by different tribes and ethnicities residing in Europe, each claiming, of course, the first place on the victimhood list. Mutual distrust, followed by the decline in civic solidarity and the dissolution of political order will become the order of the day. The hypermoralizing and masochistic antics of White politicians, among whom the German politicians are doing the surplus overbidding, are the logical outcome of the culture of guilt inherited from the fascist, colonial, Ustasha or National Socialist past. Following the incessant incantations by the System of mea culpa, mea maxima culpa—what would Nietzsche now say about our fatality? Long ago his answer was clear enough: “There will come a day when my name will recall the memory of something formidable—a crisis the like of which has never been known on earth.”
On Monday I said that William Pierce, the year of his departure, uploaded a lucid podcast in which he said that we could see the JQ in a novel way: that we, because of our failings, were enabling the empowerment of Jewry.
